HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2013-01-29_AgendaPacket http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Special Meeting
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 – 7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Chairperson Ward
Vice Chairperson Vacant
Commissioner Anderson
Commissioner Bentz
Commissioner Colamarino
Commissioner Cooper
Commissioner Dariz
Commissioner Wolff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on this agenda and over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. The Commission may take action
to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.)
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City Staff and will
be approved by one motion if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions.)
1. APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY 15, 2013.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Special Meeting, January 29, 2013
Page 2 of 3
http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS
2. PLN 2010-1361, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TOOLBOX AND GREENHOUSE
GAS REDUCTION MEASURE REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 5, 2013, at
City Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero.
Please note: Should anyone challenge in court any proposed development entitlement listed
on this Agenda, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to this public hearing.
Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Title: PLN 2010-1361, Climate Action Plan (CAP) Toolbox and Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Measure Review
Project Location: Citywide
Project
Description:
The City Council has designated the Planning Commission to act as the “Steering
Committee” for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD)
Countywide Climate Action Planning project. The purpose of a Climate Action Plan is
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the City of Atascadero.
In November, the APCD’s consultant released the toolbox of potential Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) reduction measures. The next step is for each City to choose which
measures they would like to see in their Climate Action Plan. The APCD consultant
will use the measures chosen by the City to write a draft Climate Action Plan
document.
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission review all of the toolbox GHG
reduction measures and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding which
measures should be included in a future Climate Action Plan for the City of
Atascadero.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Special Meeting, January 29, 2013
Page 3 of 3
http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission meets in regular session on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Commission in the order
of the printed Agenda.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the Community Development Department and are available for public inspection during City Hall
business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website,
www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro
Road. All documents submitted by the public during Commission meetings that are either read into the record or
referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the Community Development
Department. Commission meetings are audio recorded, and may be reviewed by the public. Copies of meeting
recordings are available for a fee. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager’s Office or the City Clerk’s Office,
both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will
assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or
service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, “PUBLIC COMMENT”, the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having business
with the Commission to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
This is when items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission’s attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will
be allowed for Public Comment Portion (unless changed by the Commission).
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Chairperson will identify the subject, staff will
give their report, and the Commission will ask questions of staff. The Chairperson will announce when the public
comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Commission regarding the matter being
considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Chairperson.
2. Give your name (not required).
3. Make your statement.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes.
If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the Community Development
Department at 470-3402 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations brought to the meeting on a
USB drive or CD is preferred. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector can also be provided. You are
required to submit to the Recording Secretary a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with
the Recording Secretary before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public
comments will be heard by the Commission.
PC Draft Action Minutes of 1/15/13
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Regular Meeting – Tuesday, January 15, 2013 – 7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m.
Chairperson Ward called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner Bentz led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bentz, Colamarino, Dariz, and Chairperson Ward
Absent: Commissioner Cooper (excused absence)
Others Present: Recording Secretary Annette Manier
Staff Present: Community Development Director, Warren Frace
Assistant Planner, Alfredo Castillo
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by
Commissioner Colamarino to approve the agenda.
Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following people spoke during public comment: City Council Member Roberta
Fonzi who welcomed the new commissioners to the Commission.
Chairperson Ward closed the Public Comment period.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 1-29-13
PC Draft Action Minutes of 1/15/13
Page 2 of 5
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
Annette Manier, Deputy City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to newly
appointed Commissioners Jan Wolff and Duane Anderson. Ms. Wolff and Mr.
Anderson gave brief overviews on their backgrounds.
The new commissioners took their seats at the dais.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 18, 2012.
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by
Commissioner Colamarino to approve the
consent calendar.
Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote.
(Anderson, Wolff abstained)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PLN 2012-1442 / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AT 5800 LLANO ROAD
Property Owner: Evelyn Ladd, 5800 Llano Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Applicant: Susan Van Alfen, 5800 Llano Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Jed Joyce, PO Box 1164, Templeton, CA 93465
Project Title: PLN 2012-1442 / CUP 2012-0260
Project Location: 5800 Llano Road, Atascadero, CA (APN 050-351-005) San Luis Obispo County
Project
Description:
Conditional Use Permit application for a residential care facility in the residential
suburban zone (RS) zone. Existing care facility is requesting the ability to expand its
current occupancy from six (6) residents to a maximum of ten (10) residents.
General Plan Designation: Residential Estate (RE)
Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS)
Proposed
Environmental
Determination:
Class 1 Exemption, consistent with Section 1501 of the Government Code: Minor
alteration of existing structures or facilities.
PC Draft Action Minutes of 1/15/13
Page 3 of 5
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
None
Assistant Planner Castillo gave the staff report and explained that A Touch Above Care
is a residential care facility in a single-family home and the applicant is proposing to
expand to accommodate up to ten (10) residents with two phases. Assistant Planner
Castillo showed the proposed floor plan, talked about neighborhood compatibility, and
answered questions from the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following people spoke during public comment: Susan Van Alfen, Applicant, and
Susan Hanson, daughter of a patient at the residential care facility.
Chairperson Ward closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Dariz
to adopt PC Resolution 2013-0001 approving PLN 2012-1442 /
Conditional Use Permit 2012-0260 to establish a 10-client
residential care facility at 5800 Llano Road at APN 050-351-005,
subject to conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
3. PLN 2012-1444, INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT CODE TEXT CHANGE
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
None
Applicant: City of Atascadero – 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California 93422
Project Title: PLN 2012-1444 / ZCH 2012-0167 – Industrial Zoning District Code Text Change 2012
Project
Location:
The entire Industrial Zoning District in the City of Atascadero, primarily located on the
east side of Traffic Way between Bajada Ave and Orillas Way.
San Luis Obispo County
Project
Description:
Amend the Industrial Zoning District code text (Article 18 of Title 9, Atascadero Municipal
Code) to add the “Indoor Recreation” land use category to the list of conditionally
allowable uses.
Proposed
Environmental
Determination:
CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15061(b)(3).
PC Draft Action Minutes of 1/15/13
Page 4 of 5
Assistant Planner Castillo gave the staff report. Assistant Planner Castillo explained
that requests have been made for indoor recreational uses and explained that currently,
indoor recreation is allowed in some, but not all zoning districts. He explained allowed
use versus conditional use, and answered questions from the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Chairperson Ward closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Dariz
to adopt PC Resolution 2013-0002 recommending that the City
Council amend the Atascadero Municipal Code by approving
PLN 2012-1444/ZCH 2012-0167 to add indoor recreational use
as a conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District Citywide.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
None
4. PLANNING COMMISSION OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
Director Frace gave a presentation on upcoming projects that the Commission
will be reviewing in the future as follows:
Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - This is scheduled for the Design Review
Committee on January 31, 2013 and will go before Planning Commission
and City Council in February, with a request to endorse the concept plan,
and thus begin the EIR process.
Climate Action Plan – This has been assigned to the Planning
Commission by the City Council and we are participating with the Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) on this. The APCD is funding this effort.
The City Council will make a final decision on this. There will be a Special
Planning Commission meeting on January 29, 2013.
Housing Element – We are in the process of making changes with our
housing consultant. This may be ready for Planning Commission in late
winter or early spring 2013.
PC Draft Action Minutes of 1/15/13
Page 5 of 5
City Council – Current budget comes to an end on June 30th. We will be
adopting a new 2-year budget, and there will be a lot of activity at the
Council level.
Strategic Planning Workshop – January 25-26, 2013. The Council will
look at issues and layout framework.
Training Opportunities – The League of California Cities hosts an annual
planning academy. Information will be forthcoming to the Commission.
Stormwater Regulations – The City must adopt new stormwater
discharge regulations by summer, and this will affect development within
the City.
Master Trail Plan – This trail plan is in conjunction with San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG). SLOCOG is the funding agency and
will connect Santa Margarita to San Miguel.
Building Code Update – A new building code will go into effect January
1, 2014, and there will be a process for adoption of the code.
Dormant Permits – The dormant permit program keeps entitlements to
projects active and we are seeing a lot of permits come back to life.
Annual Reporting on Housing and General Plan – The Community
Development Department is working on this.
Conditional Use Permits – There has been an increase.
Director Frace answered additional questions from the Commission on the new hotel
project, as well as the Wal-Mart lawsuit.
DIRECTORS REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT - 8:00 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 29,
2013, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero.
MINUTES PREPARD BY:
____________________________
Annette Manier, Recording Secretary
Adopted
t:\~ planning commission\pc agendas\~ pc minutes\pc minutes 13\pc draft actn minutes 1 15 13.am.docx
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Atascadero Planning Commission
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Callie Taylor, Senior Planner, 470-3448, ctaylor@atascadero.org
PLN 2010-1361
Toolbox & GHG Reduction Measure Review
Central Coast Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning
& Local Climate Action Plan
SUBJECT
The City of Atascadero is currently working with the San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District and the Cities of Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach,
Morro Bay, and Pismo Beach to develop a toolbox of measures to reduce greenhouse
gases in compliance with California State Assembly Bill 32. Through this grant funded
process, a Climate Action Plan will be developed for each of the participating cities.
Atascadero’s individual Climate Action Plan will be presented to the City Council at the
end of the process for possible adoption. The Planning Commission has been
appointed by the City Council to act as the “Steering Committee” during the
development of the Climate Action Plan.
In November, the APCD’s consultant released the toolbox of potential Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) reduction measures. The next step is for each City to choose which
measures they would like to see in their Climate Action Plan. The APCD
consultant will use the measures chosen by the City to write a draft Climate Action Plan
document.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the potential GHG reduction
measures and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding which measures
should be included in a future Climate Action Plan for the City of Atascadero.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
DISCUSSION
Background:
In early 2012, a $400,000 grant was made available through PG&E, SoCal Gas and the
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) for the Cities of Paso Robles,
Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and Atascadero to collaborate
on preparing individual Climate Action Plans. The project is known as the "San Luis
Obispo County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan."
The Planning Commission has been appointed by the City Council to act as the
“Steering Committee” during the development of the Climate Action Plan, and the public
is welcome to attend and participate in these discussions. The City Council stated that
local public input and participation is a vital component of this process and is necessary
to ensure that Atascadero’s unique environment and local viewpoints are considered.
Since the City will ultimately be able to create its own individual Climate Action Plan, t he
project should reflect Atascadero’s unique values, environment and community goals.
In November 2012, the APCD’s consultant released the model "toolbox" of Greenhouse
Gas reduction measure. This “toolbox” lists dozens of potential measures, each of
which have several optional or required actions which are part of the overall measure.
On November 29, the APCD’s consultant held a public workshop in North County at
Templeton Elementary School to obtain input on the potential measures. Comments
can also be made at the project website: www.CentralCoastGHGPlanning.com
In order to facilitate discussion and obtain direction from the Steering Committee, the
Atascadero Planning Commission will meet on January 29 to discuss each measure in
detail. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding which measures may be appropriate to implement in Atascadero through a
future Climate Action Plan.
What is a Climate Action Plan?
“Climate Action Plans” or “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans” are policy documents
intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and integrate
sustainability into municipal and community-wide planning and operations. In order to
comply with California State Assembly Bill 32, the City must reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels (an estimated 15% reduction from today’s levels) by the year
2020. A Climate Action Plan lays out how the City intends to reach that target.
Similar to a General Plan or a Downtown Revitalization Plan, a Climate Action Plan is a
policy document with goals and a work plan which are intended to be implemented over
time. Most action measures identified in the Climate Action Plan do not all go into effect
immediately; programs take time to be implemented and may require adoption of
ordinances or policies prior to seeing any actual changes take place.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
For Atascadero, the City Council, Planning Commission, and the public have clearly
expressed the importance of creating a document which is focused on cost-effectively
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with measures which improve the quality of life for
residents while reducing costs for individuals, businesses and City operations.
Measures which would cause substantial cost burden for residents, business owners, or
the City, or measures which require undue mandates are not desired.
Why Does Atascadero Need a Climate Action Plan?
If the City of Atascadero choses to adopt a Climate Action Plan at the end of this
process, then the City will be able to demonstrate compliance with AB 32 and the State
requirements for addressing greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gas emissions are now
a mandatory element of any CEQA analysis, and therefore must be considered in and
CEQA document the City completes. Having an adopted Climate Action Plan allows the
City to utilize streamlining procedures for projects in the environmental review process;
if a project is consistent with an adopted Climate Action Plan, the project is considered
to not have a significant impact on GHG emissions.
However, not taking the steps to address greenhouse gasses can make the City
vulnerable to litigation and could jeopardize future projects and development in the City.
The City would not be able to demonstrate it is comprehensively mitigating greenhouse
gas emissions consistent with Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 97. The risk would be
similar to not having an adopted Housing Element. CEQA documents on future
development projects would be left open to litigation, and the City could become a
target for the Attorney General or other commenting agencies through CEQA.
Therefore, while it is ultimately each local city’s decision whether or not to adopt the
Climate Action Plan; it is in the City’s best interest to work towards creating a document
which the City could live with in order to show that efforts have been made to address
and greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Reduction Goals: Updated GHG Inventory & Gap Analysis
In November, the APCD consultant completed another update to the GHG Inventory
and GAP Analysis to incorporate new refined methodology for calculating on-road VMT
and transportation emissions. The update resulted in once again lowering the total
baseline emissions for the City of Atascadero, and also subsequently, lowering the 2020
forecasted emissions. Current inventory identifies the City’s 2005 baseline Greenhouse
gas emissions level at 141,428 “Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent,” or
“MtCO2e.” “Business-as-usual” forecast was adjusted to 172,488 metric tons CO2e by
2020.
The City’s Gap Analysis was also updated to reflect the revised data. The Gap Analysis
identifies a reduction target of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, which is consistent with
State recommended targets. This gives Atascadero an allowable emissions target of
120,214 MT CO2e by 2020. Based on the reductions from State Measures already
implemented, as well as Local Measures the City has completed to date, Atascadero’s
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
2020 Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast is 140,003 MT CO2e. Therefore, the
remaining gap necessary to meet the 2020 reduction target is 19,790 MT CO2e.
This is the amount of MT CO2e which needs to be met through the new measures or
continuation of existing actions identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan. ]
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
ANALYSIS:
The Toolbox
In November, the APCD’s consultant released the model “toolbox” or list of potential
action measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are a total of 36
potential measures, and each measure has several actions which can be chosen or left
out as part of that overall measure. The reduction measures are under the following
categories:
energy efficiency and conservation
renewable energy
transportation
land use
solid waste reduction
water and wastewater efficiencies
off road vehicles
trees & open space.
The toolbox is structured as a series of intricate Excel spreadsheet which are
preprogramed with population and land use data about the City; the Excel document
automatically calculates reduction potential of measures so that the user can see what
the reduction potential of each measure can be. The toolbox includes the list of
measures, optional actions and variables, calculations for the GHG reduction potential.
Detailed variables and assumptions can be modified to estimate how many people
might participates in the action, and what type of energy saving it might get. Associated
costs and possible co-benefits for each measure are also identified. This detailed
analysis is intended to provide the public and the decision makers the information
needed to determine if a toolbox reduction measure is suitable for their community.
An abbreviated list of the 36 possible measures and the potential actions associated
with each measure is included as Attachment 1 of this report. A complete printed copy
of the GHG Toolbox is also included as Attachments 2 and 3. However, in order to
evaluate how much reduction credit the City would receive by implementing the
measure, the user would need to use the Excel version of the toolbox located at
www.CentralCoastGHGPlanning.com
Some measures in the toolbox will have a large impact on GHG reduction, and some
will be very minimal. Mandatory measures (such as adopted ordinances) typically have
more reduction potential than optional measures (such incentive programs). However,
whether or not to make something mandatory is completely up to the individual city.
There are no measures which must be included in Atascadero’s Climate Action Plan.
The City can pick and choose which measures work, and can disregard and leave out
any measures that are not favorable. The key with this process of evaluating the
toolbox is to find a combination of measures that City feels comfortable with, and
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
to have those measures add up to the total 2020 reduction target of 19,790 MT
CO2e.
There are a few key areas in the toolbox that could be worth further consideration. In
recent years, the City of Atascadero has seen very high volumes of new Solar
Photovoltaic (PV) systems being installed on private homes and businesses. The PV
systems have a high GHG reduction potential for each system installed. In the past six
months, the City has received 20 new building permit applications for new PV systems,
which total about 120 KW of renewable energy. At the current installation rate, there is
a high amount of GHG reduction possible for the City to obtain credit for.
Another key measure which may be of particular interest to Atascadero is one which
deals with “service nodes.” This measure was derived from the per capita sales tax
surplus/gap comparison charts. The areas of “sales tax leakage” identify specific
services and goods (such as discount department stores, sit down restaurants, clothing
and furniture stores, etc.) which residents currently travel outside of City limits to obtain.
This lack of key goods and services equates to lost revenues, but also increased
vehicle miles traveled, and therefore increased GHG emissions. The toolbox measure
includes working with private developers to encourage convenient commercial and
shopping opportunities to shorten drive times; it is basically a strategic form of
Economic Development. City staff has asked the consultant and their traffic engineer to
use the sales tax leakage charts and the amount of vacant or underutilized commercial
land in Atascadero to calculate how much GHG reduction the City would receive by
increasing retail and services in areas where they are needed.
CONCLUSION
The complete list of potential GHG reduction measures is provided as an attachment to
this report for review and consideration. At the January 29th Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission will have the opportunity to discuss each one of the possible
measures, and there will an opportunity for public comment. The Commission will make
a recommendation to City Council regarding which measures should be included in a
future Climate Action Plan. The toolbox of potential measures will be reviewed and
discussed by the City Council at a public meeting before the consultant is given
direction to begin the draft Climate Action Plan document. The draft Climate Action
Plan will also come before the Planning Commission and the City Council at public
meetings for review prior to considering of adoption of the document.
If the Commission or any member of the public has any questions about the measures
in toolbox, please contact City staff and we will complete additional research on specific
measures as needed. Additional information regarding the Central Coast Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Planning or the development of a local Climate Action Plan can be
located at the project website (www.CentralCoastGHGPlanning.com) or at
www.atascadero.org on the Community Development webpage, under “Major Projects.”
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: List of GHG Reduction Measures and Associated Actions
Attachment 2: Toolbox (A): Introduction, Instructions, Demographic Data, ,
Assumptions & Summary of Measures
Attachment 3: Toolbox(B): Detailed Calculations for Each Potential Measure
Attachment 4: Actions Previously Completed by the City of Atascadero to Reduce
GHG Emissions
Attachment 5: Updated Gap Analysis and Reduction Target
Attachment 6: Updated GHG Inventory
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Attachment 1: List of GHG Reduction Measures and Associated Actions
Central Coast GHG Planning
GHG Reduction Measures and Associated Actions
ENERGY
4a - Energy Efficiency Outreach and Incentive Programs
Conduct additional outreach and promotional activities, either individually or in collaboration
with San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, targeting specific groups or sectors within the
community (e.g., homeowners, renters, businesses, etc.).
Designate one week per year to conduct an energy efficiency outreach campaign targeting a
specific group. The campaign week can also be used to recognize and encourage programs and
educational outreach conducted by industry organizations, non-governmental entities,
government agencies, and other community groups.
Direct community members to existing program websites, such as Energy Upgrade California
and San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch.
4b - Energy Audit and Retrofit Program
Individually or in collaboration with San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, local utilities, and
local jurisdictions to develop and promote a residential and commercial energy audit program
with direct installation of no- and low-cost measures by qualified contractors, leveraging
existing rebates.
Individually, or in collaboration with San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch to conduct
outreach and promotional activities targeting specific groups (e.g., owners of buildings built
prior to Title 24 [1980]).
As part of the business licensing and renewal process, encourage businesses to participate in the
program and receive an energy audit.
Participate in and promote a single-family residential energy efficiency financing program, such
as a Property Assessed Clean Energy [PACE] program, to encourage investment in energy
efficiency upgrades.
Continue to participate in and promote the CaliforniaFIRST energy efficiency financing program
for multi-family residential and commercial buildings.
Work with Energy Upgrade California, local utilities, and/or community businesses and
organizations, to annually conduct a "do-it-yourself" workshop for building energy retrofits.
Highlight the effectiveness of energy audits and retrofits by showcasing the success of
retrofits on the City's website or in its newsletter.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
4c - Income-Qualified Energy Efficient Weatherization Programs
Establish partnership with CAPSLO related to income-qualified weatherization programs, such
as PG&E's Middle Income Direct Install program.
Identify and promote program, either individually in collaboration with CAPSLO, to additional
income-qualified households using additional sources of data available to the City, (e.g., water
bills, housing records, etc.)
4d - Energy Conservation Ordinance
Coordinate with the other local jurisdictions in the region to develop a local energy conservation
ordinance.
Develop and adopt a local residential energy conservation ordinance.
Enforce existing commercial energy disclosure rules, pursuant to (AB 531) that require
commercial businesses to provide twelve months of energy-use information using the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager.
4e - Incentives for Exceeding Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Collaborate with community organizations and businesses, local utilities, and other local
jurisdictions in the region to develop and promote a technical assistance and best practices
program that aids developers in selecting and implementing energy efficiency measures that
exceed State standards.
Identify and provide incentives (e.g., expedited or streamlined permitting, reduced fees,
public recognition, etc.) for applicants whose project exceeds State requirements by a
specified percent.
Update building permit process to incentivize higher building performance.
Launch an educational campaign for builders, permit applicants, and the general public to
promote best practices and incentive program; provide information and assistance about
energy efficiency options online and at permit counter.
4f - Energy Efficient Public Realm Lighting Requirements
Develop and adopt an ordinance that requires new development to utilize high efficiency
lights in parking lots, streets, and other public areas.
4g - Small Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Incentive Program
Conduct a comprehensive review of the City's solar permitting process based on the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) California Solar Permitting Guidebook (June 2012),
identifying any existing barriers.
Improve the permit review and approval process for small solar PV systems by implementing
recommendations for streamlined permitting identified in the California Solar Permitting
Guidebook (e.g., use standardized forms, provide clear written instructions on the permitting
process and a checklist of required application materials, make information available on the
City's website and at the permit counter, etc.).
Collaborate with other local jurisdictions in the region to standardize requirements across
jurisdiction, by using common permit materials, such as checklists and standard plans, to reduce
permit submittal errors among contractors working throughout a region.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Participate in and promote a residential and commercial renewable energy financing program
(through a Property Assessed Clean Energy [PACE] program, CaliforniaFIRST, a joint powers
authority with neighboring jurisdictions, or other mechanisms) allowing residential and
commercial property owners to voluntarily invest in renewable energy upgrades for their
buildings.
Expand education on and promotion of existing incentive, rebate, and financing programs for
solar PV systems and solar hot water heaters targeting specific groups or sectors within the
community.
Designate one week per year to conduct a renewable energy outreach campaign targeting a
specific group. The campaign week can also be used to recognize community members that
have implemented noteworthy or unique renewable energy projects.
4h - Income-Qualified Solar PV Program
Collaborate with Grid Alternatives and other community organizations to provide targeted
education and outreach to developers and homeowners about incentives offered through the
Single Family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) Program and the Multifamily Affordable Solar
Homes Program (MASH).
Provide targeted outreach to homeowners about solar water heating incentives offered through
the California Solar Initiative.
4i – Community Choice Aggregation Program (CCA)
Participate in and consider the results of the Renewable Energy Secure Communities project for
San Luis Obispo County (SLO-RESCO), a regional partnership working to identify the best mix of
resources for clean, secure and affordable energy.
Develop a CCA program and purchase a portfolio comprised of cleaner generation sources
above the 33% RPS by 2020.
4j - Municipal Energy Efficiency Retrofits and Upgrades
Adopt a municipal energy target.
Complete energy audits and benchmarking of all municipal facilities, leveraging existing
programs, such as PG&E's Automated Benchmarking Service or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR Challenge program.
Maintain a regular maintenance schedule for heating and cooling, ventilation and other
building functions.
Establish a prioritized list of energy efficiency upgrade project and implement as funding
becomes available.
Install an energy management system that monitors energy use and controls heating, cooling,
and ventilation to increase efficiency.
4k - Municipal Energy Efficient Public Realm Lighting
Conduct an inventory of existing outdoor public light fixtures.
Identify and secure funding to replace inefficient city-owned or -operated public lighting.
4l - Energy Efficiency Requirements for New Municipal Buildings
Review existing municipal building policies and standards.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Adopt a policy to exceed Title 24 building efficiency standards by a certain percent.
4m - Renewable Energy Systems on City Property
Install solar or other renewable energy projects at select City facilities.
Identify funding sources and opportunities for municipal renewable energy generation.
Replace inefficient hot water heaters with those powered by solar energy.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE
5a - Bicycle Network
Continue to pursue public and private funding to expand and link the city's bicycle network in
accordance with its General Plan and Bicycle Plan.
Annually identify and schedule street improvement and maintenance projects to preserve and
enhance the bicycle network.
Incorporate bicycle facility improvements into pavement resurfacing, restriping, and
signalization operations where the safety and convenience of users can be improved within the
scope of work.
Coordinate with and support SLOCOG in the implementation of bicycle plans to facilitate non-
auto travel within and between communities.
Collaborate with the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Coalition to assist with event promotions and
publications to increase awareness and ridership during Bike Month.
Through conditions of approval, require new subdivisions and large developments to
incorporate bicycle lanes, routes, and/or shared-use paths into street systems to provide a
continuous network of routes, facilitated with markings, signage, and bicycle parking.
Continue to enforce mandatory California Green Building Standards Code bicycle parking
standards for non-residential development.
5b - Pedestrian Network
Continue to pursue public and private funding to expand and link the City's pedestrian
network.
Annually identify and schedule sidewalk improvement and maintenance projects to preserve
and enhance the pedestrian circulation network.
Incorporate pedestrian-facilities improvements into pavement resurfacing, restriping, and
signalization operations where the safety and convenience of users can be improved within the
scope of work.
Expand and promote the Safe Routes to School program.
Require through conditions of approval that new development projects provide a pedestrian
access network that internally links all uses and connects all existing or planned external streets
and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. It would also require that the project
minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity.
Require new development to implement traffic calming improvements as appropriate (e.g.,
marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks,
median islands, mini-circles, tight corner radii, etc.) through conditions of approval.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
5c - Expand Transit Network
Work with RTA and transit service providers to implement the Short Range Transit Plan.
Work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority and local transit agency to identify
and map existing and future bus lines (routes) and transit corridors.
Support the addition of transit routes that provide intercity express services.
Continue to research federal and local funding for transit service upgrade projects.
Require new development to provide safe and convenient access to alternative transportation
within the project area and safe access to public transportation as feasible.
5d - Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed
Work with RTA and transit service providers to implement the Short Range Transit Plan.
Work with RTA and transit service providers to shorten regional service headways to 30
minutes or shorter at commute peaks subject to passenger load demand.
Support streamlined transit services and infrastructure that create a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
network on main commute corridors.
5e - Employer-Based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance for employees with 25 or more employees.
Establish performance standards (e.g., trip reduction requirements).
Set up system to require regular monitoring and reporting to assess the employer's status in
meeting the ordinance goals (e.g., as part of the business licensing and renewal process).
5f - Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program – Voluntary
Collaborate with San Luis Obispo Ride Share and Ride-On to conduct additional outreach
through event promotions and publications, targeting specific groups or sectors within the
community (e.g., employers, employees, students, seniors, etc.).
Provide information on and promote existing employer based TDM programs as part of the
business licensing and renewal process.
Collaborate with San Luis Obispo Ride Share and the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Coalition to assist
with event promotions and publications to increase awareness and ridership during Bike
Month and Rideshare month.
Direct community members to existing program websites.
5g - Parking Supply Management
Amend the Municipal Code to reduce parking requirements (e.g., eliminate or reduce
minimum parking requirements, create maximum parking requirements, and/or provide
shared parking).
Establish optional in-lieu fees in place of minimum parking requirements where appropriate.
5h - Public Parking Pricing
Decouple parking and housing and commercial development in order to allocate the true cost
of parking directly to users.
Add meters to public parking spaces, where appropriate, and charge market prices.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Set prices to achieve an 85% utilization on each block face and 90% utilization in each off-
street lot.
Conduct parking occupancy studies to consider priority areas for price increases.
5i - Electric Vehicle Network and Alternative Fueling Stations
Continue to work with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition, and neighboring jurisdictions to create and implement the
electric vehicle readiness plan through expanding the use of alternative fuel vehicles and
fueling stations in the community.
Provide streamlined installation and permitting procedures for vehicle charging facilities,
utilizing tools provided in the electric vehicle readiness plan.
5j - Incentives for Infill and Transit Oriented Development
Update land use and zoning code to allow new development in the mixed-use and medium-
and high-density land use categories located within ¼-mile of a transit node, existing bus
route, or park and ride facility with regularly scheduled, daily service at a minimum density of
20 dwelling units per acre.
Provide and promote incentives (e.g., parking reductions, priority permitting, etc.) for mixed-
use and medium- and high-density land use categories located within ¼-mile of a transit node,
existing bus route, or park and ride facility with regularly scheduled, daily service at a
minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
Develop a form-based zoning code for the central business district/downtown. Form-based
codes emphasize building form rather than use. This increases flexibility for a variety of
complementary uses to be permitted in the same area, and the potential for mixed-use
development, which helps to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Develop and adopt incentives for live/work developments, such as reduced permit fees,
expedited permits, or waiving business license fees for residents in live/work units. Live/work
developments allow residents to live at their place of work and thereby reduce vehicle miles
traveled and associated GHG emissions.
5k - Service Nodes
Conduct a study of key unserved areas of demand for retail and services.
Adjust zoning and regulations as necessary to encourage and incentivize the development of
service nodes.
5l - Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for Municipal Employees
Establish an ordinance that requires the City to meet employee commute trip VMT reduction
targets by offering one or more services from a menu of options, including: Encourage the use
of the carpools; Provide ride matching services and assistance; Allow flexible work schedules
and telecommuting; Provide end of trip facilities (parking, showers, lockers); Providing
subsidized transit passes; hiring a transportation coordinator to manage TDM programs; or
others at the employer's discretion.
Hire a transportation coordinator to manage TDM programs.
Require parking cash-out (a requirement that City employers who subsidize employee parking
costs provide an equivalent cash reimbursement for employees who choose not to drive).
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
5m - Zero and Low Emission Municipal Fleet Vehicles
Develop and adopt a low- and zero- emissions replacement/purchasing policy for official City
vehicles and equipment.
Work with the Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition to obtain funding for low-emission and zero-
emission fleet vehicles.
Replace an identified number of vehicles with lower emission vehicles by 2020.
OFF-ROAD
6a - Construction Equipment Techniques
Require a percentage of construction equipment to be electrically-powered or use alternative
fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG).
Limit heavy-duty equipment idling time to a period of three minutes or less, exceeding the
California Air Resources Board's standard of five minutes.
6b - Equipment Upgrades, Retrofits, and Replacements
Continue to support the APCD through the Carl Moyer program.
Conduct additional outreach and promotional activities targeting specific groups (e.g.,
agricultural operations, construction companies, homeowners, etc.).
Direct community members to existing program websites (e.g., San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District, Carl Moyer Grant page).
WATER
7a - Exceed SB X7-7 (Water Conservation Act of 2009), Water Conservation Target
Adopt a water conservation ordinance to exceed SB X7-7 by a specified percentage and
identify programs to meet that target.
Enhance retrofit programs for existing residences and commercial buildings.
Adopt CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards for water efficiency and conservation in new
development.
Expand the use of grey water or recycled water infrastructure.
SOLID WASTE
8a - Solid Waste Diversion Rate
Adopt a solid waste diversion rate that exceeds the state-mandated rate by a certain
percentage (e.g., California's AB 341 identifies a 75% diversion goal for 2020).
Identify programs to meet the identified diversion rate.
Develop an education and outreach program in support of the measure.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
8b - Organic Waste Diversion Program
Develop a program for the expanded collection of organic waste.
Establish a community-wide organics composting program.
Develop a marketing campaign to educate the community about the program.
8c - Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Requirements
Adopt an ordinance requiring that a specified percentage of construction and demolition
debris from development projects be diverted from landfills.
8d - Recycling at Public Events
Develop and adopt an event recycling ordinance.
8e - Municipal Solid Waste Reduction
Develop and adopt a City purchasing policy that emphasizes recycled and recyclable materials.
Install recycling receptacles at municipal buildings and facilities.
TREES
9a - Tree Planting Program
Develop a tree planting assistance program.
Develop and adopt tree planting guidelines that address tree and site selection. Emphasis
should be placed on native, drought-tolerant trees.
Track the number of trees planted annually.
9b - Municipal Tree Planting Program
Develop and adopt a formal tree planting policy or program and plant a specified number of
trees.
Identify and secure grant funding for tree planting.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Attachment 2: Toolbox: Introduction, Instructions, demographic data, Assumptions, &
Summary of Measures as table
See Attached
Introduction to the Toolbox
This Toolbox serves to assist with evaluating and selecting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction measures
for the Central Coast GHG Planning project by highlighting key information for each measure, such as GHG
reduction potential, cost effectiveness and co-benefits. It contains approximately forty measures considered
most applicable to the cities and that can be quantified using current industry established methods. The
selected GHG emissions reduction measures ultimately would be included in your City’s Climate Action Plan.
Each measure includes the following information to facilitate measure evaluation and selection: measure
name, measure description, menu of implementation actions, GHG reduction potential, estimated costs and
savings, co-benefits, case studies, implementation details, calculation assumptions, detailed calculation
methodology and equations, notes, and references. The measures are organized in six categories: Energy,
Transportation and Land Use, Off-Road, Water, Solid Waste, and Trees. Within each category, measures are
separated based on whether they are applicable to the community as a whole, or the local government
(municipal measures). Community measures contain both voluntary and regulatory measures.
While all governments would prefer to solely use voluntary programs to achieve their objectives, staff should
consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of the different options available. Voluntary measures
encourage GHG reducing actions by residents and businesses in the community. These measures often rely on
outreach, public education, and financial incentives. Voluntary measures are usually more acceptable to
community members, but the GHG reduction potential can be lower than their mandatory counterparts. To
create high levels of participation in voluntary measures, a community often needs to make substantial
investments in program development, rebates, or other financial incentives. Regulatory measures require
residents and businesses to implement GHG reducing actions through ordinances and other regulations. They
are usually implemented in association with other required processes such as building code inspection, pre-
occupancy inspection, etc. While less popular, mandatory measures often create higher levels of GHG
reduction. If structured appropriately, regulatory measures can be low-cost or cost-neutral. Municipal
measures include local government actions that reduce communitywide GHG emissions through the
investment in public infrastructure, properties, or equipment. GHG reduction potential and cost vary widely
depending on the type and level of action taken.
This Toolbox is organized as follows:
Introductory Worksheets
- 1: Introduction - summarizes purpose and organization of Toolbox.
- 2: Instructions - details how to use the Toolbox.
- 3: List of Measures - provides a comprehensive list of all the measures and a general description for each. A
“measure” is defined as a general way to reduce emissions; detailed implementation actions are provided in
each measure worksheet.
Individual Measure Worksheets
- 4a - 4m: Energy Measures
- 5a - 5m: Transportation Measures
- 6a-6b: Off-Road Measures
- 7a: Water Measure
- 8a - 8e: Solid Measures
- 9a-9b: Tree Measures
The following information is provided for each measure in its individual measure worksheet: measure name,
measure description, menu of implementation actions, GHG reduction potential, estimated costs and savings,
co-benefits, case studies, implementation details, calculation assumptions, detailed calculation methodology
and equations, notes, and references.
Introduction to the Toolbox
Summary Worksheets
- 10: Summary of Measures - summarizes each measure and its GHG reduction potential, costs/savings, and
other key details.
- 11: Summary of GHG Target and Reduction from Selected Measures - summarizes the City’s 2005 baseline
emissions, 2020 adjusted forecast, GHG emissions target (based on a 15% reduction from 2005 emissions
levels), remaining GHG reduction necessary to meet the target that will need to be achieved through selected
measures, and total GHG reduction potential from GHG measures selected in the Toolbox.
- 12: List of Common Assumptions - identifies commonly used assumptions throughout the Toolbox.
- 13: Demographic Data - identifies cities' population, households, jobs, etc. used for Toolbox calculations.
- 14: Cities Inventory Data - identifies results of the cities' inventories used for Toolbox calculations.
About the Methods and Calculations
The GHG emission reduction potential of a given measure is quantified following standardized methods for
estimating emissions detailed in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) report
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010). The calculations utilize emissions factors and
results from the selected City’s GHG Emissions Inventory, as well as assumptions made by the user about the
degree of implementation in the year 2020. Two of the Transportation and Land Use measures, 5j and 5k, are
not quantified in the Toolbox, as they will be quantified separately using the San Luis Obispo Council of
Government’s Regional Traffic Model to ensure better accuracy with a more complex model.
Costs and savings directly associated with the implementation of each measure were estimated for the City, as
well as for residents and businesses, where feasible. Costs estimated generally include initial capital costs (e.g.,
purchase and installation of technology, program development, etc.) needed to produce the emission
reductions estimated by the GHG Analysis in 2020, and are based on current (2012) prices. Savings include
reduced costs associated with electricity, natural gas, and fuel usage, as well as the reduced need for
maintenance, and are also based on current (2012) prices.
Costs and savings were estimated using information specific to the region—when available—or for similar cities
in the region, State of California, or United States, prioritized in that order. There are numerous factors that will
affect the actual costs incurred if the measures are implemented. In some cases, assumptions had to be made
about the specific actions taken to implement a given measure, although the actual approach to implementing
the measure could vary. Because of the uncertainties and variability associated with costs and savings, they are
reported as ranges. In addition, it is important to understand that in many cases, costs and savings are born by
different entities. For example, a local government may incur costs associated with planting and maintaining
urban trees, but the savings from reduced electricity bills accrue to local businesses and residents. Where
appropriate, we distinguish among the key players incurring the costs and savings.
GHG Measure Evaluation Toolbox Instructions
1. When you open the workbook, a security warning may appear, depending on the version of Word you
have, click the Options or Enable box in the top left corner of the Toolbox and select “Enable.”
2. To begin, select your city’s name from the drop down menu at the top of worksheet “3 - List of
Measures” worksheet by clicking on the blue cell (Worksheet 3 -cell C2). This populates key calculation cells
throughout the toolbox with city-specific GHG inventory and demographic data.
3. Review the complete list of measures in worksheet “3 -List of Measures” to become familiar with the
GHG reduction measures.
4. Move on to the Individual Measure Worksheets (worksheets 4a through 9b). Within each Individual
Measure Workbook, there are several items to note:
Blue cells will either appear blank or contain sample data. The cells should be replaced with your
own assumptions.
Green cells contain pre-loaded data. These cells may be adjusted, but adjustment is not required.
Grey and white cells should not be modified.
*The worksheets are designed so that when the user enters data regarding key assumptions (blue cells
under "Calculation Methodology and Equations" toward the bottom of each worksheet) into the
worksheet for each measure, the estimated costs and benefits (including GHG emission reductions) are
automatically calculated based on those assumptions.*
5. The municipal cost/savings calculations assume $100,000 for a full time City employee. This value may be
adjusted by changing the value in blue cell A82 of worksheet 12-Common Assumptions.
6. Each Individual Measure Worksheet contains a “Menu of Implementation Actions.” For each action, the
City should identify whether the action is already being implemented (by entering Yes or No), and whether
the City would like to include the action in the climate action plan (by entering Yes or No). Please note that
some of the actions are required to receive any GHG reduction credit for the measure. Selection of
additional actions will ensure maximum credit is received for the measure.
7. As you scroll down in the Individual Measure Worksheet, you should also enter the following data (blue
): Responsible Department/Agency (responsible for measure implementation) and Key Assumptions, cells
which are used to calculate the reduction potential, costs, and savings.
If desired, you may also wish to adjust the Implementation Mechanism (select from: Codes and Standards,
Incentives, Capital Improvement, Municipal Policy or Program, or Conditions of Approval) and/or
Implementation Timing (select from: Near Term 2013-2014, Mid-Term 2015-2016, Long-Term 2017-2020)
(). green cells
8. Once you have entered your assumptions and obtained costs/savings estimates, please adjust the level
of cost savings near the top of the workbook ( ) based on the results. green cells
9. Once you have gone through all the individual measure worksheets, please identify measures you wish to
include in your Climate Action Plan by selecting Yes or No ( at the top of each worksheet). (Note blue cell C8
the worksheets for the measures that are not chosen do NOT need to be deleted from the workbook. They
will automatically receive a score of zero in worksheet “11 – Summary Reduction & Target”)
10. Worksheet “10 - Summary of Measures” provides a list of all measures and results for easy evaluation.
11. Worksheet “11 - Summary of Reduction and Target” provides the combined reduction potential of the
selected measures and compares the reduction potential against the reduction target.
SUMMARY OF MEASURES
City of Atascadero
Category Measure Name Measure Description
Energy Energy Efficiency Outreach and
Incentive Programs
Expand participation in and the promotion of existing programs, such as Energy Upgrade California and San Luis
Obispo County Energy Watch, to increase community awareness of existing energy efficiency rebates and financial
incentives, and no‐ and low‐cost actions community members can take to increase energy efficiency.
Energy Energy Audit and Retrofit
Program
Collaborate with San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, local utility providers, local businesses and organizations
to develop and promote a residential and commercial educational energy audit program with direct installation of
no‐ and low‐cost measures, leveraging existing rebates.
Energy Income‐Qualified Energy Efficient
Weatherization Programs
Facilitate energy efficient weatherization of low‐ and middle‐income housing through promotion of existing
programs, such as Community Action Partnership (CAPSLO).
Energy Energy Conservation Ordinance
Require through a new City ordinance that cost‐effective energy efficiency upgrades in existing buildings be
implemented at point of sale or during major renovation of residential units. A maximum cost ceiling would be
established to protect owners from excessive fees.
Energy
Incentives for Exceeding Title 24
Building Energy Efficiency
Standards
Provide incentives (e.g., priority permitting, reduced permit fees, etc.) for new development and/or major
remodels that voluntarily exceed State energy efficiency standards by an identified percentage.
Energy Energy Efficient Public Realm
Lighting Requirements
Require through a new City ordinance that new development utilize high efficiency lights in parking lots, streets,
and other public areas.
Energy Small Solar Photovoltaic (PV)
Incentive Program
Facilitate the voluntary installation of small solar PV systems and solar hot water heaters in the community
through expanded promotion of existing financial incentives, rebates, and financing programs, and by helping the
average resident and business overcome common regulatory barriers and upfront capital costs.
Energy Income‐Qualified Solar PV
Program
Facilitate the installation of solar PV systems on and solar hot water heaters in income‐qualified housing units by
promoting existing programs offered through the California Solar Initiative and New Solar Homes Partnership and
by collaborating with organizations, such as Grid Alternatives, on outreach and eligibility.
Energy Community Choice Aggregation
Program (CCA)
Assembly Bill 117 (2002) enables California cities and counties, either individually or collectively, to supply
electricity to customers within their jurisdiction by establishing a community choice aggregation (CCA) program.
Unlike a municipal utility, a CCA does not own transmission and delivery systems, but is responsible for providing
electricity to residents and businesses. The CCA may own electric generating facilities, but more often, it
purchases electricity from private electricity generators. The City would either individually or through a regional
partnership develop a CCA program and ensure that the energy generation portfolio of the electricity supplied has
a higher percentage of clean energy than that mandated by the State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
Energy Municipal Energy Efficiency
Retrofits and Upgrades
Establish a target to reduce municipal energy use by a certain percent by 2020 and implement cost‐effective
improvements and upgrades to achieve that target.
Energy Municipal Energy Efficient Public
Realm Lighting
The City would continue to replace city‐owned or ‐operated street, traffic signal, park, and parking lot lights with
higher efficiency lamp technologies.
Energy Energy Efficiency Requirements
for New Municipal Buildings
Adopt a policy to exceed minimum Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by a certain percentage for the
construction or renovation of new City buildings and facilities.
Energy Renewable Energy Systems on
City Property The City would pursue municipally‐owned renewable energy generation facilities.
Transportation
and Land Use Bicycle Network Continue to improve and expand the city's bicycle network and infrastructure.
Transportation
and Land Use Pedestrian Network Continue to improve and expand the city's pedestrian network.
Transportation
and Land Use Expand Transit Network Work with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and transit service providers to expand the local transit network
(i.e., additional routes or stops, and/or expanded hours of operation) based on the greatest demand for service.
Transportation
and Land Use
Increase Transit Service
Frequency/Speed
Work with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and transit services providers to increase transit service frequency
(i.e., reducing headways) by identifying routes where increased bus frequency would improve service.
1
Transportation
and Land Use
Employer‐Based Transportation
Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Require through a new City ordinance that employers with 25 or more employees develop a TDM program that
provides encouragement, incentives, and support for employees to reduce their single occupancy vehicle trips.
Some examples of resources and incentives include telecommuting, alternative scheduling (e.g., 9/80 or 4/40
work schedules), rideshare matching, and walking, cycling and transit incentives.
Transportation
and Land Use
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program ‐
Voluntary
Work with San Luis Obispo Regional Ride Share and Ride‐On to conduct additional outreach and marketing of
existing TDM programs and incentives to discourage single‐occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative
modes of transportation, such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking.
Transportation
and Land Use Parking Supply Management Amend the Municipal Code to reduce parking requirements in areas such as the downtown where a variety of
uses and services are planned in close proximity to each other and to transit.
Transportation
and Land Use Public Parking Pricing Establish market‐based pricing for public parking spaces, where appropriate.
Transportation
and Land Use
Electric Vehicle Network and
Alternative Fueling Stations
The City would continue to work with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Central
Coast Clean Cities Coalition, and neighboring jurisdictions to create and implement the electric vehicle readiness
plan. The City would continue to pursue funding for plug‐in electric vehicle charging stations.
Transportation
and Land Use
Incentives for Infill and Transit
Oriented Development
The City would identify and implement additional incentives to encourage mixed‐use, higher density, and infill
development near transit routes, in existing community centers/downtowns, and in other designated areas.
Incentives may include, but are not limited to, priority permitting, lower permit fees, density bonuses, or reduced
parking requirements.
Transportation
and Land Use Service Nodes
Work with private developers to encourage the development of convenient commercial and shopping
opportunities near existing employment and/or residential areas, through incentives or the removal of existing
regulatory barriers, as a means of shortening the distance between origins and destinations, and increasing the
potential for walking or biking to obtain services.
Transportation
and Land Use
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program for
Municipal Employees
The City would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for its own employees.
Reduced single‐occupant vehicle commuting would reduce GHG emissions.
Transportation
and Land Use
Zero and Low Emission Municipal
Fleet Vehicles
Continue to replace official City vehicles and equipment with low‐emission and zero‐emission vehicles, including
smaller, hybrid, electric, compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and neighborhood electric vehicles.
Off‐Road Construction Equipment
Techniques
Reduce GHG emissions from construction equipment by requiring various actions as appropriate to the
construction project.
Off‐Road Equipment Upgrades, Retrofits,
and Replacements
The City would support the APCD programs that fund equipment upgrades, retrofits, and replacement through
the Carl Moyer heavy‐duty vehicle and equipment program or other funding mechanisms.
Water
Exceed SB X7‐7 (Water
Conservation Act of 2009), Water
Conservation Target
The City would adopt a water conservation target that exceeds the SB X7‐7*, (Water Conservation Act of 2009),
target and identify and implement additional water efficiency and conservation measures to meet that target by
2020.
Solid Waste Solid Waste Diversion Rate The City would adopt a specified solid waste diversion rate that exceeds the state‐mandated rate of 50% and
identify programs to meet the identified rate by 2020.
Solid Waste Organic Waste Diversion Program
The City would develop a combined or separate organic waste (yard trimming, food scraps, and food‐soiled paper)
collection system and encourage residents and businesses to divert these materials from landfills. The City would
develop a marketing campaign to educate the community and facilitate composting.
Solid Waste Construction and Demolition
Debris Diversion Requirements
Require the reuse or recycling of construction and demolition materials from development projects beyond the
state‐mandated 50% requirement.
Solid Waste Recycling at Public Events The City would adopt an ordinance requiring the provision of recycling receptacles at all events requiring a permit
or held on City‐owned or ‐operated property.
Solid Waste Municipal Solid Waste Reduction Adopt a specified solid waste diversion rate and identify steps to meet that rate by 2020.
Trees and Open
Space Tree Planting Program
Develop a program to facilitate voluntary tree planting within the community, working with local non‐profit
organizations and community partners. Develop and adopt tree planting guidelines that address tree and site
selection.
Trees and Open
Space Municipal Tree Planting Program Establish a tree planting program to increase the number of native, drought‐tolerant trees on City‐owned
property, parks and streetscapes.
2
SUMMARY OF MEASURESCategory Measure Name Measure DescriptionApplicability (Community or Municipal Measure)GHG Reduction Potential in 2020 (MT CO2e)Actual Measure or CommitmentVoluntary or MandatedImplementation MechanismAggregated Municipal CostsAggregated Municipal SavingsPer Unit Community CostsPer Unit Community SavingsWas this Strategy Selected? (Yes = 1, No = 0) NotesEnergy Energy Efficiency Outreach and Incentive ProgramsExpand participation in and the promotion of existing programs, such as Energy Upgrade California and San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, to increase community awareness of existing energy efficiency rebates and financial incentives, and no- and low-cost actions community members can take to increase energy efficiency.Community 396Percent of households & businesses participating; percent energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsVoluntary Incentives Very Low None Varies Low1Energy Energy Audit and Retrofit ProgramCollaborate with San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, local utility providers, local businesses and organizations to develop and promote a residential and commercial educational energy audit program with direct installation of no- and low-cost measures, leveraging existing rebates.Community 1,099Number of residential and non-residential buildings retrofitted by 2020; percent energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsVoluntary Incentives Very Low NoneVery Low to MediumVery Low to Medium1Energy Income-Qualified Energy Efficient Weatherization ProgramsFacilitate energy efficient weatherization of low- and middle-income housing through promotion of existing programs, such as Community Action Partnership (CAPSLO). Community 88Residential units upgraded by 2020; percent energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsVoluntary Incentives Very Low None None Very Low 1Energy Energy Conservation OrdinanceRequire through a new City ordinance that cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades in existing buildings be implemented at point of sale or during major renovation of residential units. A maximum cost ceiling would be established to protect owners from excessive fees.Community 1,459Number of residential and non-residential buildings retrofitted by 2020; percent energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsMandatoryCodes and StandardsLow NoneVery Low to MediumVery Low to Medium0Energy Incentives for Exceeding Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency StandardsProvide incentives (e.g., priority permitting, reduced permit fees, etc.) for new development and/or major remodels that voluntarily exceed State energy efficiency standards by an identified percentage.Community 227New residential and commercial units that exceed State standards by 2020; percentage of energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsVoluntary Incentives Very Low None MediumVery Low to Low0Energy Energy Efficient Public Realm Lighting RequirementsRequire through a new City ordinance that new development utilize high efficiency lights in parking lots, streets, and other public areas.Community 4Number of LED or CFL public realm lights installed by 2020MandatoryCodes and StandardsVery Low Very Low Very Low Very Low 01
Energy Small Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Incentive ProgramFacilitate the voluntary installation of small solar PV systems and solar hot water heaters in the community through expanded promotion of existing financial incentives, rebates, and financing programs, and by helping the average resident and business overcome common regulatory barriers and upfront capital costs.Community 705kW of residential and commercial solar PV installations and number of solar hot water heaters installedVoluntary Incentives Very Low None High Low to High 1Energy Income-Qualified Solar PV ProgramFacilitate the installation of solar PV systems on and solar hot water heaters in income-qualified housing units by promoting existing programs offered through the California Solar Initiative and New Solar Homes Partnership and by collaborating with organizations, such as Grid Alternatives, on outreach and eligibility.Community 76kW of PV and solar hot water heaters installedVoluntary Incentives Very Low None None Medium 0Energy Community Choice Aggregation Program (CCA)Assembly Bill 117 (2002) enables California cities and counties, either individually or collectively, to supply electricity to customers within their jurisdiction by establishing a community choice aggregation (CCA) program. Unlike a municipal utility, a CCA does not own transmission and delivery systems, but is responsible for providing electricity to residents and businesses. The CCA may own electric generating facilities, but more often, it purchases electricity from private electricity generators. The City would either individually or through a regional partnership develop a CCA program and ensure that the energy generation portfolio of the electricity supplied has a higher percentage of clean energy than that mandated by the State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).Community 2394Percent reduction in carbon intensity of electricity above RPSVoluntary City Program Low Low NoneVery Low - Low0Energy Municipal Energy Efficiency Retrofits and UpgradesEstablish a target to reduce municipal energy use by a certain percent by 2020 and implement cost-effective improvements and upgrades to achieve that target. Municipal 59Percent energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsVoluntary City Program Varies Medium None None 0Energy Municipal Energy Efficient Public Realm LightingThe City would continue to replace city-owned or -operated street, traffic signal, park, and parking lot lights with higher efficiency lamp technologies. Municipal 7Number of LED or CFL lights installedVoluntaryCapital ImprovementLow Very Low None None 0Energy Energy Efficiency Requirements for New Municipal BuildingsAdopt a policy to exceed minimum Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by a certain percentage for the construction or renovation of new City buildings and facilities.Municipal 17New municipal building square feet by 2020; percent energy (electricity and natural gas) savingsMandatoryCapital ImprovementHigh Very Low None None 0Energy Renewable Energy Systems on City PropertyThe City would pursue municipally-owned renewable energy generation facilities. Municipal 14kw of municipal solar PV and number of solar water heaters installedVoluntaryCapital ImprovementHigh Low None None 02
Transportation and Land UseBicycle NetworkContinue to improve and expand the city's bicycle network and infrastructure.Community 548Miles of new bike lanes, routes, and paths by 2020MandatoryCodes and StandardsLow None None Varies 0Transportation and Land UsePedestrian NetworkContinue to improve and expand the city's pedestrian network.Community 63Miles of added sidewalk by 2020MandatoryCapital ImprovementLow None None Varies 0Transportation and Land UseExpand Transit NetworkWork with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and transit service providers to expand the local transit network (i.e., additional routes or stops, and/or expanded hours of operation) based on the greatest demand for service.Community 57Percent increase in transit serviceMandatory PolicyVery Low None Very Low Medium 0Transportation and Land UseIncrease Transit Service Frequency/SpeedWork with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and transit services providers to increase transit service frequency (i.e., reducing headways) by identifying routes where increased bus frequency would improve service.Community 23Percentage reduction in transit headwaysMandatory PolicyVery Low None Very Low Medium 0Transportation and Land UseEmployer-Based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ProgramRequire through a new City ordinance that employers with 25 or more employees develop a TDM program that provides encouragement, incentives, and support for employees to reduce their single occupancy vehicle trips. Some examples of resources and incentives include telecommuting, alternative scheduling (e.g., 9/80 or 4/40 work schedules), rideshare matching, and walking, cycling and transit incentives. Community 208Percent of businesses with more than 25 employeesMandatoryCodes and StandardsVery Low None None Very Low 0Transportation and Land UseTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Program - VoluntaryWork with San Luis Obispo Regional Ride Share and Ride-On to conduct additional outreach and marketing of existing TDM programs and incentives to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking.Community 110Percent of employees participatingVoluntary PolicyVery Low None None Very Low 0Transportation and Land UseParking Supply ManagementAmend the Municipal Code to reduce parking requirements in areas such as the downtown where a variety of uses and services are planned in close proximity to each other and to transit.Community 339Net reduction in parking spaces; new parking spaced by 2020 forecast under existing regulationsMandatoryCodes and StandardsVery Low None None Very Low 0Transportation and Land UsePublic Parking PricingEstablish market-based pricing for public parking spaces, where appropriate.Community 342Number of public parking spaces where parking pricing would apply; percentage increase in parking pricesVoluntaryCapital ImprovementLow High Medium Very Low 03
Transportation and Land UseElectric Vehicle Network and Alternative Fueling StationsThe City would continue to work with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition, and neighboring jurisdictions to create and implement the electric vehicle readiness plan. The City would continue to pursue funding for plug-in electric vehicle charging stations.Community 1,984Percent adoption of electric vehicles based on implementation of comprehensive EV NetworkVoluntary Policy Very Low None None None 0Transportation and Land UseIncentives for Infill and Transit Oriented DevelopmentThe City would identify and implement additional incentives to encourage mixed-use, higher density, and infill development near transit routes, in existing community centers/downtowns, and in other designated areas. Incentives may include, but are not limited to, priority permitting, lower permit fees, density bonuses, or reduced parking requirements.Community 2,098Number of new homes and/or businesses within 0.25 miles of transitVoluntary PolicyLow None Varies Medium 0Transportation and Land UseService NodesWork with private developers to encourage the development of convenient commercial and shopping opportunities near existing employment and/or residential areas, through incentives or the removal of existing regulatory barriers, as a means of shortening the distance between origins and destinations, and increasing the potential for walking or biking to obtain services. Community Not calculatedPercent of new homes within walking distance of retail and services.Voluntary PolicyVery Low to LoNone Varies Varies 0Transportation and Land UseTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for Municipal EmployeesThe City would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for its own employees. Reduced single-occupant vehicle commuting would reduce GHG emissions.Municipal 28Percent City employee participationVoluntaryCodes and StandardsVery Low Low None None 0Transportation and Land UseZero and Low Emission Municipal Fleet VehiclesContinue to replace official City vehicles and equipment with low-emission and zero-emission vehicles, including smaller, hybrid, electric, compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and neighborhood electric vehicles.Municipal 26Number of municipal vehicles replaced by 2020 Voluntary PolicyMedium Very Low None None 0Off-RoadConstruction Equipment TechniquesReduce GHG emissions from construction equipment by requiring various actions as appropriate to the construction project.Community 1,604Percent of construction equipment replaced with electric equipment/alternatively fueled equipmentMandatoryCodes and StandardsVery Low None Varies Varies 0Off-RoadEquipment Upgrades, Retrofits, and ReplacementsThe City would support the APCD programs that fund equipment upgrades, retrofits, and replacement through the Carl Moyer heavy-duty vehicle and equipment program or other funding mechanisms.Community 8Percent of off-road equipment replaced with electric equipment/alternative fuel vehiclesVoluntary Incentives Low None None Varies 04
WaterExceed SB X7-7 (Water Conservation Act of 2009), Water Conservation TargetThe City would adopt a water conservation target that exceeds the SB X7-7*, (Water Conservation Act of 2009), target and identify and implement additional water efficiency and conservation measures to meet that target by 2020. Community 22Percent water savings above SBx7-7MandatoryCodes and StandardsLow None Varies Varies 0Solid WasteSolid Waste Diversion RateThe City would adopt a specified solid waste diversion rate that exceeds the state-mandated rate of 50% and identify programs to meet the identified rate by 2020.Community 1,387Percent waste diversion beyond State-mandated 50% (2020)Mandatory PolicyLow None None None 0Solid WasteOrganic Waste Diversion ProgramThe City would develop a combined or separate organic waste (yard trimming, food scraps, and food-soiled paper) collection system and encourage residents and businesses to divert these materials from landfills. The City would develop a marketing campaign to educate the community and facilitate composting.Community 308Percent diversion of organic wasteMandatory Incentives Very Low None None None 0Solid WasteConstruction and Demolition Debris Diversion RequirementsRequire the reuse or recycling of construction and demolition materials from development projects beyond the state-mandated 50% requirement.Community 161Percent waste diversion beyond State-mandated 50% (2020)MandatoryCodes and StandardsVery Low None None None 0Solid WasteRecycling at Public EventsThe City would adopt an ordinance requiring the provision of recycling receptacles at all events requiring a permit or held on City-owned or -operated property.Community 2Percentage of waste recycled at public eventsMandatoryCodes and StandardsVery Low None None None 0Solid WasteMunicipal Solid Waste ReductionAdopt a specified solid waste diversion rate and identify steps to meet that rate by 2020.Municipal 7Percent waste diversion beyond State-mandated 50% (2020); number of new recycling receptaclesMandatory PolicyLow None None None 0Trees and Open SpaceTree Planting ProgramDevelop a program to facilitate voluntary tree planting within the community, working with local non-profit organizations and community partners. Develop and adopt tree planting guidelines that address tree and site selection. Community 6Number of trees planted (net new trees)VoluntaryCapital ImprovementLow None Very Low None 0Trees and Open SpaceMunicipal Tree Planting ProgramEstablish a tree planting program to increase the number of native, drought-tolerant trees on City-owned property, parks and streetscapes.Municipal 6Number of net new trees planted on City-owned propertyMandatory City Program Low None None None 05
SUMMARY OF GHG TARGET AND MEASURE REDUCTIONS
MT CO2e2020
2005 Baseline 141,428
2020 Adjusted Forecast 140,003
2020 Target (15% below 2005 baseline)120,214
Targeted Reduction from CAP Measures 19,790
Total Reduction from Selected Toolbox
Measures 2,288
105,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
2005 2020
2005 Baseline
2020 Adjusted Forecast
2020 Target (15% below 2005
baseline)
GHG Emissions with Selected
Toolbox Measures
Arroyo Grande Population Households Jobs
PG&E Non-Residential
Accounts
2005 16,330 7,227 7,940 1,365
2020 18,407 8,188 5,800 997
CAGR 0.80%0.84%-2.07%
Atascadero Population Households Jobs
PG&E Non-Residential
Accounts
2005 25,940 10,505 8,550 1,958
2020 28,003 11,893 9,300 2,130
CAGR 0.51%0.83%0.56%
Grover Beach Population Households Jobs
PG&E Non-Residential
Accounts
2005 13,100 5,589 3,160 1,034
2020 13,432 5,878 6,800 2,225
CAGR 0.17%0.34%5.24%
Morro Bay Population Households Jobs
PG&E Non-Residential
Accounts
2005 10,310 6,513 3,390 998
2020 10,244 6,348 4,000 1,178
CAGR -0.04%-0.17%1.11%
Paso Robles Population Households Jobs
PG&E Non-Residential
Accounts
2005 27,580 10,640 14,270 2,391
2020 32,137 12864 13,000 2,178
CAGR 1.02%1.27%-0.62%
Pismo Beach Population Households Jobs
PG&E Non-Residential
Accounts
2005 8,620 5,697 3,160 879
2020 7,954 5768 4,500 1,252
CAGR -0.53%0.08%2.38%
Sources:
2005 population, household and employment data from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, "Long Range Socio-Economic Projections (Year 2030)" prepared by Economic Research Associates (ERA), July 2006revision.
2020 population, household, and employment data from the San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast prepared for SLOCOG by AECOM, August 2011.
Demographic Data Used in Measure Worksheets
Residential Energy Intensity
Electric Use Intensity = 3.5 kwh/ square foot/ year
Natural Gas Use Intensity=0.3 therms/ square foot/
year
Average Annual Residential Energy Usage
Average Annual Electric
Usage=5,454 kWh/household/ year
Average Annual Natural Gas
Usage=377 therms/
household/year
Commercial Energy Intensity
Electric Use Intensity = 12.95 kwh/square foot/year
Natural Gas Use Intensity=0.3 therms/square
foot/year
Energy: 2020 GHG Emissions Factors
0.133
53.20
Energy (Residential): Projected 2020 Energy Costs
$/kwh $0.19
$/therm $0.92
Energy (Commercial/Industrial): Projected 2020 Energy Costs
$/kwh $0.19
$/therm $0.81
Transportation: 2020 Emissions Factor
Composite emissions factor
(Cef) =0.000374
Transportation: Cost
$0.555
Vehicle Use Percentages
Vehicle Fuel & Type Vehicle Type Percentage (%)
Passenger 48.85%
Light Duty 43.39%
Heavy Duty 0.99%
Passenger 0.34%
Light Duty 2.30%
Heavy Duty 4.14%
Water Measure Assumptions
174,000
0.00115
0.0023
Solid Waste Characterization
Paper products Food Waste Plant Debris Wood / Textiles All Other Waste
21.00%14.60%6.90%21.80%35.70%
kWh saved per gallon of water reduced
From California Integrated Waste Management Board's 2004 Waste Characterization Study
Average electric use intensity for residential buildings in kWh/sq ft (California
Energy Commission [CEC] 2010 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey [RASS]). Used
Average natural gas usage intensity for residential buildings in therms/sq ft (RASS,
2010).
Average electric use intensity for commercial buildings in PG&E territory in kWh/sq
Average natural gas usage intensity for commercial buildings in PG&E territory in
therms/sq ft (CEC 2005 California End Use Survey, Table 9-1, page 184).
Average emissions factor in 2020 from PG&E and Local Government Operations Protocol [LGOP] v1.1 in metric tons CO 2e/MWh
(takes into account Renewable Portfolio Standard)
Average annual electric use for residential buildings in kWh/household/year.
(Average for the six cities from 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventories; Pacific Gas
and Electric Company [PG&E]).
Average annual natural gas use for residential buildings in therms/household/year.
(Average for the six cities from 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventories; Southern
California Gas Company [SoCalGas]).
Residential sector average energy use: 36% electricity and 64% natural gas. (Average for six cities from 2005 baseline GHG inventory)
Non-residential sector average energy use: 61% electricity and 39% natural gas. (Average for six cities from 2005 baseline GHG inventory)
Gasoline
Diesel
Average emissions factor from SoCalGas and LGOP v1.1 for natural gas (kg CO 2e/MMBtu)
2012 average electricity rates were taken from the PG&E website.
(http://www.pge.com/tariffs/rateinfo.shtml). Used basic general service rates. 2012 average natural gas
rates were taken from the SoCalGas website. (http://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/prices/ ).
2012 average electricity rates were taken from the PG&E website.
(http://www.pge.com/tariffs/rateinfo.shtml). Used basic general service rates. 2012 average natural gas
rates were taken from the SoCalGas website. (http://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/prices/ ).
Notes: 200 therms/year are used on heating hot water in every household (UC Irvine reference) and each household uses 174,000 gallons of water/year
(AWWA reference). Thus, on average, 200/174,000 = therm usage per gallon of water usage in a typical household (0.00115 therm used / gallon of water
used).
Average household water consumption (174,000 gallons/year, as per AWWA)
Private vehicle operating cost per mile, as of 2012 (Internal Revenue Service 2012 Mileage Rate)
Composite emissions factor in Metric Tons CO2e per vehicle mile traveled (VMT); accounts for Pavley I and
Low Carbon Fuel Standard. From California Air Resources Board's EMFAC2011 tool for San Luis Obispo
County.
therms saved per gallon of water reduced
Common Assumptions Used in the GHG Emission Reduction and Cost-Savings
Calculations
Public Events Waste Characterization
Paper products Food Waste Plant Debris Wood / Textiles All Other Waste
38.90%18.40%17.90%1.80%23.00%
Average Annual Solid Waste Tonnage Per Capita
1.13 tons/capita/year
Solid Waste Emissions Factors by Category
Paper Products 2.138 tonnes/tonnes CO2e
Food Waste 1.210 tonnes/tonnes CO2e
Plant Debris 0.686 tonnes/tonnes CO2e
Wood/Textiles 0.605 tonnes/tonnes CO2e
All Other Waste 0.000 tonnes/tonnes CO2e
Carbon Sequestration Rate
0.0121 MT CO2/tree/year
4.31 MT CO2/acre/year
Unit size
1,545
4,500
Annual Salary of Full Time City Employee
$100,000 Dollars
No reduction may be quantified for preservation or mitigation of trees or vegetative space . Net new trees and acreage only.
Average dwelling size for units in PG&E territory (square feet)
From 2009 RASS - Average square footage for residences in square feet/unit. Average of CEC Climate Zone 4 and 5.
Average commercial building size (square feet)
From CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation Measures Report, page 403.
From CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation Measures Report, page 406.
From USEPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM)
From California Integrated Waste Management Board 2006 Report "Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for
Selected Industry Groups," Public Venues and Events Category
Attachment 3: Toolbox: detailed analysis & calculations for each potential measure
See Attached
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 1-29-13
Attachment 4: Attachment 4: Actions Previously Completed by Atascadero to Reduce
GHG Emissions
See Attached
City of Atascadero
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93422
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Efforts
Activity Purpose Description Date
Alternative Transportation & Fuel Reduction
Public Transportation Carbon
Reduction
City expanded public transportation system to include hourly transportation along major
shopping, education, health service and housing corridors
Buses equipped with bicycle racks and connect to regional and national bus service and rail for
expanded multi-modal opportunities
Ongoing since
2011
Atascadero Bicycle
Transportation Plan
Carbon
Reduction
Eco Tourism
Healthy
Communities
Plan provides a blueprint for the development of a comprehensive bicycling system to facilitate
bicycle transportation and encourage recreational cycling
Developed through public workshops to gather input on routes, connections, bicycle tourism,
enhancements & facilities
Adopted plan will allow for the City to be eligible for State and Federal grants to construct bike
routes
Bike Plan
adopted
November 2010
Atascadero Trail
System
Carbon
Reduction
Eco Tourism
Healthy
Communities
“Atascadero Creek Trail Enhancement Project” constructed along HWY 41 from San Gabriel to
Portola, and design in process to connect El Camino Real to the Colony Park Community
Center & Stadium Park
Portions of Salinas River trail constructed
Ongoing work with ALPS to establish trails throughout City parks & help acquire additional land
for open space and future trails
Trail plan
approved
2006
Installation of
trails ongoing
North County Regional
Trail System
Carbon
Reduction
Eco Tourism
Healthy
Communities
Currently working with SLOCOG on the “North County Regional De Anza Trail Master Plan,”
funded by a Caltrans planning grant
Regional effort to create a safe and fully integrated off‐highway, multiuse trail system for
recreationalists and commuters; will connect all communities in North County, from San Miguel
to Santa Margarita, along the Salinas River & De Anza Trail
Adopted plan will allow for the City to be eligible for State and Federal grants to construct
multiuse trails
Grant received
2012
Master plan in
process
Sidewalks & Bike Lanes
Installed
Carbon
Reduction
Healthy
Communities
Bike lanes & sidewalks installed on El Camino Real & Traffic Way to connect major commercial
and residential corridors
“Safe Routes to School” bike lanes, striping, signage & sidewalks installed near Atascadero
High school, San Gabriel & Santa Rosa Schools
Ongoing since
2008
Ride Share Programs Carbon
Reduction
Public Park & Ride lots located off HWY 101 at Santa Barbara Road & San Luis Ave. Bike
lockers installed at both Park & Ride lots
Worked with Topaz Solar Farm to establish Park & Ride lot to facilitate bus transportation to
Carrizo Plain during project construction
Park & Ride
expansion 2009
Solar farm lot
est. 2012
Bridges & Pedestrian
Connections
VMT Reduction
Healthy
Communities
Lewis Ave. Bridge constructed with sidewalks and bike lanes. Provides much needed
connection to reduce travel time, and creates dual circulation system in downtown with non-
vehicular travel options
Pedestrian tunnel enhancements to connect High School and residential neighborhoods to
downtown through accessway under HWY 101
Currently working on design of pedestrian bridge which will connect the new movie theater to
the Sunken Gardens to create a walk able downtown district
Lewis Ave.
bridge 2006
Ped tunnel 2010
Ped bridge in
process
Bike Racks Carbon
Reduction
Bike rack installation required with all new retail & public projects
Bike racks installed at all existing parks, City facilities and schools
Ongoing
Bike Month VMT Reduction
Healthy
Communities
Partnership with SLO Bicycle Coalition to sponsor events to increase awareness & ridership
during Bike Month each May.
As a result of engaged staff and Council members, participation increased from 30 to over 300
riders in 2012, with more events planned
Annual events
City Facility Upgrades
Facilities Energy
Retro-fit (Phase 1)
Energy
Conservation Nine (9) City facilities received light retrofit projects to potentially decrease energy
consumption by 37,000 kWh hours per year, which is up to $6,100 in annual energy cost
savings
2009
Fire Stations Energy,
Resource &
Water
Conservation
Efficiency and conservation updates at Fire Stations 1 & 2:
Installation of tinted engine bay windows & exhaust extraction system and
Standby generators replacement with propane or natural gas instead of electric
Efficient refrigerators and washers/dryers & low flow toilets/showers/bath faucets
2008/2009
EECBG Grant for
Municipal Energy
Efficiency Retro-fits
Resource &
Energy
Conservation
California Energy Commission (CEC) completed energy audit using AARA funds to determine
what projects would provide the best payback
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funded $152,644 in energy
efficiency retro-fit projects
Included upgrades at Fire Station 1, Police Station, Pavilion, Police Station, Waste Water
Treatment Plant and Public Works Corp Yard
- 17 High SEER replacement HVAC units - 17 programmable thermostats
- 564 florescent tube lamps 28watt - 119 Low watt T8 ballasts
- 18 LED parking lot lights Retrofit kits - 28 Induction wall packs 40watt
Dec 2009
Staples Direct Install
(Funded by PG&E)
Resource &
Energy
Conservation
Staples Direct Install program for Municipal Facilities; energy savings opportunity made
available through the Energy Watch Partnership
77 separate projects completed at five (5) facilities, with an estimated annual energy
savings of 51,200 kWh
Upgrades such as occupancy sensors, new light fixtures and light bulb replacements
completed at the current City Hall building, Pavilion, Public Works Yard, Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Indoor Skate Park
Aug 2011
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Upgrades
Resource &
Energy
Conservation
Continual redesign and improvement of sewer system to reduce energy requirements by taking
advantage of gravity flow; two lift stations have been eliminated & a third is slated for elimination
Inefficient pumps & aerators replaced with more efficient models; those not being replaced are
being re-wound with more efficient wiring
Ongoing since
2009
Colony Park
Community Center
Energy,
Resource &
Water
Sustainable construction practices such as use of compressed recycled paper for bathroom
partitions and counters, recycled plastics for flooring and counters, and recycled rubber for the
sports court
Constructed
2006
Conservation Building is designed to be low maintenance to reduce water, power, and chemical use
Charles Paddock Zoo
Restroom Facility
Public
Education
Energy,
Resource &
Water
Conservation
New public restrooms incorporate green building features such as:
Rainwater collection & daylighting (no electric lights needed during the day)
Passive ventilation and thermal walls (no HVAC needed)
Straw bale constructed walls & renewable materials throughout
Low flow toilets & faucets
Constructed
2011
Historic City Hall
Restoration
Energy,
Resource &
Water
Conservation
The historic restoration of this 1914 City landmark includes m ajor upgrades for energy efficiency
which will result in huge savings in ongoing operating costs:
New high efficiency HVAC units with individual temp controls for every room
Energy efficient light fixtures with occupancy sensors
Energy efficient appliances in break rooms
Low flush water closets and urinals
Added insulation on the 4th floor
Construction to
be completed
2013
Green Parking Lot at
Lake Park
Public
Education
Stormwater
Demonstration project at Lake Park, funded by Urban Greening Grant Program
Replace an existing dirt parking lot with a low impact development parking lot
Designed to mitigate the stormwater runoff and pollutants which enter Atascadero Creek
Construction in
Process
City Facility Policies Energy & Water
Conservation Directive from the City Manager outlining Citywide Energy Conservation Measures issued in
September 2008 in order to cut City budget and operation costs
It is the City’s policy to always purchase energy efficient equipment and appliances
10% reduction in combined usage of all City buildings shown between 2009 and 2011,
with many facilities showing an energy reduction of 20% or more based on City
operations and facility upgrades in just the past few years
2008
Building Operator
Certification Course
Education
Energy,
Resource &
Water
Conservation
Two (2) City employees completed Building Operator Certification Course
Staff was trained to evaluate and improve operational efficiencies in municipal facilities and cut
down on energy usage (lighting, thermostats & more)
Operator awareness alone has cut energy use at the Community Center by 20%, and this is a
brand new building with modern and energy conscious construction!
Shows that investing in new technologies isn’t enough; well-trained operators make the
difference in reducing energy use and costs
2010
Energy Tracking Energy
Conservation
Education
Currently benchm arking energy performance and water usage of Municipal Facilities to manage
overall energy use and identify where the energy consumption hogs are
Monthly usage date within individual buildings & across entire building portfolio is automatically
measured and tracked through Portfolio Manager
Will be able to identify new opportunities to save, where to focus energy efficiency
efforts, and what rebates and funding sources City is eligible for
Data input &
setup in process
Energy Efficiency
SLO Energy Watch
Partnership
Energy
Conservation
Education &
Outreach
A joint partnership of PG&E, SoCal Gas, Economic Vitality Corporation, SLO County and
participating municipalities
Partnership has provided extensive training, outreach, and energy-saving opportunities for the
City as well as for local businesses and property owners
The City of Atascadero has taken full advantage of this partnership, becoming a leader in
SLO County in obtaining energy grants & upgrading City facilities
Participation
since 2009
SLO Green Build
Partnership
Energy,
Resource & City works with SLO Green Build to host community workshops and seminars for homeowners,
builders, and the general public
Ongoing since
2005
Water
Conservation
Education &
Outreach
Workshops have included: grey water systems, sustainable landscaping, photovoltaic systems
and alternative energy production, and green building technologies
City staff meets quarterly with SLO Green Build to discuss how City can encourage sustainable
design
A SLO Green Build public information kiosk is located at the City Hall front counter
Building Code Energy
Conservation
Water
Conservation
California Green Building Code became effective January 1, 2011
Title 24 energy requirements are strictly enforced for all new construction in the City, including
significant energy efficiency standards for lighting and appliances
New code
adopted 2011
PV System
Expedited Permits &
Reduced Fees
Energy
Conservation
The City of Atascadero has the lowest permit fees for solar in the County, and building permits
for PV system installation receive expedited processing
This policy and staff dedication ensures safe installation of PV systems while removing
perceived road blocks associated with permitting process
Ongoing
Affordable Solar Home
Program (SASH)
Energy
Conservation
The Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) Program is a comprehensive low-income
solar program made available by California Public Utilities Commission
City staff has been collaborating with Grid Alternatives on outreach and eligibility
As part of the SASH program, PV systems will be installed on 24 new affordable units being
constructed next year by People’s Self Help Housing, and hopefully on many more affordable
single family homes currently existing throughout the City
SASH is a first-of-its-kind solar program, structured to promote or provide energy efficiency for
low income families, workforce development and green jobs training opportunities, and broad
community engagement
Currently in
process
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement
Carbon
Reduction Encourages policies and programs to create well planned communities and improve the urban
forest
Adopted 2005
SLO Air District GHG
Stakeholder Group
Carbon
Reduction
Education
In 2007, the APCD convened a committee of city and county agency stakeholders to initiate a
discussion of climate change, including science, policy, funding, mitigation, adaptation, and
public engagement
Bimonthly meetings are held to share information, identify funding sources, and develop local
programs, policies, and activities that to reduce GHG emissions
Ongoing since
2006
Local Governments for
Sustainability (ICLEI)
Conservation
Carbon
Reduction
Atascadero joined ICLEI and agreed to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to share knowledge and
support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level
2009/2010
ICLEI member
Greenhouse Gas
Inventory
Carbon
Reduction Grant funded Greenhouse Gas Inventory identifies major sources of emissions within City
Measures progress made in reducing GHG from City operations and community wide and
forecasts how emissions will grow if no behavioral changes or improvements are made
Completed
2010
Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan
Carbon
Reduction
Grant funded regional planning project in collaboration with SLOAPCD, PG&E, and the Cities of
Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, and Pismo Beach
Development of a local plan to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy efficiency
Recognize local needs and perspectives and focus on practical, implementable solutions
Grant Received
2012
Development In
process
PG&E Climate Smart
Program
Carbon
Reduction First city in the County to join PG&E program to make energy use at City facilities carbon neutral
Climate Smart program designed to make people aware of the challenges posed by climate
change while also helping establish the infrastructure for a low carbon economy in California
Since 2005
City Vehicles Emissions City vehicle idling policies in place to reduce emissions City Operations
Reduction Filters installed on heavy duty diesel engines and old diesel vehicles retired to reduce emissions
Fire Department tests all engines and command vehicles for emissions; two new engines
exceed the 2007 EPA specs for trucks and heavy equipment
Ongoing
Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations
Emissions
Reduction Partnership with APCD to obtain grant funding to install more charging systems in the City
City staff involvement in program to make California Plug-in Electric Vehicle ready
2012 & Ongoing
Land Use & Development
Atascadero
General Plan
Resource
Conservation
Carbon
Reduction
The City’s General Plan is based on the Smart Growth Principles of encouraging infill and reuse
of existing land and infrastructure:
o Encourage mixed-use infill development & revitalization of the Downtown Core
o Preserve & protect the oak woodlands, creeks & wetlands
o Minimize hillside grading & preserve a greenbelt around Atascadero
Adopted 2002
Mixed Use, Retail & job
development
Reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled City Office of Economic Development created to encourage retail, job development, and infill in
the downtown & urban core. Providing services and shopping within Atascadero will reduce
vehicle miles traveled for residents who currently have to drive for goods and employment
Mixed use promoted, simplified permit process, City and staff support with development projects
Redevelopment Agency funding provided to new businesses and downtown affordable housing
Better jobs to housing balance created so that residents can work, shop and live in the City
High Density Residential areas upzoned in 2011 to increase density in the urban core
City Services
Ongoing
South El Camino Real
Corridor Visioning
Study
Planning for
Sustainable
Communities
Plan to envision how to integrate housing, economic development, jobs and transportation with
a complete street concept for El Camino Real for people, bicycles, transit and automobiles
Collaboration with SLOCOG through a grant from the Department of Conservation; plan will help
City to obtain additional grants for infrastructure and improvements along El Camino Real
Pilot project that will be used to illustrate how cities can integrate a mix of land uses and
densities, alternative forms of transportation and complete streets
2012
Recycling & Waste Reduction
Cold In-Place Road
Recycling
GHG Reduction
Resource
Conservation
Waste
Reduction
City road surface repair project where existing asphalt road is crushed and mixed it with
additives then immediately used to repave road in a single process
Innovative road reconstruction process which is a fast, cost-effective alternative to more
traditional methods of rebuilding asphalt roadways
“Cold In-Place Recycling” eliminates hundreds of asphalt and gravel truck trips which would
traditionally be required to carry out the old asphalt, and carry in new asphalt
2012
City Operations
Recycling Program Resource
Conservation
Waste
Reduction
City collaboration on programs with Atascadero Waste Alternatives
Semiannual “Citywide clean-up days” for residents to recycle household waste at no cost
Free curbside co-mingled recycling program and “green waste” recycling program
Atascadero became the first municipal agency in SLO County to reach targeted 50% diversion
of citywide trash going to landfill
Ongoing
Urban Forestry
Native Tree Ordinance
& Replanting Sites
Carbon
Reduction Ordinance requires protection of native trees and replanting or mitigation fees for removals
Tree mitigation funds used to plant almost 1000 new native trees throughout the City, with an
additional 500 native trees given to private property owners
Tree and habitat survey completed with GIS and work with biologist to study Atascadero’s oak
forest and success of the tree replanting sites
Ongoing
since1999
Tree City USA & Carbon Recognized as a Tree City member for 24 years Ongoing
Atascadero Native Tree
Association (ANTA)
Reduction
Education
Atascadero Native Tree Association creates tree planting areas and does educational programs
and outreach which focus on the care and renewal of native forest
Downtown Streetscape
Projects & Tree
Plantings
Reduces urban
heat island,
City Facilities
Pedestrian and operational improvements including bulb outs, landscaped medians, street trees,
street furniture and lighting for the Downtown according to the RVC Plan
Trees planted with the recent upgrades to the waste water facility & corporation yard to create
shade and reduce the urban heat island
Public Works
2006 & Ongoing
Updates to Landscape
Ordinance
Reduces urban
heat island
Citywide
Landscape standards adopted for multifamily & commercial developments, plus parking lots to
establish minimum requirements for landscape coverage, decorative planting and shade trees
Adopted
September
2005
Water Conservation
Water Conservation
Landscape & Irrigation
Ordinance
Water
Conservation
Citywide &
City Operations
Limits high water use landscapes with new commercial and residential development
Encourages drought tolerant plants that are well suited for Atascadero’s dry climate
Limitations on the amount of turf lawns and spray irrigation
Adopted By City
Council
Jan. 2010
City Facility Operations
& Landscape Water
Conservation Measures
Water
Conservation
City Operations
Cost Savings
Irrigation control systems, with sensors to respond to weather conditions, installed at City parks
Solar panels installed to power the irrigation controller for the landscape areas at Las Lomas
Areas of underutilized turf removed at Atascadero Lake Park, Paloma Creek Park & Fire Station
Drought tolerant and low maintenance landscaping installed in Downtown Streetscape project
City water analysis shows a 25% reduction in water use at City facilities in the past 3 years
City Operations
Ongoing since
2008
Washing Machine &
Toilet Retrofit Programs
Water
Conservation
Citywide
Rebates
692 rebates have been distributed by Atascadero Mutual Water Company to customers
$90,300 of equipment installed, including high-efficiency & ultra-low flow toilets, high-efficiency
clothes washers, plus cooling tower conductivity meters
AMWC
2005 & Ongoing
Landscape Rebate
Program
Water
Conservation
Citywide
Rebates
214 landscape rebates have been distributed by Atascadero Mutual Water Company
$33,123 in rebates have been distributed to customers for turf conservation, lawn aeration, rain
sensors, weather-based irrigation controllers, soil moisture sensors, multi-stream rotary nozzles
and rainwater harvesting
AMWC
2005 & Ongoing
Annual Garden Tour &
Sustainable Landscape
Workshop Series
Education
Water and
Energy
Conservation
Citywide
Atascadero Mutual Water Company hosts the annual garden tour where residents can gather
ideas for beautiful drought tolerant landscapes
Workshops which about irrigation types and plant selection suited to our local climate
Community members learn how to create beautiful outdoor landscapes which use native plants
which are water efficient and require minimal maintenance, thereby saving time, reducing the
need for fertilizers, pesticides, and use of power equipment
AMWC
2010
Home Water Survey
Program
Water
Conservation
Citywide
Cost Savings
The highly successful Home Water Survey Program is free to customers and helps them
conserve water by learning how to manage landscape irrigation more efficiently
AMWC’s water conservation staff helps property owners create a site-specific irrigation
schedule, recommended irrigation system improvements for the, and checks for leaks
AMWC
2009
Page | 1
Date: November 15, 2012
To: Aeron Arlin Genet
Organization: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
From: Richard Daulton
cc: Melissa Guise, Shauna Callery
Re: City of Atascadero Gap Analysis and Target Refinement
SUMMARY
This memorandum evaluates and quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction
potential of State and local measures that have been implemented, adopted, and/or
programmed since the 2005 baseline inventory year. It also estimates the impact that these
measures will have on Atascadero’s 2020 business-as-usual forecast, which allows for
determining the remaining gap in emissions reductions that will need to come from new local
measures to meet the 2020 target. This memorandum identifies a number of additional
opportunities to further reduce Atascadero’s GHG emissions to help meet the 2020 target that
may be developed into measures and actions as part of the Climate Action Plan.
Based on this evaluation and analysis, State measures will reduce Atascadero’s GHG
emissions by 31,570 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) and local measures
will reduce GHG emissions by 915 MT CO2e, for a combined reduction of 32,485 MT CO2e. To
meet the 2020 reduction target, Atascadero will need to reduce GHG emissions by an additional
19,790 MT CO2e through new measures that will be detailed in the Climate Action Plan. Based
on our review of measures implemented by other jurisdictions in the region, several potential
measures in the categories of energy, transportation and land use, waste, water, and trees,
parks and open space are identified at the end of this memorandum.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Atascadero Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update (November 2012)
includes a 2005 baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and a business-as-usual forecast of
how emissions in Atascadero would change in the year 2020, absent any new policies or
actions that would reduce emissions. It also establishes a reduction target consistent with
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 for the year 2020.
Page | 2
Since the 2005 baseline inventory year, however, several State and local measures have been
implemented, adopted, and/or programmed that will reduce Atascadero’s GHG emissions and
help the City meet its reduction target by 2020. This document estimates the impact that these
measures will have on the 2020 business-as-usual forecast. Accounting for these reductions in
a “2020 Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast” scenario provides a more accurate picture of
future emissions growth and the responsibility of Atascadero in reducing its emissions
consistent with AB 32. The difference between the 2020 adjusted business-as-usual forecast
and the city’s GHG emissions reduction target represents the “gap” to be closed through further
measures identified in this document and to be developed as part of the Climate Action Plan.
IMPACT OF STATE MEASURES
The AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008) identifies several State measures that would
reduce GHG emissions within Atascadero. These measures require no additional local action. A
brief description of each of these State measures is provided below and the local reduction in
GHG emissions is summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS FROM STATE MEASURES IN 2020
State Measure 2020 Reduction
(MT CO2e)
Clean Car Standards – Pavley, AB 1493 -11,064
Low Carbon Fuel Standard -7,226
Title 24 -592
Renewable Portfolio Standard -12,688
Total Reduction from State Measures -31,570
CLEAN CAR STANDARDS – PAVLEY, ASSEMBLY BILL 1493
Signed into law in 2002, AB 1493 (Pavley I standard) requires vehicle manufactures to reduce
GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles and light trucks from 2009 through 2016.
Regulations were adopted by the California Air Resources Board in 2004 and took effect in
2009 when the U.S. EPA issued a waiver confirming California’s right to implement the bill. The
California Air Resources Board anticipates that the Pavley I standard will reduce GHG
emissions from new California passenger vehicles by about 22% in 2012 and about 30% in
2016, while simultaneously improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.
Reductions in GHG emissions from the Pavley I standard were calculated using the California
Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2011 model for San Luis Obispo County. To account for this
standard, EMFAC2011 integrates the reductions into the mobile source emissions portion of its
Page | 3
model.1 As shown in Table 1 above, the Pavley I standard is expected to reduce transportation
sector emissions in Atascadero by approximately 13.3% (-11,064 CO2e) in 2020 compared to
business-as-usual levels.
LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) requires a reduction of at least 10% in the carbon
intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020. Measured on a lifecycle basis, the carbon
intensity represents the CO2e emitted from each stage of producing, transporting, and using the
fuel in a motor vehicle. Based on the EMFAC2011 model results, this translates to an
approximately 8.7% reduction (-7,226 MT CO2e) in Atascadero’s transportation sector GHG
emissions in 2020 compared to business-as-usual levels.
TITLE 24
Although it was not originally intended specifically to reduce GHG emissions, California Code of
Regulations Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
reduce California’s energy consumption, which in turn reduces fossil fuel consumption and
associated GHG emissions. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy-efficient technologies and methods. The updates that have
occurred since the 2005 baseline year and, therefore, were not included in the business-as-
usual forecast, include the 2008 and 2013 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. The California
Energy Commission estimates that the 2008 standards reduce consumption by 10% for
residential buildings and 5% for commercial buildings, relative to the previous standards. For
projects implemented after January 1, 2014, the California Energy Commission estimates that
the 2013 Title 24 energy efficiency standards will reduce consumption by 25% for residential
buildings and 30% for commercial buildings, relative to the 2008 standards. These percentage
savings relate to heating, cooling, lighting, and water heating only and do not include other
appliances, outdoor lighting that is not attached to buildings, plug loads, or other energy uses.
Therefore, these percentage savings were applied to the percentage of energy use covered by
Title 24. 2
The calculations and 2020 GHG emissions forecast assume that all growth in the residential
and commercial/industrial sectors is from new construction. Please note that 2008 Title 24
Standards were applied to all forecast years, while 2013 Title 24 Standards were additionally
applied to new development projected to occur between 2014 and 2020. As shown in Table 1,
1 Additional details are provided in CARB’s EMFAC2011 Technical Documentation (September 19, 2011),
available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2011-documentation-final.pdf
2 Reductions for the 2008 standards are provided in the California Energy Commission’s Impact Analysis,
2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
(2007), available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-
07_Impact_Analysis.pdf. This calculation follows the methodology detailed in the Statewide Energy
Efficiency Collaborative’s report, Greenhouse Gas Forecasting Assistant (October 2011).
Page | 4
the 2008 and 2013 Title 24 requirements would reduce emissions by approximately 592 MT
CO2e in 2020.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan calls for the continuation of ongoing triennial updates to Title 24 that
will yield regular increases in the mandatory energy and water savings for new construction.
Future updates to Title 24 standards for residential and non-residential alterations are not taken
into consideration due to lack of data and certainty about the magnitude of energy savings that
will be realized with each subsequent update.
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
The State of California Renewable Portfolio Standard requires investor-owned utilities, electric
service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the portion of energy that
comes from renewable sources to 20% by 2010 and 33% by 2020. Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) is the electricity provider in Atascadero. In order to calculate future emissions
that take into account the Renewable Portfolio Standard, PG&E’s 2020 emissions factor was
applied.3 Therefore, this regulation is expected to result in a 40% reduction in GHG emissions
resulting from electricity consumption compared to 2020 business-as-usual levels. As shown in
Table 1, the Renewable Portfolio Standard would reduce Atascadero’s GHG emissions by
approximately by 12,688 MT CO2e in 2020.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AND CLIMATE PROTECTION ACT – SENATE BILL 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Action of 2008,
enhances California’s ability to reach its AB 32 target by aligning regional transportation
planning efforts with land use and housing allocations in order to reduce transportation-related
GHG emissions. SB 375 requires the ARB to set regional GHG emissions targets for passenger
vehicles and light trucks for the years 2020 and 2035 for each of California’s 18 metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs). Each MPO is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) as part of its next Regional Transportation Plan that demonstrates how the
region will meet its GHG reduction target. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) adopted targets for 2020 and 2035 to achieve an 8% reduction in per capita GHG
emissions from passenger vehicles.
While the outcome of SB 375 in terms of a reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita is
specified by the State, achievement of the target is dependent on regional and local actions and
activities that are not regulated by the State. Many of these actions and activities will be
inextricably linked to the local climate action plans and including them in the adjusted business-
as-usual scenario would likely result in the double counting of emissions reductions. Therefore,
SB 375 has not been included as a State measure that would reduce GHG emissions within
Atascadero.
3 PG&E. (April 8, 2011). Greenhouse Gas Emission Factor Info Sheet.
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sh
eet.pdf
Page | 5
IMPACT OF LOCAL MEASURES
In addition to the State measures described above, the City of Atascadero has implemented,
adopted, and/or programmed a number of local measures since the 2005 baseline inventory
year that will reduce the community’s GHG emissions. A brief description of each of these local
measures is provided below by topic area and the local reduction in GHG emissions in 2020 is
summarized in Table 2 (see Attachment A for supporting details).
Many GHG reduction measures can be readily quantified to determine their GHG reduction
potential; however, not all measures can be quantified with the information and/or tools that are
currently available. In addition, in some cases a measure may support or strengthen another
measure, but not result in additional reductions, in which case it is identified as a “support
measure.” When sufficient information and tools were available, the GHG reduction potential of
a given measure was quantified to determine its 2020 reduction potential. Quantification
followed standardized methods for estimating emissions detailed in the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures (August 2010).4
4 California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association’s (CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures available at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-
Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
Page | 6
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS FROM LOCAL MEASURES IN 2020
Local Measure 2020 Reduction
(MT CO2e)1
Energy
Solar Energy Installation (Residential, Commercial, and Municipal) -215
Municipal Building/Facility Energy Efficiency Improvements -33
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Education and Outreach Not quantified at this time2
Transportation and Land Use
Diversity and Density of Land Uses Not quantified at this time3
Transit Improvements -26
Park and Ride Facilities Not quantified4
Bicycle Network Improvements -17 5
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Not quantified2
Waste
Green Waste Program Not quantified at this time2
Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion -569
Water
Water Conservation Programs -19
Trees and Other Vegetation
Tree Planting -36
Streetscape Improvements Not Quantified
Total Reduction from Local Measures -915
1 Supporting information pertaining to the reduction calculations is provided in Attachment A to this document. 2 To be accounted for as part of CAP with continued implementation and monitoring procedures to support
potential reductions. See Attachment A for additional information. 3 The SLOCOG 2010 travel demand model used to estimate 2005 baseline and 2020 VMT is based on year 2009-
2011 traffic counts and adopted City land uses as of 2010. Therefore, land uses established prior to 2011 are
already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand model forecasting process; however, the high density residential
areas up zoned in the General Plan and Zoning Code in 2011, and the 2011 mixed-use ordinance may result in
further reductions that will be evaluated using the regional travel demand model during CAP development. See
Attachment A for additional information. 4 The SLOCOG 2010 travel demand model used to estimate 2005 baseline and 2020 vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
uses a 2010 base year and its VMT are calculated and calibrated to 2009-2011 traffic counts. As such, results for
alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management are inherent to the model results. 5 Additional credits from future bicycle and pedestrian network improvements to be accounted for as part of CAP
development process as this measure will rely on implementation assumptions that will need to be monitored to
ensure effectiveness.
ENERGY MEASURES
During the last five years, approximately 834 kilowatts (kW) of solar photovoltaic systems and
hot water heaters were installed on or in homes, businesses, and City property in Atascadero.
These installations will reduce emissions by 215 MT CO2e in 2020.
In addition, between 2005 and 2012, the City has implemented energy efficiency improvements,
such as lighting retrofits, HVAC upgrades, and the installation of programmable thermostats and
Page | 7
occupancy censors. These improvements reduce electricity use by approximately 239 kW in
2020 and approximately reduce emissions by 33 MT CO2e in 2020.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE MEASURES
Transportation and land use measures, including density and diversity of land uses, bicycle
network improvements, and recent transit improvements, are expected to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and enhance non-automobile mobility. Although density and diversity of land
uses based on the existing General Plan and improvements to park and ride facilities prior to
2011 are already captured in the business-as-usual forecast of transportation-related emissions,
recently implemented bicycle network and transit improvements are projected to reduce
emissions by approximately 43 MT CO2e in 2020. In addition, the electric vehicle charging
stations have been installed at one location within the City, and are planned to be installed at
two additional locations. Several measures, as detailed in Attachment A, such as the high
density residential areas up zoned in the General Plan and Zoning Code in 2011, the 2011
mixed-use ordinance, and implementation of the bicycle plan will result in further reductions;
however, associated reductions either rely on implementation assumptions that need to be
monitored to ensure effectiveness or will need to be evaluated using the regional travel demand
model during CAP development. Therefore credit will be identified in the CAP.
SOLID WASTE MEASURES
As of 2010, the California Green Building Code requires all local jurisdictions to ensure that 50%
of all non-hazardous construction and demolition solid waste is diverted from landfills. Within
Atascadero, this would reduce emissions by an estimated 569 MT CO2e in 2020. The City of
Atascadero also maintains a “green waste” recycling program with a locally contracted trash
hauler; however, the data necessary to estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from this
measure is not currently available.
WATER MEASURES
The City has implemented a number of measures to reduce water consumption, including a
water efficient landscape and irrigation ordinance, toilet and washing machine rebate program,
and landscape rebate program. In addition, the City has implemented several water
conservation measures at City facilities. These improvements and programs have reduced
emissions by approximately 19 MT CO2e.
TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION
Between 2006 and 2011, approximately 3,000 trees were planted throughout Atascadero, which
are estimated to sequester 36 MT CO2e in 2020.
ADJUSTED BUSINESS-AS-USUAL FORECAST AND REDUCTION TARGET
As shown in Table 3, state and local measures will reduce GHG emissions in Atascadero by an
estimated 32,485 MT CO2e by 2020 (19% below the 2020 business-as-usual forecast). Table 4
and Figure 1 demonstrate the gap that will need to be closed between the 2020 adjusted
Page | 8
business-as-usual forecast and the State-recommended GHG reduction target of 15% below
baseline emissions by 2020, which is equivalent to 19,790 MT CO2e. As shown in Table 4, the
City would be responsible for reducing this gap of 19,790 MT CO2e by 2020 through measures
identified in the Climate Action Plan.
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS FROM STATE AND
LOCAL MEASURES AND 2020 GHG EMISSIONS
GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2020 Business-as-Usual Forecast 172,488
2020 Reduction from State Measures -31,570
2020 Reduction from Local Measures -915
Total Reduction from State and Local Measures -32,485
2020 Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast 140,003
TABLE 4: ATASCADERO’S GHG EMISSIONS,
TARGET, AND REDUCTION NECESSARY TO MEET TARGET
GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2005 Baseline Emissions 141,428
2020 Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast 140,003
Target (15% below 2005 levels by 2020) 120,214
Remaining Gap Necessary to Meet 2020 Target 19,790
FIGURE 1: SUMMARY OF ATASCADERO’S
GHG EMISSIONS AND REDUCTION TARGET
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
2005 2020
Business-as-Usual
Forecast
2005 Baseline
Adjusted Business-as-
Usual Forecast
State Recommended
Reduction Target
19,790
MT CO2e
Page | 9
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET TARGET
Based on the review and analysis of local measures implemented to date, this section identifies
current policy gaps and additional opportunities in the areas of energy, transportation and land
use, water, waste, and trees and other vegetation to help Atascadero meet its reduction target
by 2020. Please note that several of the measures that Atascadero is currently implementing or
plans to implement through 2020, have not been quantified as part of this gap analysis and will
be quantified as part of the CAP development process, as they rely on use of the regional travel
model and/or implementation assumptions that will need to be identified in the CAP and
monitored to ensure effectiveness. See Attachment A for additional information.
ENERGY
Energy emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil and natural gas,
which are used to heat, cool and provide power to residential, commercial and industrial
buildings and other facilities. Factors affecting energy related emission in buildings include
building design and the efficiency of technology and electronics in buildings. Energy emissions
reductions can be achieved by changes to both energy supplies and energy demand. Future
opportunities to reduce energy emissions may include the following:
Expand participation in and promotion of existing programs, such as San Luis Obispo
County Energy Watch and Energy Upgrade California, to increase community
awareness of existing energy efficiency rebates, financial incentives, and financing
strategies, and no- and low-cost actions community members can take to increase
energy efficiency.
Collaborate with San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, local utility providers, and local
businesses and organizations to develop and promote a residential and commercial
educational energy audit program with direct installation of no- and low-cost measures,
leveraging existing rebates.
Require through a new City ordinance that cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades in
existing buildings be implemented at point of sale or during major renovation of
residential units.
Continue to facilitate energy efficient weatherization of low- and middle-income housing
through promotion of existing programs, such as Community Action Partnership
(CAPSLO).
Install additional solar or other renewable energy systems on municipal buildings.
Facilitate the voluntary installation of small solar photovoltaic systems and solar hot
water heaters in the community through expanded promotion of existing financial
incentives, rebates, and financing programs.
Continue to replace standard lights with LED or other energy efficient lights.
Require through a new City ordinance that new development utilize high efficiency lights
in parking lots, streets, and other public areas.
Continue to improve the efficiency of municipal buildings, facilities, and lighting.
Continue to work with local green building organizations, such as SLO Green Build, to
promote education and outreach programs.
Page | 10
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE
Transportation-related emissions comprise the largest portion of emissions. Factors affecting
GHG emissions from transportation include the number vehicle miles traveled, fuel economy,
and the type of fuel used. The number of vehicle miles traveled is also influenced by the
geographic distribution of land uses, people, and the density of development and zoning.
Future policy opportunities for transportation and land use include the following:
Continue to implement the 2010 Bicycle Transportation Plan and identify an
implementation commitment through 2020.
Implement additional pedestrian network improvements and identify an implementation
commitment through 2020.
Require through a new City ordinance that large employers (e.g., with more than 50
employees) develop a transportation demand management/commute trip reduction
program that provides encouragement, incentives, and support for employees to reduce
their single occupancy vehicle trips. Some examples of resources and incentives include
telecommuting, alternative scheduling (e.g., 9/80 or 4/40 work schedules), rideshare
matching, and walking, cycling and transit incentives.
Implement a transportation demand management/commute trip reduction program for
City employees.
Continue to replace older municipal vehicles with zero or low emissions vehicles.
Establish maximum rather than minimum parking requirements.
Establish market-based pricing for public parking spaces, where appropriate, to generate
revenue for other purposes.
Reduce GHG emissions from construction equipment by requiring the following
measures as appropriate to the construction project: substitute electrical equipment for
diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment; use alternatively fueled construction
equipment on-site; avoid the use of on-site generators by connecting to grid electricity or
utilizing solar-powered equipment; limit heavy-duty equipment idling time to a period of
three minutes or less.
SOLID WASTE
As solid waste decomposes in landfills, it releases methane, a GHG 21 times more potent than
carbon dioxide. As such, waste management is an important action that can reduce GHG
emissions. Waste management can be achieved by reducing the amount of trash and other
waste that is sent to landfills by recycling containers, products, building materials, and
construction materials. Future policy opportunities for solid waste include the following:
Institute or expand recycling and/or composting programs (e.g., food waste composting,
expand materials that can be recycled, etc.).
Increase the city-wide solid waste diversion rate (e.g., work to achieve consistency with
the State’s goal of 75% by 2020 identified in AB 341).
Mandate higher diversion rates for construction activities.
Provide recycling receptacles at all City facilities.
Require recycling at public events.
Page | 11
WATER
Water conveyance and treatment consumes electricity and natural gas. Reducing water
demand can be an effective way to reduce emissions associated with water treatment and
conveyance. Future policy opportunities for water include the following:
Require through a new City ordinance that new non-residential development provide
water efficient landscape irrigation design that reduces the use of potable water
consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards.
Provide incentives (e.g., priority permitting, reduced permit fees, etc.) for new
development and major remodels that reduce the overall use of potable water within the
building by 30-35 percent.
Provide incentives (e.g., priority permitting, reduced permit fees, etc.) for new
development that installs a graywater collection system for onsite subsurface irrigation.
TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION
Vegetation, such as trees sequester GHGs. Planting native, drought tolerant trees within the
City can increase the sequestration potential of the urban forest, while supporting the water
conservation measures listed above. Future policy opportunities for vegetation include the
following:
Develop a program to facilitate voluntary tree planting within the community, working
with local non-profit organizations and community partners.
Develop and adopt tree planting guidelines that address tree and site selection.
Plant additional trees on City property.
REGIONAL
Partnering with other neighboring jurisdictions within the County and community organizations is
an important aspect of reducing GHG emissions, as it can increase the effectiveness of a
measure and reduce costs by leveraging resources. Listed below are existing and potential
regional programs, partnerships, and measures that may be expanded upon or implemented to
reduce emissions.
Continue participation in Electric Vehicle Community Readiness planning and
implementation.
Expand participation in and promotion of existing clean fuel programs in coordination
with Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition (C5).
Coordinate with SLOCOG to implement the next Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Support the Renewable Energy Secure Communities for San Luis Obispo County (SLO-
RESCO) project, a regional partnership working to identify the best mix of resources for
clean, secure and affordable energy.
Page | 12
Work with other jurisdictions in the region to evaluate the feasibility of a regional
Community Choice Aggregation program to procure electricity from renewable
resources.5
5 Assembly Bill 117 (2002) enables California cities and counties, either individually or collectively, to
supply electricity to customers within their jurisdiction by establishing a community choice aggregation
(CCA) program. Unlike a municipal utility, a CCA does not own transmission and delivery systems, but is
responsible for providing electricity to residents and businesses. The CCA may own electric generating
facilities, but more often, it purchases electricity from private electricity generators. The primary benefits
offered by a CCA are local control over the energy sources used within the community, the ability to
provide electricity to customers at lower overall cost, and greater use of renewable energy. Through a
CCA, a jurisdiction can choose to structure a supply portfolio that achieves cost efficiencies, fuel and
technological diversity, environmental improvements, and/or cost stability. A CCA would facilitate
implementation of a program to increase use of renewable energy resources and promote improved
energy efficiency.
Appendix A: City of Atascadero Measure Details Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Energy (Community) Solar Energy Installations (Commercial) Since 2005, 183 kW of solar photovoltaic and hot water systems have been installed on commercial properties in Atascadero. Many of these installations utilized rebates offered through the California Solar Initiative (CSI), a solar rebate program for California consumers that are customers of the investor-owned utilities, such as PG&E. The CSI program is a key component of the Go Solar California campaign for California. The City participates in the CaliforniaFIRST program, which provides financing for renewable energy and energy efficient building improvements (applies to commercial properties). The City has PV System Expedited Permits and Reduced Fees. This policy and staff dedication ensures safe installation of PV systems while removing perceived road blocks associated with permitting process 183 kW of solar installed -47 California Solar Initiative CAPCOA AE-2 0%-100% 347,700 kWh Use 1,900 to convert CEC rating to kWh. Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/MWh (2020 PG&E emissions factor) Solar Capacity from CA Solar (CEC PTC Rating); Conversion factor from US DOE Energy (Community) Solar Energy Installations (Residential) Since 2005, 642 kW of solar photovoltaic and hot water systems have been installed on residential properties in Atascadero. Many of these installations utilized rebates offered through the California Solar Initiative (CSI), a solar rebate program for California consumers that are customers of the investor-owned utilities, such as PG&E. The CSI program is a key component of the Go Solar California campaign for California. The City participates in the CaliforniaFIRST program, which provides financing for renewable energy and energy efficient building improvements (applies to multi-family residential properties only). The City has PV System Expedited Permits and Reduced Fees. This policy and staff dedication ensures safe installation of PV systems while removing perceived road blocks associated with permitting process. The City collaborates with GRID Alternatives on outreach and eligibility to promote the Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) Program (24 in process of completion). 584 kW of solar installed; 58 kW from SASH = 642 kW total -166 California Solar Initiative CAPCOA AE-2 0%-100% 1,219,800 kWh Use 1,900 to convert CEC rating to kWh; average solar PV system installed under SASH program assumed to be 2.4 kW. Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/MWh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). Solar Capacity from CA Solar (CEC PTC Rating); Conversion factor from US DOE. California Solar Initiative. 2.4 kW is the average size of solar PV systems installed in San Luis Obispo region through SASH. Energy (Community) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Education and Outreach Since 2009, the City has participated in a joint partnership of PG&E, SoCal Gas, Economic Vitality Corporation, SLO County and participating municipalities. Partnership has provided extensive training, outreach, and energy-saving opportunities for the City as well as for local businesses and property owners. Since 2005, the City has worked with SLO Green Build to host community workshops and seminars for homeowners, builders, and the general public. Workshops have included: grey water systems, sustainable landscaping, photovoltaic systems and alternative energy To be accounted for as part of CAP with continued implementation and monitoring procedures to support potential reductions.
Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources production, and green building technologies. City staff meets quarterly with SLO Green Build to discuss how City can encourage sustainable design. A SLO Green Build public information kiosk is located at the City Hall front counter. Energy (Municipal) Solar Energy Installations (Municipal) Municipal solar installation 9 kW of solar installed -2 California Solar Initiative CAPCOA AE-2 0%-100% 17,651 kWh Use 1,900 to convert CEC rating to kWh. Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/Mwh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). Solar Capacity from CA Solar (CEC PTC Rating); Conversion factor from US DOE Energy (Municipal) Municipal Energy Efficient Lighting Retrofits - Facilities Energy Retrofit (Phase 1) Nine City facilities received light retrofit projects. 37,000 kWh hours per year -5 Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo CAPCOA LE-1 16%-40% 37,000 kWh Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/Mwh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). Energy (Municipal) Municipal Building Energy Efficiency Improvements An Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funded $152,644 in energy efficiency retro-fit projects, including upgrades at Fire Station 1 and 2, Police Station, Pavilion, Police Station, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Public Works Corp Yard, 17 High SEER replacement HVAC units, 17 programmable thermostats, 564 florescent tube lamps 28watt, 19 Low watt T8 ballasts, 18 LED parking lot lights Retrofit kits, 28 Induction wall packs 40watt An estimated 81,000 kwh of annual savings -11 Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo CAPCOA BE, LE Varies 81,000 kWh Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/Mwh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). Energy (Municipal) Municipal Building Energy Efficiency Improvements - Staples Direct Install program energy upgrades Staples Direct Install program for Municipal Facilities; energy savings opportunity made available through the Energy Watch Partnership 77 separate projects completed at five (5) facilities Upgrades such as occupancy sensors, new light fixtures and light bulb replacements completed at the current City Hall building, Pavilion, Public Works Yard, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Indoor Skate Park An estimated annual energy savings of 51,200 kWh -7 Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo CAPCOA LE-1 16%-40% 51,200 kWh Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/Mwh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). Energy (Municipal) Municipal Building Energy Efficiency Improvements - Building Operator Certification Course Two City employees completed Building Operator Certification Course. Staff was trained to evaluate and improve operational efficiencies in municipal facilities and cut down on energy usage (lighting, thermostats & more) Operator awareness alone has cut energy use at the Community Center by 20% -5 Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo Varies 38,256 kWh Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/Mwh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). Energy (Municipal) Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Continual redesign and improvement of sewer system to reduce energy requirements by taking advantage of gravity flow; two lift stations have been eliminated & a third is slated for elimination Inefficient pumps & aerators replaced with more efficient models; those not being replaced are being re-wound with more efficient wiring 285,280 kWh -5 PG&E Municipal Electricity Data 285,280 kWh Emissions factor of 0.133 metric tons CO2e/Mwh (2020 PG&E emissions factor). PG&E Municipal Electricity Data Energy (Municipal) Municipal Building Energy Efficiency Improvements – City Hall Retrofits Energy efficiency upgrades to historic City Hall building, including new high efficiency HVAC units with individual temp controls for every room, energy efficient light fixtures with occupancy sensors, energy efficient appliances in break rooms, low flush water closets and urinals, added insulation on the 4th floor. Unknown commitment Can be quantified during the CAP development process with additional data (estimated reduction in kWh and therms)
Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Transportation and Land Use Increase Diversity and Density of Land Use - Smart Growth The City’s General Plan (2002) is based on the Smart Growth Principles of encouraging infill and reuse of existing land and infrastructure: Encourage mixed-use infill development & revitalization of the Downtown Core Not quantified – already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand model forecasting process. General Plan CAPCOA LUT-1 Already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand model forecasting process. The SLOCOG 2010 travel demand model used to estimate 2005 baseline and 2020 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is based on year 2009-2011 traffic counts and adopted City land use as of 2010. Therefore, this measure is already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand model forecasting process. Transportation and Land Use Increase Diversity and Density of Land Use -Residential multifamily zoning High Density Residential areas up zoned in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow a minimum 20 units per acre in order to increase density in the urban core (implemented in 2011) Unknown at this time Not quantified -This action will be evaluated using the regional travel demand model during CAP development. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The SLOCOG 2010 travel demand model used to estimate 2005 baseline and 2020 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is based on year 2009-2011 traffic counts. As such, results for transit and transportation demand management are inherent to the model results. In addition, year 2020 VMT estimates included SLOCOG travel demand forecast model “4-Ds” adjustments for the built environment (land use Density, Design, Diversity, and access to Destinations). Thus, applying additional reductions off-model would double count reductions.
Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Transportation and Land Use Increase Diversity and Density of Land Use -Mixed Use and infill development Ordinance for mixed use – promotes mixed use development, streamlined permitting process Grouped with smart growth development Not quantified - Already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand forecasting process. Mixed use ordinance Already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand model forecasting process. The SLOCOG 2010 travel demand model used to estimate 2005 baseline and 2020 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is based on year 2009-2011 traffic counts. As such, results for transit and transportation demand management are inherent to the model results. In addition, year 2020 VMT estimates included SLOCOG travel demand forecast model “4-Ds” adjustments for the built environment (land use Density, Design, Diversity, and access to Destinations). Thus, applying additional reductions off-model would double count reductions. Transportation and Land Use Transit Improvements - Improved transit service, frequency, connectivity, and bike improvements. City expanded public transportation system to include hourly transportation along major shopping, education, health service and housing corridors. Buses equipped with bicycle racks and connect to regional and national bus service and rail for expanded multi-modal opportunities Transit beyond what is included in the regional travel demand model forecast -26 Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo, 2011 CAPCOA TST-3 0.1%-8.2% 70,671 VMT Assumes a 5% increase in transit service, suburban setting CAPCOA TST-3 Transportation and Land Use Park and Ride Facilities Public Park & Ride lots located off HWY 101 at Santa Barbara Road & San Luis Ave. Bike lockers installed at both Park & Ride lots. Worked with Topaz Solar Farm to establish Park & Ride lot to facilitate bus transportation to Carrizo Plain during project construction 12 park and ride stalls at Santa Barbara and 48 at Santa Lucia Not quantified - already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand forecasting process. Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo, 2009 CAPCOA RPT-4 0.5% VMT reduction 874 VMT Already captured in the SLOCOG travel demand forecasting process. The SLOCOG 2010 travel demand model used to estimate 2005 baseline and 2020 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) uses a 2010 base year and its VMT are calculated and calibrated to 2009-2011 traffic counts. As such, results for alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management are inherent to the model results. Transportation and Land Use Bicycle Network Improvements - new lanes New bike lanes constructed on El Camino Real, Lewis Ave Bridge, Traffic Way, San Andres Road, Santa Rosa Road. 2.4 miles -17 Bicycle Master Plan CAPCOA SDT-5 1% increase in share of workers commuting by bike for each additional mile of bike lane per square mile 45,267 VMT Assumes 1% bike mode share. Average reduction in trip length is 20 miles (round trip). Assumed average of 260 working days per year. CAPCOA SDT-5
Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Transportation and Land Use Bicycle Network Improvements - Bike racks, restrooms and shower facilities, changing facilities Bike rack installation required with all new retail & public projects. Bike racks installed at all existing parks, City facilities and schools. Contributes to overall bicycle network improvement reductions. Grouped measure. Not quantified - grouped measure Bicycle Master Plan CAPCOA SDT-6 and SDT-7 N/A Contributes to overall bicycle network improvement reductions. Grouped measure. Transportation and Land Use Pedestrian Network - Downtown Streetscape Improvements Downtown Streetscape Projects - Pedestrian and operational improvements including bulb outs, landscaped medians, street furniture, and lighting for the Downtown. Unknown commitment CAPCOA SDT-1 0%-2% Can be quantified as part of CAP process with additional data (miles of improvements are approximated). Transportation and Land Use Bicycle Network Improvements - Education and outreach Partnership with SLO Bicycle Coalition to sponsor events to increase awareness & ridership during Bike Month each May. As a result of engaged staff and Council members, participation increased from 30 to over 300 riders in 2012, with more events planned Not quantified - support measure Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo These events efforts are supportive of overall GHG reduction efforts. These will be mentioned in the CAP but are not directly quantifiable. Transportation and Land Use Electric Vehicle Network Electric Vehicle chargers currently installed at Rabobank, soon to be installed at Walgreens and Albertsons. Partnership established in 2012 with APCD to obtain grant funding to install more charging systems in the City; City staff involvement in program to make California Plug-in Electric Vehicle ready. Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo To be accounted for as part of CAP as this measure will rely on implementation assumptions that will need to be monitored to ensure effectiveness. Transportation (Municipal) Vehicle Idling Policy Public Works adopted a policy to reduce vehicle idling and the associated emissions. The Police Department has also given directions to staff to minimize idling of vehicles when possible. Unknown commitment Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo CAPCOA VT-1 Not quantifiable due to lack of data; however, for municipal vehicles alone, this is likely negligible in terms of GHG emissions. Waste (Community) Green Waste Diversion The City has a “green waste” recycling program with local contracted trash hauler. City collaboration on programs with Atascadero Waste Alternatives. Unknown commitment Not quantified CAPCOA SW-1 BMP Not quantifiable due to lack of data. May be accounted for in CAP if additional data is provided. Waste (Community) Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion As of 2010, the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) requires that 50% of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris be recycled or reused. 50% diversion of construction and demolition debris -569 California Green Building Standards Code CAPCOA p. 43; SW-2 Varies According to the California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study, construction and demolition debris makes up 29% of the waste stream and 40% of that is non-hazardous and recyclable. California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study
Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Trees and Other Vegetation Native Tree Ordinance, Tree Planting, and Streetscape Improvements The 2012 CIP calls for the planting of 3,000 native oak tree seedlings throughout Atascadero on sites determined by the Native Tree Atlas. The Native Tree Ordinance is a key tool for tree preservation and regeneration of new trees. Native trees are required to be protected whenever feasible, and permits must be obtained for native trees removal. Tree and habitat survey completed with GIS and work with biologist to study Atascadero’s oak forest and success of the tree replanting sites. The 2012 CIP calls for the planting of 3,000 additional native oak tree seedlings throughout Atascadero on sites determined by the Native Tree Atlas. -36 Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo CAPCOA V-1 Varies 3,000 Net New Trees Assumes annual CO2 reduction rate per tree to be 0.0121 (most conservative rate provided in CAPCOA) CAPCOA V-1. Please note there is no reduction associated with open space or tree preservation or mitigation. This measure can only account for net new trees planted or net new vegetated acreage created (so there is an overall net increase in carbon sequestration). Survey and study support implementation of tree planting, but do not directly result in the planting of trees or a reduction in GHG emissions. Water Water Conservation Programs Implementation of programs identified to reduce water consumption. According to data provided by the Atascadero Mutual Water District, this will result in 110,100,000 gallons of water savings by 2020. 110,100,000 gallons of water savings -19 Atascadero Mutual Water District CAPCOA WSW-2 Varies 110,100,000 Gallons Assumes 1,300 kWh/million gallons electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water. Assumes 0.133 MT CO2e/MWh electricity. California Energy Commission Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California (December 2006) Future Opportunities: Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Energy Historic City Hall Restoration The historic restoration of this 1914 City landmark includes major upgrades for energy efficiency which will result in huge savings in ongoing operating costs: New high efficiency HVAC units with individual temp controls for every room Energy efficient light fixtures with occupancy sensors Energy efficient appliances in break rooms Low flush water closets and urinals Added insulation on the 4th floor Unknown commitment by 2020 - may be quantified during the toolbox process Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo Transportation and Land Use South El Camino Real Corridor Visioning Study City is working with SLOCOG to develop a plan that will envision how to integrate housing, economic development, jobs and transportation in an effort to comply with future Regional Transportation Plans. This is a pilot project that will be used to illustrate how cities and unincorporated communities can integrate a mix of land uses and densities, alternative forms of transportation and complete streets. Unknown commitment by 2020 - may be quantified during the toolbox process Not quantified South El Camino Real Corridor Visioning Study
Creating a complete street concept for El Camino Real that includes integration of bicycles, transit and automobiles. Transportation and Land Use Bike infrastructure The City proposed 34 miles of Class I-III bike lanes as part of the Bicycle Master Plan in the short-term, and another 19-23 miles in the long term. Unknown commitment by 2020 - may be quantified during the toolbox process Not quantified From Atascadero Bike Plan CAPCOA SDT-5 1% increase in share of workers commuting by bike for each additional mile of bike lane per square mile 320,640 VMT Assumes 1% bike mode share Accounts for short term only, as implementation would need to occur by 2020. Transportation and Land Use North County Regional Trail System Working with SLOCOG on the “North County Regional De Anza Trail Master Plan,” to create a safe and fully integrated off‐highway, multiuse trail system for recreationalists and commuters that connect all communities in North County. Unknown commitment by 2020 - may be quantified during the toolbox process Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero memo Supporting Measures: Emissions Category Measure Title Detailed Description Actual Measure or Commitment Emissions Reduction in 2020 (MTCO2e) Measure Source GHG Calculation Methodology Source Incremental Reduction (%) - Including Range Activity Data Units Assumptions Data Sources Energy (Municipal) PG&E Climate Smart Offset Program Energy use at City facilities was carbon neutral (program ended in December 31, 2011). Climate Smart program designed to make people aware of the challenges posed by climate change while also helping establish the infrastructure for a low carbon economy in California Program discontinued by PG&E Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero Energy (Municipal) Energy Conservation Policy The City Manager outlined Citywide Energy Conservation Measures, which was issued in September 2008 in order to cut City budget and operation costs. It is the City’s policy to always purchase energy efficient equipment and appliances. (10% reduction in combined usage of all City buildings shown between 2009 and 2011, with many facilities showing an energy reduction of 20% or more based on City operations and facility upgrades in just the past few years) For the purposes of the climate action plan, we will need to determine how this compares to 2005 baseline energy usage from the GHG inventory Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero Energy (Municipal) Energy Tracking The City benchmarks energy performance and water usage of Municipal Facilities to manage overall energy use and identify opportunities for energy savings. Monthly usage date within individual buildings & across entire building portfolio is automatically measured and tracked through Portfolio Manager Unknown commitment through 2020 - To be accounted for in climate action plan Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero Waste Reduction Citywide clean-up days Established program with local trash hauler to provide a location for two annual “Citywide clean-up days” for residents to recycle a variety of household waste at no cost Unknown commitment Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero Trees, Parks, and Open Space Landscape Ordinance Landscape minimums in multifamily & commercial zones & parking lots – increase green area, shade trees minimum spacing, min landscape percentages with all new developments. New landscape standards applies to all new development or major renovations permitted since 2005 Unknown commitment -Would need total number of net new trees excluding those planted as mitigation (those planted since 2005 to present and projected number to be planted through Not quantified Urban water management plan
2020) Trees and Other Vegetation Atascadero Native Tree Association (ANTA) Community-wide educational and awareness programs on importance of care and renewal of native forest, including celebrating Festival of Oaks each November and continually planting new trees Unknown commitment - Would need total number of net new trees excluding those planted as mitigation (those planted since 2005 to present and projected number to be planted through 2020) Not quantified Sustainability Activities in Atascadero Would need total number of net new trees excluding those planted as mitigation Transportation (Municipal) Vehicle Fleet Public Works has installed diesel emissions particulate filters on heavy duty diesel engines and permanently retired two old diesel vehicles, and the Fire Department tests all engines and command vehicles for emissions; two new engines exceed the 2007 EPA specs for trucks and heavy equipment Unknown commitment Does not reduce GHG emissions, only particulates Sustainability Activities in Atascadero
Attachment 6: Updated GHG Inventory
See Attached
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Community-Wide and Government Operations
2005 Baseline Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory Update
Prepared for:
SAN LUIS OBISPO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
Prepared by:
1530 MONTEREY STREET, SUITE D
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
UPDATED NOVEMBER 2012
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero
Credits and Acknowledgements
Report prepared by PMC in April 2010 and updated by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in November
2012 for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District on behalf of the City of
Atascadero.
2012 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE PROJECT TEAM
Richard Daulton, Principal, Rincon Consultants
Joe Power, Principal, Rincon Consultants
Shauna Callery, Project Manager, Rincon Consultants
Rob Fitzroy, Assistant Project Manager, Rincon Consultants
Chris Bersbach, Assistant Project Manager, Rincon Consultants
Christina McAdams, Associate, Rincon Consultants
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM:
Air Pollution Control District
Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control Officer
Aeron Arlin Genet, Planning & Outreach Manager
Melissa Guise, Air Quality Specialist
Dean Carlson, Air Quality Engineer
City of Atascadero
Warren Frace, Director, Community Development
Callie Taylor, Associate Planner
Geoff English, Deputy Director, Public Works
Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director
Justin Black, Chief Plant Operator, Public Works
Lori Brickley, Finance
Amanda Muether, Dispatch
County of San Luis Obispo
Janice Campbell, Agriculture Department
Atascadero Waste Alternatives
Mike LaBarbara, Municipal Marketing
Pacific Waste Services, Inc.
Jim Wyse, President
PG&E
Jillian Rich, Program Manager
Southern California Gas Company
Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor
ICLEI
Jonathan Strunin, Program Officer
Allison Culpen, Program Associate
IWMA
Peter Cron, Analyst
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Purpose of a GHG Inventory ..................................................................................... 8
1.2 Legislative Background ............................................................................................10
1.3 Planning Process .....................................................................................................12
1.4 Local Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation Activities ..................................13
1.5 Inventory Update .....................................................................................................15
2. Community and Government Operations Inventory Methodology ........................................16
2.1 Baseline and Forecast Years ...................................................................................16
2.2 The Two Inventories: Community-wide and City Government Operations ...............17
2.3 Data Collection and Methodology ............................................................................18
2.4 Data Sources ...........................................................................................................20
2.5 Data Limitations .......................................................................................................21
3. Community GHG Inventory Results .....................................................................................25
3.1 Community-Wide Emissions by Scope ....................................................................25
3.2 All Scope Emissions by Sector ................................................................................27
3.3 Transportation .........................................................................................................29
3.4 Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment ...........................................................................30
3.5 The Built Environment (Residential, Commercial, Industrial) ....................................32
3.6 Solid Waste .............................................................................................................34
3.7 Wastewater..............................................................................................................35
3.7 Community Emissions by Source ............................................................................36
3.8 Per Capita Emissions ..............................................................................................37
4. City Government Operations GHG Emissions Inventory Results .........................................38
4.1 City Government Operations Inventory Results .......................................................38
4.2 Building Sector ........................................................................................................39
4.3 Vehicle and Transit Fleet .........................................................................................40
4.4 Employee Commute ................................................................................................41
4.5 Streetlights and Traffic Signals ................................................................................43
4.6 Water and wastewater .............................................................................................43
4.7 Solid Waste .............................................................................................................45
4.8 City Emissions by Source ........................................................................................45
5. Forecast ..............................................................................................................................48
6. Conclusion and Next Steps .................................................................................................50
2005 BASELINE GREENH OUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page ii City of Atascadero
List of Figures
Figure ES-1: Community GHG Emissions by Sector,2005 ......................................................... 3
Figure ES-2: City Government Portion of Community-Wide GHG Emissions ............................. 4
Figure ES-3: City Government GHG Emissions by Secto, 2005 ................................................. 4
Figure ES-4: 2020 and 2025 Business-as-usual GHG Emissions Forecast ................................ 6
Figure ES-5: Business-as-usual Forecast in Relation to State-Recommended Target ............... 7
Figure 1-1: The Greenhouse Effect ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 1-2: California Climate Change Emissions and Targets ................................................11
Figure 1-3: Planning Process ....................................................................................................13
Figure 2-1: Relationship Between Community-wide and City Government Inventories..............18
Figure 2-2: GHG Emissions Scopes ..........................................................................................19
Figure 3-1: Community GHG Emissions by Scope, 2005 ..........................................................26
Figure 3-2: Community GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ..........................................................28
Figure 3-3: Community GHG Emissions by Fuel Source ...........................................................29
Figure 3-4: Off-Road GHG Emissions by Equipment Type ........................................................31
Figure 3-5: Off-Road GHG Emissions by Fuel Type ..................................................................31
Figure 3-6: Built Environment GHG Emissions by Sector ..........................................................32
Figure 3-7: Built Environment GHG Emissions by Source .........................................................32
Figure 3-8: Residential GHG Emissions by Source ...................................................................33
Figure 3-9: Commerical/industrial GHG Emissions by Source ...................................................33
Figure 3-10: Waste GHG Emissions by Type ............................................................................35
Figure 3-11: Community GHG Emissions by Source, 2005 .......................................................36
Figure 4-1: City Government Contribution to Community-Wide GHG Emissions .......................38
Figure 4-2: City Government GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ................................................38
Figure 4-3: Building GHG Emissions by Source ........................................................................39
Figure 4-4: Vehicle Fleet Fuel Consumption per Year by Type .................................................41
Figure 4-5: GHG Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................................44
Figure 4-6: City Government GHG Emissions by Source, 2005 ................................................47
Figure 4-7: City Government GHG Emissions by Sector with Wastewater Treatment Plant
Removed ..................................................................................................................................47
Figure 5-1: 2020 and 2025 Projected Growth in Community-wide GHG Emissions ...................48
Figure 6-1: GHG Forecast in Relation to Reduction Targets .....................................................51
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page iii
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Community GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ......................................................... 3
Table ES-2: City Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ............................. 5
Table 2-1: Data Sources for Community Analysis, 2005 ...........................................................20
Table 2-2: Data Sources for City Government Operations Analysis, 2005 .................................21
Table 3-1: Community GHG Emissions Sources by Scope and Sector, 2005 ...........................26
Table 3-2: Community GHG Emissions per Sector per Scope, 2005 .........................................27
Table 3-3: Community GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ..........................................................28
Table 3-4: Transportation GHG Emissions by Fuel Source .......................................................29
Table 3-5: County-wide Equipment Type Indicators ..................................................................30
Table 3-6: Off-Road GHG Emissions by Equipment Type .........................................................31
Table 3-7: Off-Road GHG Emissions by Fuel Type ...................................................................32
Table 3-8: Residential GHG Emissions by Source ....................................................................33
Table 3-9: Commercial/Industrial GHG Emissions Sources.......................................................34
Table 3-10: Waste GHG Emissions by Waste Type ..................................................................35
Table 3-11: Community GHG Emissions by Source ..................................................................37
Table 4-1: City Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ...............................39
Table 4-2: Building Sector GHG Emissions by Source, 2005 ....................................................40
Table 4-3: Days of City Employee Travel by Commute Mode ...................................................42
Table 4-4: Employee Commute VMT by Vehicle and Fuel Type ...............................................43
Table 4-5: City Government Operations GHG Emissions by Source ........................................46
2005 BASELINE GREENH OUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page iv City of Atascadero
Appendices
Appendix A: CACP2009 Detailed Report for Community-Wide Emissions, 2005
Appendix B: CACP2009 Detailed Report for City Government Operations Emissions, 2005
Appendix C: Detailed Methodology for Community-Wide Inventory
Appendix D: Detailed Methodology for City Government Operations Inventory
Appendix E: City Employee Commute Survey, 2009
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 1
Executive Summary
A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory identifies the
major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced by
community activities and City government facilities and
operations within a jurisdiction‟s boundaries for a given year.
Estimating GHG emissions enables local governments to
establish an emissions baseline, track emissions trends, identify
the greatest sources of GHG emissions within their jurisdiction,
set targets for future reductions, and create an informed
mitigation strategy based on this information.
This Inventory includes a 2005 baseline inventory of GHG
emissions from community activities and City government
facilities and operations within the city1, and a 2020 and 2025
business-as-usual forecast of how emissions in Atascadero
would change if no further actions are implemented to reduce
those emissions. It is important to note that the City government
operations inventory is a subset of the community inventory,
meaning that the city government‟s emissions are included within
the community inventory.
The community inventory is divided into six sectors, or sources of
emissions: transportation, residential energy use, commercial
and industrial energy use, solid waste, off-road vehicles and
equipment, and wastewater. The City government inventory
provides a more detailed analysis of emissions resulting from
City-owned or -operated buildings, fleet vehicles, and lighting;
water and sewage transport; City-generated solid waste; and employee commute travel.
INVENTORY UPDATE PURPOSE
In 2010, PMC prepared an inventory of Atascadero‟s 2005 community-wide and City
government emissions. Changes to GHG accounting protocols have prompted an update to the
1 In this report, the term “city” refers to the area inside the jurisdictional boundary of the City of
Atascadero, whereas “City government” refers to those activities which are under the operational control
of City agencies.
What are Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (GHGs)?
Gases that trap heat in the
Earth‟s atmosphere are called
greenhouse gases, or GHGs.
GHGs include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, and
fluorinated gases. While
many of these gases occur
naturally in the atmosphere,
modern human activity has
led to a steep increase in the
amount of GHGs released
into the atmosphere over the
last 100 years. Collectively,
these gases intensify the
natural greenhouse effect,
thus causing global average
surface temperatures to rise,
which in turn affects global
climate patterns. GHGs are
often quantified in terms of
CO2 equivalent, or CO2e, a
unit of measurement that
equalizes the potency of
GHGs.
Source: Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC),
2007
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 2 City of Atascadero
emissions inventory and in 2012 Rincon Consultants conducted a peer-review and update to the
Inventory. This Inventory is the updated assessment of GHG emissions in Atascadero.
Rincon updated the Inventory methodology, emissions coefficients, and data for consistency
with current protocols, including the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1
(May 2010), for the city government inventory, and the Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP) California Community-wide GHG Baseline Inventory Protocol (AEP
Protocol) (June 2011) and ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis
Protocol (IEAP) (October 2009), for the community-wide inventory. Rincon also updated the
Inventory to include all emissions sectors within the discretionary action authority of the City.
The primary additions and revisions to the updated Inventory include the following:
Calculation of emissions from additional off-road vehicle and equipment categories (lawn
and garden equipment, construction equipment, industrial equipment, and light
commercial equipment) for the community-wide inventory.
Incorporation of improved emissions factors from the LGOP version 1.1.
Incorporation of a refined methodology for on-road transportation emissions. The 2012
methodology estimates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on an origin-destination
approach using the regional travel demand model and excludes vehicle trips that pass
through the city. Transportation-related GHG emissions were then calculated using the
California Air Resources Board Emissions Factor 2011 (EMFAC2011) software.
Corrections to baseline electricity and natural gas consumption data, and waste stream
profile data.
Inclusion of updated population and employment projections using the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments‟ (SLOCOG) 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast
(August 2011).2
As a result of this Inventory update, Atascadero‟s community-wide 2005 baseline emissions
decreased by 34,806 metric tons CO2e and 2020 forecast decreased by 55,159 metric tons
CO2e compared to the April 2010 inventory.
2 SLOCOG‟s 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast includes population, housing, and
employment projections developed based on an analysis of historic growth and economic trends. See
San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (August 2011) for details.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 3
COMMUNITY-WIDE GHG INVENTORY RESULTS
The community of Atascadero emitted approximately 141,428 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) emissions in the baseline year 2005. As shown in Figure ES-1 and Table
ES-1, the transportation sector was by far the largest contributor to emissions (42.5%),
producing approximately 60,041 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. Transportation sector emissions
are the result of diesel and gasoline fuel used in
vehicles traveling on local roads and state
highways within the jurisdictional boundaries of
Atascadero. Emissions from electricity and
natural gas consumed in the residential sector
were the next largest contributor (28.8%),
producing approximately 40,690 metric tons of
CO2e. Electricity and natural gas consumed in
the commercial and industrial sector accounted
for a combined 14.3% of the total. Emissions
from solid waste comprised 6.4% of the total,
emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment
comprised 6.1% of the total, and emissions from
wastewater facilities comprised 1.9% of the total.
TABLE ES-1: COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005
2005
Community
Emissions
by Sector
Residential Commercial/
Industrial Transportation
Off-
Road Waste Waste
water TOTAL
CO2e
(metric tons) 40,690 20,271 60,041 8,686 9,083 2,657 141,428
Percentage of
Total CO2e 28.8% 14.3% 42.5% 6.1% 6.4% 1.9% 100.0%
FIGURE ES-1: COMMUNITY GHG
EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 4 City of Atascadero
CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS GHG INVENTORY RESULTS
City government operations and facilities produced approximately 4,130 metric tons of CO2e in
2005. As displayed in Table ES-2 and Figure ES-2, this represents approximately 2.9% of total
community-wide emissions in the city. City government emissions result from waste, energy
consumption from water and wastewater facilities, buildings, streetlights and other facilities, fuel
consumption by the vehicle and transit fleet and employee commutes, and miscellaneous
equipment. The largest contributor to the City‟s emissions (70.8%) was from the wastewater
facilities producing 2,923 metric tons of CO2e. The vehicle fleet was the second largest
contributor to the City‟s emissions (9.7%), producing 402 metric tons of CO2e (refer to Figure
ES-3 and Table ES-2).
City government operations emissions are a subset of the total community-wide emissions as
outlined above. However, similar to the way in which businesses and factories perform their own
facility-scale GHG Inventories, this Inventory analyzes City emissions separately to identify
opportunities for cost-savings and emissions-reductions in the future. The methodology for
estimating emissions from local government operations is guided specifically by the LGOP
version 1.1 developed by the California Air Resources Board, ICLEI – Local Governments for
Sustainability, and the California Climate Registry.
FIGURE ES-3: CITY GOVERNMENT
GHG EMISSIONS BY
SECTOR, 2005
FIGURE ES-2: CITY GOVERNMENT
PORTION OF COMMUNITY-WIDE
GHG EMISSIONS
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 5
TABLE ES-2: CITY GOVERNMENT GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005
2005
Emissions
by Sector
Buildings
&
Facilities
Vehicle
Fleet
Transit
Fleet
Employee
Commute
Street
Lights &
Traffic
Signals
Water
Delivery
Waste-
water
Facilities
Solid
Waste TOTAL
CO2e (metric
tons) 316 402 214 185 40 1 2,923 49 4,130
Percentage
of CO2e 7.6% 9.7% 5.2% 4.5% 1.0% <0.0% 70.8% 1.2% 100.0%
DATA LIMITATIONS
This Inventory captures the major sources of GHGs caused by activities within the city per
standard practice. However, it is important to note that some likely emission sources were not
included in the Inventory, either because of privacy laws, lack of data, or a lack of reasonable
methodology for calculating emissions. It is estimated that the sources not included in the
inventory comprise less than 5.0% of total emissions in the city. It is likely that as GHG
inventories become more common, methodology and accessibility to data will improve.
The sources that could not be included due to privacy laws, lack of data availability, and/or a
reasonable methodology include the following:
Refrigerants from City government operations, facilities, and vehicles, and the
community-at-large
Freight and passenger trains;
Propane, wind or solar energy consumed by the community-at-large; and
Residential septic tanks systems.
These limitations are explained further in this document.
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL FORECAST
The GHG emissions forecast provides a “business-as-usual estimate,” or scenario, of how
emissions will change in the year 2020 and 2025 if consumption trends and behavior continue
as they did in 2005, absent any new federal, state, regional, or local policies or actions that
would reduce emissions. The year 2020 was selected for the forecast in order to maintain
consistency with AB 32. As shown in Figure ES-4 and Figure ES-5, if consumption trends
continue the pattern observed in 2005 emissions (i.e., under business-as-usual conditions) will
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 6 City of Atascadero
reach 172,488 metric tons of CO2e by 2020, or a 22.0% increase over 2005 baseline levels
(projections based on population and employment growth). By 2025 emissions will reach
185,402 metric tons of CO2e, or a 31.1% increase over 2005 baseline levels.
FIGURE ES-4: 2020 AND 2025 CITY OF ATASCADERO
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST
With this information, the City can make an informed determination regarding a reduction target.
Conformance with the State of California‟s recommended reduction of 15% below present levels
by 2020 would require a 30.3% reduction below the City‟s business-as-usual emissions (refer to
Figure ES-5).3
3 AB 32 Scoping Plan, page 27 states that the California Air Resources Board encourages local
governments to “move toward establishing similar goals for community emissions that parallel the State
commitment to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels by 2020.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 7
FIGURE ES-5: BUSINESS-AS-USUAL FORECAST IN RELATION TO
STATE-RECOMMENDED REDUCTION TARGET
Business-as-
usual forecast
172,488 metric
tons CO2e by
2020; 185,402
metric tons
CO2e by 2025
2005 baseline
levels =
141,428 metric
tons CO2e
15% below 2005
baseline levels =
120,214 metric
tons CO2e by
2020
Actual
Reduction
= 52,274
metric
tons CO2e
(30.3%) by
2020
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 8 City of Atascadero
1. Introduction
This section introduces the Inventory, defines key terms used throughout the Inventory, and
provides an overview of climate change science and regulation in California.
1.1 PURPOSE OF A GHG INVENTORY
This Inventory represents completion of the first step in the City‟s climate protection process.
Quantifying recent-year emissions is essential to establish: (1) a baseline against which to
measure future emission levels, and (2) an understanding of where the highest percentages of
emissions are coming from, and, therefore, the greatest opportunities for emissions reductions.
This Inventory presents estimates of GHG emissions in 2005 resulting from the community as a
whole.
Climate Change Background
Scientific consensus holds that the world‟s
population is releasing GHGs faster than the
earth‟s natural systems can absorb them.
These gases are released as byproducts of
fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal,
energy use, land-use changes, and other
human activities. This release of gases,
such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), creates a
blanket around the earth that allows light to
pass through but traps heat at the surface
preventing its escape into space (Figure 1-
1). Known as the greenhouse effect, models
show that this phenomenon could lead to a
2oF to 10oF temperature increase over the
next 100 years. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities.4
Although used interchangeably, there is a difference between the terms “climate change” and
“global warming.” According to the State, climate change refers to “any long-term change in
4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I. 2007.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers.
FIGURE 1-1:
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Source: Tufts University
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 9
average climate conditions in a place or region, whether due to natural causes or as a result of
human activities.5 The use of the term “climate change” is becoming more prevalent because it
encompasses all changes to the climate, not just temperature. Additionally, the term “climate
change” conveys temporality, implying that climate change can be slowed with the efforts of
local, regional, state, national, and world entities.
Changes in the earth‟s temperature will have impacts for residents and businesses in the City of
Atascadero. Some of the major impacts to the Central Coast expected to occur include the
following, separated by sector.6 7
Coastline: The San Luis Obispo County coastline could face inundation as a result of
sea level rise and global warming. As temperatures rise, the ocean waters rise as well
due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and snowpack. The state‟s 2009
Climate Change Impacts Assessment (the 2009 Scenarios Project) estimates that sea
levels will rise by 12 to 18 inches by 2050 and 21 to 55 inches by 2100. This level of sea
rise has the potential to negatively affect groundwater salination as well as the size and
attractiveness of local beaches, which could affect property values and the tourism
industry in the county;
Reduced Water Supply: The 2009 Scenarios Project estimates a decrease in
precipitation of 12 to 35% by 2050. In addition, more precipitation will fall as rain rather
than snow, which will cause snow to melt earlier in the year and not in the warmer, drier
months when water is in higher demand;
Agriculture: Climate change could cause a shift in the type and location of agriculture in
the area. As saltwater intrudes into coastal aquifers and groundwater resources
decrease, it is possible that some crops will be forced out of the area, which affects the
local economy and food supply. Water supplies to agriculture may be 20 to 23% below
demand targets between 2020 and 2050;
Public Health: Climate change could potentially threaten the health of residents of
Atascadero. Heat waves may have a major impact on public health, as will decreasing
5 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft.
August 2009.
6 California Climate Change Center. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California (2006),
www.climatechange.ca.gov
7 Governor‟s Office of Planning and Research. Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. April 2009.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 10 City of Atascadero
air quality and an increase in mosquito breeding and mosquito-borne diseases. There is
also expected to be an increase in allergenic plant pollen and an increase in the
frequency of wildfires.
Although climate change is a global issue, local governments can make a positive impact
through cumulative local action. Cities and counties have the ability to reduce GHG emissions
through effective land use and transportation planning, wise waste management, and the
efficient use of energy. The City can achieve multiple benefits including lower energy bills,
improved air quality, economic development, reduced emissions, and better quality of life
through:
Energy efficiency in City facilities and vehicle fleet;
Sustainable purchasing and waste reduction efforts;
Land use and transportation planning; and
Efficient management of water resources.
This Inventory serves as a baseline measurement for implementing and tracking the
effectiveness of these efforts.
1.2 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
California continues to be a leader in addressing climate change in the United States and in the
world. In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a landmark Executive Order
establishing progressive GHG emissions targets for the entire state. Executive Order (EO) S-3-
05 makes the following goals:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.
To support these reduction targets, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). The law requires the California Air Resources
Board to develop regulatory and market mechanisms that will reduce GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 as shown in Figure 1-2 below. To achieve this goal, the California Air Resources
Board developed a set of early action measures in 2007 for priority implementation in 2010.
These early action measures became part of the AB 32 implementation plan, or Scoping Plan,
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 11
approved in December 2008. The Scoping Plan identifies a variety of GHG reduction activities
including direct regulations, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-
based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade, and an implementation fee regulation to fund the
program. The Scoping Plan also identifies local governments as “essential partners” and calls
for cities and counties to adopt GHG reduction targets consistent with AB 32.
FIGURE 1-2: CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CHANGE
EMISSIONS AND TARGETS
In support of the AB 32 reduction targets, California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 97 in August
2007, which formally acknowledges that climate change is an important environmental issue
that requires analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In response to SB
97, the Governor‟s Office of Planning and Research submitted their proposed amendments to
the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions in April 2009. The amendments provide guidance to
public agencies regarding the analysis of mitigation and the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA
CAT Report Emissions
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990 2000 2010 2020 2050
YearMillion Metric Tons (CO2 Equivalent)1990 Emission Baseline
80% Reduction
~341 MMTCO2E
~174 MMTCO2E Reduction
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 12 City of Atascadero
documents. The Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the amendments in
December 2009.8
At the same time, the State is working to form regional approaches to reducing GHG emissions
in response to the passage of SB 375. SB 375 aims to reduce GHG emissions by linking
transportation funding to land use planning. It also requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, including the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, to include a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for reducing VMT.
The bill also creates incentives for implementation of SCSs and sustainable transportation
plans.
Additional efforts are underway for the overall transportation sector by mandating fewer
emissions from vehicles, including Assembly Bill 1493, signed into law in 2002, which will
require carmakers to reduce emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in
2009. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the new emissions standards
in June 2009.
The State is also preparing for climate change resiliency in order to adapt to the inevitable
effects of climate change. In November 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive
Order S-13-08 which asked the Natural Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can
respond to rising temperature, changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and extreme
natural events. The order requires the Natural Resources Agency to develop a Climate
Adaptation Strategy to analyze climate change impacts to the state and recommend strategies
to manage those threats. The Natural Resources Agency released the Climate Adaptation
Strategy in 2009.
1.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) provides a framework for local communities to
identify and reduce GHG emissions, organized along six steps as represented in Figure 1-3
below. 9
8 Governor‟s Office of Planning and Research. Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. April 2009.
9 California Air Resources Board. Local Government Toolkit, http://www.coolcalifornia.org/local-
government
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 13
FIGURE 1-3: PLANNING PROCESS
This report represents the completion of the first step, and provides a foundation for future work
to reduce GHG emissions in the City of Atascadero.
1.4 LOCAL CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
Many of the air pollution programs already in place throughout San Luis Obispo County reduce
ozone forming pollutants and toxic emissions, but they also have ancillary benefits and reduce
GHG emissions. The County, cities, and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) implement
rules and regulations, clean fuels programs, CEQA mitigation measures, grants, the
Transportation Choices Program, pollution prevention activities, energy efficiency and
conservation measures, water conservation programs, partnerships, and general public
outreach that directly or indirectly address climate change and reduce GHG emissions.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 14 City of Atascadero
The APCD Board approved the first report or plan to address climate change in the county. The
plan, (Options for Addressing Climate Change in San Luis Obispo County (2005)) identifies the
following seven actions that could be implemented to specifically address GHGs at the local
level:
1) Prepare a countywide inventory of GHG emissions;
2) Target a percentage of mitigation grant funds for GHG emission reductions;
3) Evaluate and quantify the GHG reduction benefits from existing district programs;
4) Develop public education and outreach campaigns on climate change;
5) Encourage and provide support for local governments to join the Cities for Climate
Protection program;
6) Develop partnership with Cal Poly for addressing climate change; and
7) Join the California Climate Registry and encourage local industry participation.
As of November 2008, the APCD has initiated, promoted, or supported all of the implementation
actions to address climate change and reduction of GHG emissions in the county. The APCD
joined the California Climate Registry and conducted its GHG emissions inventory in the fall of
2008. The APCD facilitates regular meetings of Climate Change Stakeholders, a local group of
city and county representatives that shares resources to address climate change. To encourage
and support local GHG emissions inventories, the APCD is providing technical assistance to all
of the incorporated cities to assist or perform GHG government operations and community-wide
emissions inventories, similar to this Inventory, for all of the incorporated cities in San Luis
Obispo County.
The APCD also coordinates the Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition (C5). C5 is a partnership of
public/private entities whose goal is to promote the use of alternative fuels vehicles (AFV) on the
Central Coast. By working with area fleet operators, C5 sponsors training seminars, public
events, and grant funding workshops related to use of alternative fuels.
The City of Atascadero has been pursuing energy efficiencies through measures such as:
Construction of new and improvement of existing bike lanes and sidewalks through the
Safe Routes to School Program to encourage walking and biking to schools (ongoing);
The construction of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and multi-use trails throughout the City
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 15
Adoption of Native Tree Ordinance (1998);
Native tree reforestation projects at various sites throughout the City;
Partnership with SLO Green Build to promote energy efficiency in new development;
Joined PG&E‟s Climate Smart Program to purchase carbon credits to offset emissions
from City Hall;
Replacement of high pressure sodium light bulbs with energy efficient light emitting
diodes (LED) bulbs in street and traffic lights;
Development of a solar financing district through AB 811 to encourage the installation of
solar panels and reduce dependence on traditional energy sources (ongoing); and
Development of a Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance (2009).
1.5 INVENTORY UPDATE
In 2010, PMC prepared an inventory of Atascadero‟s 2005 community-wide and City
government emissions. Changes to GHG accounting protocols have prompted an update to the
emissions inventory and in 2012 Rincon Consultants conducted a peer-review and update to the
Inventory. This Inventory is the updated assessment of GHG emissions in Atascadero.
Rincon updated the Inventory methodology, emissions coefficients, and data for consistency
with current protocols, including the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1
(May 2010), for the city government inventory, and the Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP) California Community-wide GHG Baseline Inventory Protocol (AEP
Protocol) (June 2011) and ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis
Protocol (IEAP) (October 2009), for the community-wide inventory. Rincon also updated the
Inventory to include all emissions sectors within the discretionary action authority of the City.
The primary additions and revisions to the updated Inventory include the following:
Calculation of emissions from additional off-road vehicle and equipment categories (lawn
and garden equipment, construction equipment, industrial equipment, and light
commercial equipment) for the community-wide inventory.
Incorporation of improved emissions factors from the LGOP version 1.1.
Incorporation of a refined methodology for on-road transportation emissions. The 2012
methodology estimates VMT based on an origin-destination approach using the regional
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 16 City of Atascadero
travel demand model and excludes vehicle trips that pass through the city.
Transportation-related GHG emissions were then calculated using the California Air
Resources Board Emissions Factor 2011 (EMFAC2011) software.
Corrections to baseline electricity and natural gas consumption data, and waste stream
profile data.
Inclusion of updated population and employment projections using the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments‟ (SLOCOG) 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast
(August 2011).
As a result of the Inventory update, Atascadero‟s community-wide 2005 baseline emissions
decreased by 34,806 metric tons CO2e and 2020 forecast decreased by 55,159 metric tons
CO2e compared to the April 2010 inventory. This decrease was a result of the refined
methodology for calculating on-road VMT and transportation emissions.
2. Community and Government Operations Inventory
Methodology
The first step toward reducing GHG emissions is to identify baseline levels and sources of
emissions in the city. This information can later inform the selection of a reduction target and
possible reduction measures to be included in a climate action plan.
This section outlines the methodology used to calculate the community and City government
operations10 inventories, including the difference between the two inventories, and the data
collection process, data sources, GHG emission scopes, data limitations, and means of
calculation.
2.1 BASELINE AND FORECAST YEARS
The year 2005 was selected as the baseline year for the Inventory due to the availability of
reliable data and consistency with other cities in San Luis Obispo County. The State of
California uses 1990 as a reference year to remain consistent with the Kyoto Protocol, and also
because it has well-kept records of transportation trends and energy consumption in that year.
However, cities and counties throughout California typically elect to use 2005 or 2006 as a
10 In this report, the term “city” refers to the incorporated area (the jurisdictional boundary of the City of
Atascadero), whereas “City” refers to those activities that are under the operational control of City
agencies. “Community-wide” or “community” refers to all activities within the city (as defined above),
including those from businesses, industrial processes, residents, vehicles, and City government
operations.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 17
baseline year because of the more reliable recordkeeping from those years and because of the
large amount of growth that has occurred since 1990.
This Inventory uses a forecast year of 2020 to be consistent with the State of California GHG
Inventory11 forecast year and AB 32 target, both of which reference 2020. In addition, it is likely
that any forecast considerably beyond 2020 would have a significant margin of error because of
unknown population growth rates and new technology. The business-as-usual forecast has also
been extended to 2025 in consideration of the City‟s General Plan Horizon.
2.2 THE TWO INVENTORIES: COMMUNITY-WIDE AND CITY GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS
This Inventory is separated into two sections, community-wide and City government operations.
It is important to note that the City government operations inventory is a subset of the
community inventory, meaning that all City government operations are included in the
commercial/industrial, transportation, waste, or “other” categories of the community-wide
inventory. The City‟s government operations inventory should not be added to the community
analysis; rather it should be looked at as a slice of the complete picture as illustrated in Figure
2-1. Although City operations are a small contributor to the community‟s overall emissions
levels, an inventory allows the City to track its individual facilities and vehicles and to evaluate
the effectiveness of its emissions reduction efforts at a more detailed level.
11 California Greenhouse Gas Inventory, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 18 City of Atascadero
FIGURE 2-1: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY-WIDE AND
CITY GOVERNMENT INVENTORIES
Once completed, these inventories provide the basis for policy development, the quantification
of emissions reductions associated with proposed measures, the creation of an emissions
forecast, and the establishment of an informed emissions reduction target.
2.3 DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
Creating the community and City government operations emissions inventories required the
collection of information from a variety of sources. Sources for community data included the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the Southern California Gas Company, Caltrans, the
California Air Resources Board, Cal-Recycle, and the County of San Luis Obispo. City
government operations data sources included PG&E, the Southern California Gas Company,
Atascadero Waste Alternatives, and documentation from multiple City departments including
Planning, Public Works, Finance, Police, Fire, and more. Data from the year 2005 were used in
both inventories, with the following exceptions:
A subset of waste data by type was not available for 2005, therefore this study utilizes a
California statewide waste characterization study conducted in 2003-2004;
City employee commuting trips were calculated using an employee survey conducted in
2009; and
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 19
Propane, wind and solar power used in both the community-wide and City government
inventories.
For community activities and City operations, emissions sources are categorized by scope.
Scopes help us identify where emissions originate from and what entity retains regulatory
control and the ability to implement efficiency measures. The scopes are illustrated in Figure 2-
2 and defined as follows:
Scope 1. Direct emissions sources located within the community, mostly from the
combustion of fuels. Examples of Scope 1 sources include use of fuels such as gasoline
and natural gas.
Scope 2. Indirect emissions that result because of activities within the community,
limited to electricity, district heating, steam and cooling consumption. An example of a
Scope 2 source is purchased electricity used within the community. These emissions
should be included in the community-wide analysis, as they are the result of the
community's electricity consumption.
Scope 3. All other indirect emissions that occur as a result of activity within the
community. Examples of Scope 3 emissions include methane emissions from solid
waste generated within the community which decomposes at landfills either inside or
outside of the community.
FIGURE 2-2: GHG EMISSIONS SCOPES
Source: NZBCSD (2002), The Challenge of GHG Emissions: the “why” and “how” of accounting and reporting for GHG
emissions: An Industry Guide, New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, Auckland.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 20 City of Atascadero
Appendices A and B of this report separate the community and City government operations
emissions by scope. Each sector is labeled with a 1, 2, or 3 that corresponds to the scopes
above.
2.4 DATA SOURCES
The data used to complete this Inventory came from multiple sources, as summarized in Tables
2-1 and 2-2. Utility providers supplied electricity and natural gas consumption data associated
with commercial, industrial, residential, and City government buildings in 2005. Vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) was provided by Fehr and Peers and calculated using SLOCOG‟s Regional
Travel Demand model. These data sources are further explained in the sector-specific
discussions of this document.
TABLE 2-1: DATA SOURCES FOR COMMUNITY ANALYSIS, 2005
Sector Information Unit of
Measurement Data Source
Residential
Electricity consumption kWh PG&E
Natural gas
consumption Therms Southern California Gas
Company
Commercial/Industrial
Electricity consumption kWh PG&E
Natural gas
consumption Therms Southern California Gas
Company
Transportation VMT excluding pass
through trips
Average Weekday Daily
VMT Fehr & Peers
Off-Road Vehicles
and Equipment
Emissions from off-road
equipment
Tons/year of N2O, CO2,
and CH4
California Air Resources
Board OFFROAD2007
model
Solid Waste
Solid waste tonnage
sent to landfill from
activities in City of
Atascadero
Short tons
San Luis Obispo
Integrated Waste
Management Board
Wastewater
Treatment
Methane and nitrous
oxide released in the
wastewater treatment
process
Tonnes
Public Works
Department Data
Records
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 21
TABLE 2-2: DATA SOURCES FOR CITY GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS, 2005
Sector Information Unit of
Measurement Data Source
Buildings & Facilities
Electricity consumption kWh PG&E
Natural gas
consumption Therms Southern California Gas
Company
Vehicle Fleet
Diesel consumption and
corresponding vehicle
type
Gallons Billing Records
Gasoline consumption
and corresponding
vehicle type
Gallons Billing Records
Employee Commute Sample of employee
commuting patterns Annual VMT Commuter Survey (June
2009)
Streetlights Electricity consumption kWh PG&E
Water/Sewage
Electricity consumption kWh PG&E
Methane and nitrous
oxide released in the
wastewater treatment
process
Tonnes
Public Works
Department Data
Records
Waste Annual waste tonnage
sent to landfill Short Tons Atascadero Waste
Alternatives
2.5 DATA LIMITATIONS
It is important to note that calculating community-wide GHG emissions with precision is a
complicated task. The ICLEI Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP2009) software relies on
numerous assumptions and is limited by the quantity and quality of available data. Because of
these limitations it is useful to think of any specific number generated by the model as an
approximation of reality, rather than an exact value. The city‟s actual 2005 GHG emissions are
likely to be slightly greater than what are reported in this document due to three main factors: (1)
data limitations, (2) privacy laws, and (3) a lack of a reasonable methodology to collect or model
emissions data. The following paragraphs highlight emissions that cannot be included in a GHG
Inventory under current science and policy direction, or due to lack of reliable data.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 22 City of Atascadero
Data Limitations
Lack of available data prevented the calculation of emissions from community-wide freight and
passenger trains, off-road vehicles and equipment, propane use, and City government
operations refrigerants. For rail and port, as well as equipment emissions, the California Air
Resources Board OFFROAD 2007 software provides emissions data; however, these numbers
are aggregated for the entire San Luis Obispo County area, including incorporated,
unincorporated, and state or federally owned land.
Lack of data availability also prevents the calculation of emissions from propane (liquefied
petroleum gas, or LPG) created within the city‟s boundaries. Propane is basically an
unregulated fuel in California (except for storage and safety issues which are regulated).
Because it is an unregulated commodity, no data is collected by the state on propane sales or
usage. Another sector that was excluded from the inventory is City government operations
refrigerants.
The City of Atascadero made a best effort to gather data on the amount of refrigerants
consumed by fleet vehicles, HVAC systems, and City government operations facilities; however
City records were not suited to this purpose. It is recommended that the City look into amending
its record keeping so that the amount of refrigerants purchased and consumed within a year is
recorded.
Privacy Laws
This Inventory does not separately analyze site-level emissions from specific sources such as
refineries or large industrial emitters. The emissions from industrial energy consumption and
related transportation are included under the commercial/industrial category, but will not be
analyzed independently as part of this Inventory for two reasons:
1) State privacy laws prevent us from obtaining site-level energy consumption data from
utility providers. Notably the California Public Utilities Commission 15/15 rule12 prevents
us from analyzing industrial emissions separately from commercial emissions.
2) It is the responsibility of the emitter, whether it is a large refinery or household, to
perform its own energy audit and subsequent reduction process. Efforts to require site-
level energy audits and GHG emissions reporting are being continually expanded and
12 Commercial and Industrial Electricity and Natural Gas were combined into one section due to the
California 15/15 rule. The 15/15 rule was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission in the
Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 23
required by the California Climate Action Registry, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and California Air Resources Board.
Lack of a Reasonable Methodology
There is a lack of reasonable methodology for estimating life cycle emissions for the community
and, therefore, emissions associated with the production and disposal of items consumed by a
community are not included in the Inventory. For instance, a life cycle assessment would
estimate the emissions associated with the planning, production, delivery, and disposal of each
car currently in the city. In contrast, this analysis only captures how much that car drives within
the city.
Despite these limitations, the CACP2009 software13 and ICLEI methodology provide the best-
available snapshot of the city‟s GHG emissions. Additionally, the CACP2009 tool is utilized to
promote consistency among municipalities throughout the country and the world. Sector-specific
data limitations or methodological issues are explained thoroughly in Appendices C and D.
However, it is important to note that the emissions identified in this report are primarily GHGs
that the community has directly caused and has the ability to reduce through implementation of
conservation actions, a Climate Action Plan, or corresponding efforts.
2.6 CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE PROTECTION SOFTWARE 2009
The City government operations and community-wide inventories use the CACP2009 software
package developed by ICLEI in partnership with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA) and Torrie Smith Associates. This software calculates emissions resulting from energy
consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and waste generation. The CACP2009 software calculates
emissions using specific factors (or coefficients) according to the type of fuel used.
CACP2009 aggregates and reports the three main GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and
converts them to equivalent carbon dioxide units, or CO2e. Equalizing the three main GHG
emissions as CO2e allows for the consideration of different GHGs in comparable terms. For
example, methane (CH4) is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per weight basis in
13 The CACP2009 software 2009 was developed by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (SAPPA/ALAPCO), the
International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI), and Torrie Smith Associates.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 24 City of Atascadero
its capacity to trap heat, so the CACP2009 software converts one metric ton of methane
emissions to 21 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.14
The emissions coefficients and quantification method employed by the CACP2009 software are
consistent with national and international inventory standards established by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines for the
Preparation of National Inventories) and the U.S. Voluntary GHG Reporting Guidelines (EIA
form1605).
14 The potency of a given gas in heating the atmosphere is defined as its Global Warming Potential, or
GWP. For more information on GWP see: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 2,
Section 2.10.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 25
3. Community GHG Inventory Results
The City of Atascadero contains primarily residential and commercial land uses. In the 2005
baseline year, there were approximately 25,940 people, 8,550 jobs, and 10,505 households in
the city.15 The following section provides an overview of the emissions caused by activities
within the jurisdictional boundary of the city and analyzes the emissions in terms of scope,
sector, source, and population.
3.1 COMMUNITY-WIDE EMISSIONS BY SCOPE
Although there are countless items that can be included in a
community-wide emissions inventory, as discussed in Chapter
2, this Inventory includes Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3
sources from the following sectors, consistent with the ICLEI
protocol:
Residential
Commercial / Industrial
Transportation
Waste
Wastewater
Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Emissions.
Table 3-1 summarizes the scopes of each sector in this analysis.
15 Baseline population, household, and job data for the year 2005 was obtained from SLOCOG‟s Long
Range Socio-Economic Projections (Year 2030), prepared by Economics Research Associates (July
2006 Revision).
What are Scopes?
The key principles to
remember are that Scope 1
emissions are caused by
activities within the city and
emitted within the city (fuel
combustion), while Scope 2
emissions are caused by
activities within the city, but
most likely are emitted
outside of the city (electricity).
Scope 3 emissions are
indirect emissions, such as
waste decomposition.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 26 City of Atascadero
TABLE 3-1: COMMUNITY-WIDE GHG EMISSIONS SOURCES BY SCOPE
AND SECTOR
Sector Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
Residential Natural Gas Electricity ---
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Electricity ---
Transportation Gasoline & Diesel --- ---
Off-Road Vehicles and
Equipment
Gasoline, Diesel &
Compressed Natural
Gas
Waste --- --- Methane from
Decomposition
Wastewater Methane from Water
Treatment Processes
Including all sectors and scopes, the community
emitted approximately 141,428 metric tons of
CO2e in 2005. As shown in Figure 3-1 and Table
3-2, the majority of community GHG emissions
were Scope 1 (73.0%), with Scope 2 (20.6%) and
Scope 3 (6.4%) constituting the remainder.
The largest portion of Scope 1 emissions came
from the transportation sector (refer to Table 3-2
and Figure 3-1). These emissions qualify as
Scope 1 because they involve the direct
combustion of fuel within the jurisdictional
boundary of the city. The second largest source of
Scope 1 emissions was residential natural gas
use. Residential uses also generated the largest
percentage of Scope 2 emissions. Emissions from
waste operations account for the whole of Scope 3
emissions.
FIGURE 3-1: COMMUNITY GHG
EMISSIONS BY SCOPE, 2005
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 27
TABLE 3-2: COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
AND SCOPE, 2005 (METRIC TONS OF CO2E)
Sector Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Total
Residential 24,778 15,912 --- 40,690
Commercial/Industrial 7,030 13,241 --- 20,271
Transportation 60,041 --- --- 60,041
Off-Road 8,686 --- --- 8,686
Waste --- --- 9,083 9,083
Wastewater 2,657 --- 2,657
TOTAL 103,192 29,153 9,083 141,428
Percentage of Total
CO2e 73.0% 20.6% 6.4% 100.0%
3.2 ALL SCOPE EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
As noted above, the community emitted approximately 141,428 metric tons of CO2e in calendar
year 2005. In addition to analyzing the data by scope, it can also be aggregated by sector. As
depicted in Figure 3-2 and Table 3-3 below, the transportation sector was the largest emitter
(42.5%) in 2005. Emissions from the residential sector were the next largest contributor
(28.8%), while the commercial and industrial sectors accounted for a combined 14.3% of the
total. Emissions from solid waste comprised 6.4% of the total, emissions from off-road vehicles
and equipment comprised 6.1% of the total and emissions from wastewater facilities comprised
1.9% of the total.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 28 City of Atascadero
FIGURE 3-2: COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005
TABLE 3-3: COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005
2005
Community
Emissions
by Sector
Residential Commercial/
Industrial Transportation
Off-
Road Waste Waste
water TOTAL
CO2e
(metric tons) 40,690 20,271 60,041 8,686 9,083 2,657 141,428
Percentage of
Total CO2e 28.8% 14.3% 42.5% 6.1% 6.4% 1.9% 100.0%
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 29
3.3 TRANSPORTATION
Transportation accounted for 42.5% of
the City‟s emissions in 2005. Emissions
from traffic resulted in 60,041 metric tons
of CO2e. Of the total emissions in the
transportation sector, an estimated 93.2%
was due to gasoline consumption, with
the remaining 6.8% coming from diesel
use (see Figure 3-3 and Table 3-4).
TABLE 3-4: TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS BY FUEL SOURCE
Transportation Fuel
Emissions Sources 2005 Gasoline Diesel TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 55,970 4,071 60,041
Percentage of Total CO2e 93.2% 6.8% 100%
Using origin-destination analysis and the SLOCOG Regional Travel Demand Model, three types
of vehicle trips were tracked in the city:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning
in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in
the city
Fehr & Peers calculated VMT for each of the three types of vehicle trips using the
recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for
Senate Bill 375 target setting. VMT from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 (see above) were counted
FIGURE 3-3: COMMUNITY GHG
EMISSIONS BY FUEL SOURCE
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 30 City of Atascadero
100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction-generated VMT.16 The VMT results are
summarized in Appendix A and C. Annual VMT was then analyzed to determine GHG
emissions from vehicle travel using the EMFAC2011 software developed by the California Air
Resources Board. EMFAC2011 uses emissions rates for different types of vehicles in
conjunction with travel activity statistics to calculate vehicle based emissions in metric tons per
day. For a detailed description of the methodology used to estimate transportation-related
emissions, please see Appendix C.
Emissions that resulted from the air and rail travel of city residents were not included in the
transportation sector analysis. As science and data collection methodology develop it is likely
that the GHG emissions from air, rail and boat travel could be estimated as a Scope 3 items.
Please see Appendix C for more detail on methods and emissions factors used in calculating
emissions from the transportation sector.
3.4 OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
Gasoline, diesel, and compressed natural gas fuel are used to power off-road equipment in the
City of Atascadero. Off-road equipment incorporated in this inventory includes agriculture, lawn
and garden, construction and mining, light commercial equipment, and industrial equipment.
Off-road vehicles and equipment accounted for 6.1% of the City‟s emissions in 2005. The
California Air Resources Board‟s OFFROAD 2007 software provides emissions data for off-road
equipment by county. The countywide data was attributed to city based on the indicators
presented in Table 3-5.
TABLE 3-5: COUNTY-WIDE EQUIPMENT TYPE INDICATORS
Equipment Type Allocation Indicator
Agricultural Equipment Acres of cropland
Construction and Mining Equipment Construction and mining jobs
Industrial Equipment Industrial jobs
Lawn and Garden Equipment Households
Light Commercial Equipment Service and commercial jobs
16 Since external-external VMT is the result of vehicle trips that pass through the city without
originating or ending in the city, they are excluded from the inventory as the City is unable to
directly impact these VMT.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 31
Approximately 80.0% of off-road equipment emissions in 2005 came from construction and
mining equipment, while 8.7% were the result of light and commercial equipment. The
remaining off-road equipment activities included in this Inventory include lawn and garden
equipment, agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment, making up the remaining 11.3% of
emissions collectively (see Table 3-6 and Figure 3-4). Total emissions from off-road equipment
for 2005 are estimated to be approximately 8,686 MT CO2e. Of the total emissions in the off-
road sector, an estimated 84.1% was due to diesel consumption, with the remaining 15.9%
coming from gasoline and compressed natural gas use (see Table 3-7 and Figure 3-5).
TABLE 3-6: OFF-ROAD GHG EMISSIONS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE
Equipment
Type
Emissions
Sources
2005
Agricultural
Equipment
Construction
Equipment
Industrial
Equipment
Lawn and
Garden
Equipment
Light and
Commercial
Equipment
TOTAL
CO2e (metric
tons) 148 6,950 108 722 758 8,686
Percentage
of Total CO2e 1.7% 80.0% 1.3% 8.3% 8.7% 100%
FIGURE 3-4: OFF-ROAD GHG
EMISSIONS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE
FIGURE 3-5: OFF-ROAD GHG
EMISSIONS BY FUEL TYPE
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 32 City of Atascadero
TABLE 3-7: OFF-ROAD GHG EMISSIONS BY FUEL TYPE
Off-Road Fuel
Emissions Sources
2005
Gasoline Diesel
Compressed
Natural Gas TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 1,095 7,303 288 8,686
Percentage of Total CO2e 12.6% 84.1% 3.3% 100%
3.5 THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT (RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL)
With all scopes aggregated, 43.1% of total community-wide emissions in the year 2005 came
from the “built environment.” The built environment is comprised of the residential, commercial,
and industrial natural gas and electricity consumption. This analysis does not include emissions
from other types of energy such as propane, solar, and wind due to lack of reliable sales,
construction, or consumption data. The commercial and industrial sectors are combined in this
Inventory due to the mandatory aggregating of commercial and industrial data by PG&E
previously referenced.
In 2005, emissions from the built environment were split roughly 66.7-33.3% between the
residential sector and the commercial/industrial sector (see Figure 3-6). All of the emissions
calculated from the built environment were the result of local natural gas consumption (Scope 1)
and local consumption of electricity generated outside of the city (Scope 2). Overall, natural gas
consumption (52.2%) was slightly higher than electricity consumption (47.8%) as the cause of
emissions from the built environment in 2005 as shown in Figure 3-7.
FIGURE 3-6: BUILT ENVIRONMENT
GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
FIGURE 3-7: BUILT ENVIRONMENT
GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 33
Approximately 60.9% of emissions in the residential sector resulted from combustion of natural
gas for heating and cooking (see Figure 3-8 and Table 3-8), while 34.7% of emissions in the
commercial/industrial sector came from natural gas usage (see Figure 3-9 and Table 3-9).
TABLE 3-8: RESIDENTIAL GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
Residential Emission
Sources 2005 Electricity Natural Gas TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 15,912 24,778 40,690
Percentage of Total CO2e 39.1% 60.9% 100%
Energy Use (MMBtu) 242,839 465,783 708,622
FIGURE 3-8: RESIDENTIAL GHG
EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
FIGURE 3-9:
COMMERICAL/INDUSTRIAL GHG
EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 34 City of Atascadero
TABLE 3-9: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL GHG EMISSIONS SOURCES
Commercial / Industrial
Emission Sources 2005 Electricity Natural Gas TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 13,241 7,030 20,271
Percentage of Total CO2e 65.3% 34.7% 100%
Energy Use (MMBtu) 202,065 132,159 334,224
3.6 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste disposed of at managed landfills was responsible for 6.4% of total emissions for the
community. The CACP2009 software calculates methane generation from waste sent to landfill
in 2005, and accounts for the reported methane recovery factors among the two utilized landfills
(Cold Canyon and Chicago Grade), which have a 60% weighted average. The Chicago Grade
Landfill accepted approximately 99% of the community‟s solid waste, while less than 1% went to
Cold Canyon. The methane recovery factors of the landfills are well documented by the San
Luis Obispo County APCD based on the system operations at that time. For more information,
please see detailed methodology in Appendix C.
Waste emissions are considered Scope 3 emissions because they are not generated in the
base year, but will result from the decomposition of waste generated in 2005 over the full 100-
year+ cycle of its decomposition. In 2005, the community sent approximately 31,122.52 tons of
waste to landfill. The 2004 California Statewide Waste Characterization Study provides standard
waste composition for the State of California. Identifying the different types of waste in the
general mix is necessary because during decomposition various materials generate methane
within the anaerobic environment of landfills at differing rates. Carbonaceous materials such as
paper and wood would actually sequester the methane released in managed landfills, thereby
offsetting some or all of the emissions from food and plant waste. However, GHG sequestration
at the landfills has been set to zero, based on guidance in the LGOP version 1.1, which
recommends eliminating the effect of landfill sequestration for both government operations
inventories and community inventories, to be consistent with the principle that local government
operations and community inventories should not account for emissions sinks. Figure 3-10 and
Table 3-10 show the estimated percentage of emissions coming from the various types of
organic, methanogenic waste.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 35
FIGURE 3-10: WASTE GHG EMISSIONS BY TYPE
TABLE 3-10: WASTE GHG EMISSIONS BY TYPE
Waste Emissions
Sources 2005
Paper
Products
Food
Waste
Plant
Debris
Wood /
Textiles
All Other
Waste TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 5,071 1,989 533 1,490 0 9,083
Percentage of Total
CO2e 55.8% 21.9% 5.9% 16.4% 0.0% 100%
3.7 WASTEWATER
The wastewater treatment plant consists of four aerated lagoons and provides a cost effective
way to treat water. However, aside from the aeration of these lagoons, the City does not use
additional processes to treat the influent. As organic matter is broken down through the process
of lagoons, methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane emissions released during
wastewater treatment processes were responsible for 1.9% of total emissions for the
community. Natural gas and electricity emissions associated with wastewater treatment facilities
operations are accounted for within the commercial/industrial sector.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 36 City of Atascadero
3.7 COMMUNITY EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
In addition to viewing emissions by sector and by scope, policy and programs development can
benefit from an analysis of emissions according to their raw fuel or waste source. Figure 3-11
and Table 3-11 below demonstrates that 40.3% of all community emissions come from the
consumption of gasoline on local roads and highways. Natural gas (22.7%) and electricity
(20.6%) consumption are the next most significant figures, with the remainder coming from
diesel, methane from wastewater treatment processes, and various waste products.
FIGURE 3-11: COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE, 2005
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 37
TABLE 3-11: COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE, 2005
Community GHG
Emissions 2005 by Source CO2e (metric tons) CO2e (percent of total)
Electricity 29,153 20.6%
Natural Gas 32,096 22.7%
Gasoline 57,065 40.3%
Diesel 11,374 8.0%
Methane from Wastewater
Treatment Processes 2,657 1.9%
Landfilled Solid Waste 9,083 6.4%
TOTAL 141,428 100.0%
3.8 PER CAPITA EMISSIONS
Per capita emissions can be a useful metric for measuring progress in reducing GHGs and for
comparing one community‟s emissions with neighboring cities and against regional and national
averages. Currently it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between local inventories
because of variations in the scope of inventories conducted. For instance, this Inventory takes in
to account emissions from agricultural off-road vehicles, which many inventories like the
Sonoma County GHG Inventory do not. Only when ICLEI, the California Air Resources Board,
and other organizations adopt universal reporting standards will local inventories be prepared in
a consistent manner and therefore be comparable.
Simply dividing total community GHG emissions (141,428 metric tons of CO2e) by city
population in 2005 (25,940) yields a result of 5.45 metric tons CO2e per capita.17 It is important
to understand that this number is not the same as the carbon footprint of the average individual
living in the City of Atascadero, which reflects a wider scope of emissions. It is also important to
note that the per capita emissions number for the city is not directly comparable to every per
capita number produced by other emissions studies because of differences in emission
inventory methods.
17 Baseline population data for the year 2005 was obtained from SLOCOG‟s Long Range Socio-
Economic Projections (Year 2030), prepared by Economics Research Associates (July 2006 Revision).
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 38 City of Atascadero
4. City Government Operations GHG Emissions Inventory
Results
In 2005, the City of Atascadero government employed 128 people and was comprised of seven
departments: City Manager, Administrative Services, Police and Fire Services, Community
Development, Community Services, and Public Works. This chapter reviews the results of the
City government operations inventory by sector, including employee commuting emissions.
4.1 CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY RESULTS
City government operations and facilities produced approximately 4,130 metric tons of GHG
emissions in 2005. As displayed in Figure 4-1, government operations emissions would equate
to approximately 2.9% of total community-wide emissions. City government emissions result
from waste, energy consumption from wastewater facilities, buildings, streetlights and other
facilities, fuel consumption by the vehicle and transit fleet and employee commutes, wastewater
treatment processes, and miscellaneous equipment. The wastewater facilities and processes
were the largest contributor to the City‟s emissions (70.8%) with 2,923 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent. The vehicle fleet (9.7%) was the second largest contributor to the City‟s
emissions with 4,023 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. (Refer to Figure 4-2 and Table
4-1 below)
FIGURE 4-2: CITY
GOVERNMENT GHG EMISSIONS
BY SECTOR, 2005
FIGURE 4-1: CITY GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS CONTRIBUTION TO
COMMUNITY-WIDE GHG EMISSIONS
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 39
As mentioned in the Introduction, these emissions are a subset of the community emissions
inventory discussed in Chapter 3. The City‟s government operations emissions are separately
analyzed in this section in a manner that is similar to how an industry or business would
produce a facility-scale GHG audit. The LGOP, version 1.1 developed by the California Air
Resources Board, The Climate Registry, the California Climate Action Registry, and ICLEI
guides the methodology for estimating emissions from local government operations.
TABLE 4-1: CITY GOVERNMENT GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005
2005
Emissions
by Sector
Buildings
&
Facilities
Vehicle
Fleet
Transit
Fleet
Employee
Commute
Street
Lights &
Traffic
Signals
Water
Delivery
Wastewater
Facilities
Solid
Waste TOTAL
CO2e
(metric tons) 316 402 214 185 40 1 2,923 49 4,130
Percentage of
CO2e 7.6% 9.7% 5.2% 4.5% 1.0% <0.0% 70.8% 1.2% 100.0%
4.2 BUILDING SECTOR
The building sector includes GHG emissions from
energy consumption in facilities owned and
operated by a municipality but does not included
facilities located at the wastewater treatment
plant. Electricity consumption in facilities located
at the wastewater treatment plant is included in
the Wastewater Facilities Sector. The facilities
included in this analysis include City Hall, fire and
police Stations, recreation facilities, Charles
Paddock Zoo, parks, and numerous other
facilities. As depicted in Figure 4-3 and Table 4-
2, the majority of emissions resulted from
electricity consumption (78.5%).
FIGURE 4-3: BUILDING GHG
EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 40 City of Atascadero
It should be noted that the historic Administration Building has been unoccupied since 2004. In
2004, an earthquake damaged the historic building and forced the City to move its government
offices to another building in downtown. Subsequently, this Inventory does not include energy
consumption in the historic Administration Building. Estimated emissions for City Hall are from a
more energy efficient building where government offices were located in 2005.
The City has been working with the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to
obtain the necessary funding to restore the building to pre-earthquake condition. Once the
building has been repaired to pre-earthquake condition, the City plans to upgrade the building.
These upgrades will likely increase the efficiency of the Administration Building; however,
baseline emissions were not calculated for this building as part of this inventory and; therefore,
the amount of increase in efficiency is unknown. The City plans to move its government offices
back to the Administration building within the next couple of years. The relocation is likely to
affect the business-as-usual forecast.
TABLE 4-2: BUILDING SECTOR GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
2005 City Government
Operations Emissions by Sector Electricity Natural Gas Total
CO2e (metric tons) 248 68 316
Percentage of Total CO2e 78.5% 21.5% 100%
Energy Use (MMBtu) 3,780 1,283 5,063
These emissions and associated consumption data will be useful in designating priority facilities
for energy efficiency retrofits and conservation outreach.
4.3 VEHICLE AND TRANSIT FLEET
City-owned and -operated vehicles emitted approximately 616 metric tons of CO2e, or 15.0% of
total City government emissions. This sector includes gasoline and diesel consumption from all
departments in the City operating vehicles, including the Fire and Police Departments,
Community Services, Public Works, and Community Development. This sector also includes the
transit fleet operated by the City. This estimate is based on 2005 fuel billing record data
provided by the Finance Department for most departments. The Police Department provided
their own fuel consumption data as their records are were more complete than the fuel billing
records.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 41
The majority of fuel used by the City –
vehicle and transit fleets combined – is
gasoline (63%), with the remainder diesel
(37%) (see Figure 4-4). When compared
to the total emissions per fuel type, diesel
emissions actually produce less CO2e for
the vehicle types used by the City.
However, there are other, non-CO2e
emissions from diesel-like particulate
matter that make such a comparison
misleading to the reader. The trend for
diesel to emit less CO2e in this case does
not necessarily mean that the City should
aim to convert more vehicles to
conventional diesel. There are multiple
clean and alternative fuel options available, including biodiesel conversion, electric vehicles,
hybrid vehicles, smaller vehicles, and shared vehicles.
4.4 EMPLOYEE COMMUTE
This sector estimates GHG emissions from City employees traveling to and from work in 2005.
The estimate is based on a June 2009 online survey conducted by the City, a blank version of
which is included as Appendix F. Approximately 69 employees responded to the survey with
usable information, meaning that all essential questions were answered. This results in
approximately a 58% response rate, the results of which were applied to the City employment
total for 2005.
The online survey found that most City employees travel to and from work by car. Employees
were asked how many days of the week they travel by each commute mode, including driving
alone (which includes motorcycles), carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, walking,
telecommuting, and other. The results show that employees get to and from 77.4% of their
workdays by personal vehicle. The second most popular mode of transportation was bicycling
(10.7%), followed by walking and other means such as skateboarding with a combined 7.2% of
the total.
FIGURE 4-4: VEHICLE FLEET FUEL
CONSUMPTION PER YEAR BY TYPE
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 42 City of Atascadero
TABLE 4-3: DAYS OF CITY EMPLOYEE TRAVEL BY COMMUTE MODE
Mode of Travel Days traveled by
Commute mode % of Total
Drive Alone 12,792 77.4%
Carpool 468 2.8%
Vanpool 52 0.3%
Public transit 260 1.6%
Bicycle 1,768 10.7%
Walk 520 3.1%
Other 676 4.1%
Total 16,536 100%
These figures for commute mode were combined with each respondent‟s travel distance to
work, car model (if any), and fuel type (if any). The results show VMT annually per vehicle type
and fuel type (see Table 4-4). These VMT numbers were then adjusted for the total employee
population in 2005 and entered into the CACP2009 software to obtain CO2e.
Driving patterns were assumed to be constant for the purposes of this study; therefore, the 2009
sample was applied directly to the 2005 employee population. Only one modification to the
sample data was made in order to account for the large increase in hybrid car sales between
2005 and 2009. The proportion of hybrid to traditional vehicles was roughly two-thirds less in
2005 than in 2009, according to State sales data.18
The 2009 survey results, adjusted for 2005 employee totals, resulted in an estimate of 185
metric tons CO2e in 2005 from commuter travel to and from work. This figure comprises 4.5% of
total GHG emissions released from City government operations. The calculation does not
include employee business travel or travel during lunchtime hours.
18 www.hybridcars.com
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 43
TABLE 4-4: EMPLOYEE COMMUTE VMT BY VEHICLE AND FUEL TYPE
Vehicle Group 2009 Survey results Adjusted for 2005
Annual VMT Fuel Type Annual VMT Fuel Type
Light Truck/SUV/Pickup 56,197.86 Gasoline 120,997.07 Gasoline
313.08 Diesel 544.76 Diesel
Large Truck 22,620.03 Gasoline 39,358.85 Gasoline
16,843.70 Diesel 29,308.04 Diesel
Passenger Vehicle 138,885.77 Gasoline 183,403.96 Gasoline
Motorcycle 208.72 Gasoline 363.17 Gasoline
Total 235,069.16 373,975.86
Employee business travel is usually included in a City government GHG Inventory per protocol;
however, we could not include it in this baseline analysis due to data limitations. The City
maintains financial records of when employees travel by air or vehicle to conferences and other
events; however, it does not keep records of business travel destinations. As such, this
Inventory could not accurately account for GHG emissions from employee business travel. A
minor adjustment to City recordkeeping would allow the data to be included in the next City
government operations GHG inventory.
4.5 STREETLIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
The electricity consumed by City streetlights and traffic signals in calendar year 2005 resulted in
approximately 40 metric tons of CO2e, or approximately 1.0% of total City government
emissions. This Inventory accounts for approximately 289 streetlights and 9 traffic signals.
4.6 WATER AND WASTEWATER
The City of Atascadero does not provide potable water to its residents. The Atascadero Mutual
Water Company provides residents with drinking water and; therefore, the City does not have
regulatory control over the distribution of potable water within the City. Emissions associated
with the pumping and distribution of potable water are included in the commercial/industrial
portion of the energy sector of the community-wide section of the Inventory.
The City is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Approximately
half (50%) of the community is served by sewer and the other 50 percent on septic. Due to a
lack of methodology for calculating emissions resulting from septic systems, these emissions
are not included in the Inventory. In 2005, electricity consumption from wastewater facilities in
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 44 City of Atascadero
the City emitted approximately 266 metric tons of CO2e, or 9.0% of total emissions related to
wastewater (see Figure 4-5). This category includes energy use at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant and the numerous lift stations and pumps necessary to convey effluent to the treatment
plant. Point-source emissions that arise from the wastewater treatment system due to
fermentation of discarded biomass in the lagoons resulted in an additional 2,657 metric tons of
CO2e, increasing the percentage of total emissions attributed to wastewater facilities to 70.8% of
government operations emissions.
FIGURE 4-5: GHG EMISSIONS FROM
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The wastewater treatment plant consists of four aerated lagoons and provides a cost effective
way to treat wastewater. However, aside from the aeration of these lagoons, the City does not
use additional processes to treat the influent. As organic matter is broken down through the
process of lagoons, methane is released into the atmosphere. While this Inventory identifies
methane from the wastewater treatment plant as the major contributor to the government
operations emissions, emissions from other sectors and sources within government operations
should not be overlooked entirely. This Inventory is meant to identify the sources of emissions
from the City‟s operations. It does not recommend or mandate improvements or upgrades to the
wastewater treatment plant. Upgrading the wastewater treatment plant to reduce GHG
emissions would likely require a complete redesign of the wastewater treatment plant and be
very costly. Emissions associated with government operations are broken down further in
Section 4.9.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 45
4.7 SOLID WASTE
Similar to the Community-Wide analysis, waste produced by City facilities was calculated using
the methane commitment method. The CACP2009 calculates the methane expected to be
released from this landfilled waste over the course of its lifetime. Unlike other sectors analyzed,
the emissions from waste disposed of in 2005 will occur over multiple years as the waste breaks
down over time. Atascadero Waste Alternatives estimates that in 2005, City facilities sent a total
of 168.65 tons of waste to landfill, producing 49 metric tons of CO2e, or 1.2% of total emissions.
This category includes only those emissions generated by waste produced at City facilities and
does not include the total emissions released from the landfill.
4.8 CITY EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
It can also be helpful to view overall City government emissions by source. As shown in Table
4.5 and Figure 4.6, the majority of emissions are from methane produced at the wastewater
treatment plant during the treatment of wastewater (66.5%). Gasoline (12.9%) consumption by
the vehicle and transit fleets is the second largest source of emissions. Electricity consumption
in City-owned buildings, streetlights, and water and wastewater facilities account for 12.6% of
government operations emissions and natural gas, miscellaneous equipment, diesel and solid
waste contributed in decreasing amounts to the remaining 8.0% of the overall City GHG
emissions.
Since the majority of GHG emissions are associated with the wastewater treatment plant and
water treatment processes and strategies to reduce emissions at the treatment plant would
require an expensive redesign of the plant, Table 4.5 also breaks down emissions by source
with emissions from the wastewater treatment plant and water treatment processes excluded.
Viewing emissions without the wastewater treatment plant (see Figure 4.7) will aid the City in
identifying other sources of emissions within their operations that are equally as important in
reducing the City‟s overall GHG emissions.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 46 City of Atascadero
TABLE 4-5: CITY GOVERNMENT
GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE, 2005
City Emissions
2005
by Source
All Sectors
Emissions from the
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Processes Removed
CO2e (metric
tons)
CO2e (percent
of total)
CO2e (metric
tons)
CO2e (percent
of total)
Electricity 555 13.4% 555 37.7%
Natural Gas 68 1.6% 68 4.6%
Gasoline 567 13.7% 567 38.5%
Diesel 234 5.7% 234 15.9%
Solid Waste
Decomposition
(Methane)
49 1.2% 49 3.3%
Wastewater
Treatment Processes
(Methane)
2,657 64.3% n/a n/a
TOTAL 4,130 100% 1,473 100%
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 47
FIGURE 4-6: CITY GOVERNMENT
GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE, 2005
FIGURE 4-7: CITY GOVERNMENT
GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR WITH WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT REMOVED
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 48 City of Atascadero
5. Forecast
The emissions forecast for the City of Atascadero represents a business-as-usual prediction of
how community-wide GHG levels will change over time if consumption trends and behavior
continue as they did in 2005. These predictions are based on the community inventory results
included in this report and statistics on job and population growth from the SLOCOG 2040
Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (August 2011). The analysis shows that if
behavior and consumption trends continue as business-as-usual, emissions will reach 172,488
metric tons of CO2e by 2020, or a 22.0% increase over 2005 baseline levels (see Figure 5-1).
By 2025 emissions will reach 185,402 metric tons of CO2e, or a 31.1% increase over 2005
baseline levels.
FIGURE 5-1: 2020 AND 2025 BUSINESS-AS-USUAL PROJECTED
GROWTH IN COMMUNITY-WIDE GHG EMISSIONS
The forecast does not quantify emissions reductions from State or federal activities including AB
32, the renewable portfolio standard, and SB 375. Additionally, it does not take into account
reduction activities already underway or completed since 2005, the results of which likely put the
community‟s emissions on a track well below the business-as-usual linear projection.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 49
Forecasts were performed by applying job and population growth rates to 2005 community-wide
GHG emissions levels. Baseline data and estimated growth were obtained from the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments report, "San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing &
Employment Forecast" prepared by AECOM in August 2011. The “mid-range” cases for
population and job growth were used in this forecast estimation. Baseline data from this report is
consistent with the San Luis Obispo County APCD‟s GHG thresholds.
City government operations emissions are not separately analyzed as part of this forecast due
to a lack of reasonable growth indicators for the City government sector. However, a significant
increase in emissions is not expected for existing facilities and operations in the City
government operations sector.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
Page 50 City of Atascadero
6. Conclusion and Next Steps
The City of Atascadero has made a formal commitment to reduce its GHG emissions. This
report lays the groundwork for those efforts by estimating baseline emission levels against
which future progress can be demonstrated.
This analysis found that the community was responsible for emitting 141,428 metric tons of
CO2e in the base year 2005, with the transportation sector contributing the most (42.5%) to this
total. As a component of the community-wide analysis, City government operations produced
4,130 metric tons of CO2e, or 2.9% of the total. In addition to establishing the baseline for
tracking progress over time, this report serves to identify the major sources of City emissions,
and therefore the greatest opportunities for emission reductions. In this regard, the emissions
inventory will inform the focus of the City‟s Climate Action Plan. If no action is taken, this report
found that business-as-usual (worst case scenario) emissions will likely rise by 22.0% by 2020
and 31.1% by 2025.
It is important to note that in order to remain consistent with GHG reduction methodology, all
future quantifications of reduction activities must be subtracted from this „business-as-usual‟
line. Not doing so would be assuming that emissions remain at constant 2005 levels while
reduction activities are underway. In reality, the City‟s climate action efforts will be working
against a rising emissions level due to job, population, and household growth. Figure 6-1 below
shows the business-as-usual emissions forecast in relation to 2005 baseline levels and the 15%
reduction below 2005 levels recommended by the State Attorney General and Air Resources
Board. 19
The difference between the business-as-usual forecast and the reduction targets is actually
30.3% in 2020.
As the City moves forward to the next milestones in the process, including designation of
emission reduction targets and development of a Climate Action Plan, the City should identify
and quantify the emission reduction benefits of projects that have already been implemented
since 2005, as well as the emissions reduction benefits of existing General Plan policies. The
benefits of existing strategies can be tallied against the baseline established in this report to
determine the appropriate set of strategies that will deliver the City to its chosen emissions
reduction goal.
19 The AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document prepared by the Air Resources Board calls for
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual
emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today‟s levels.
2005 BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE
City of Atascadero Page 51
FIGURE 6-1: GHG FORECAST IN RELATION TO REDUCTION TARGET
Business-as-
usual forecast
172,488 metric
tons CO2e by
2020; 185,402
metric tons
CO2e by 2025
2005 baseline
levels =
141,428 metric
tons CO2e
15% below 2005
baseline levels =
120,214 metric
tons CO2e by
2020
Actual
Reduction
= 52,274
metric
tons
(30.3%) by
2020
APPENDIX A:
CACP DETAILED REPORT FOR COMMUNITY-
WIDE EMISSIONS, 2005
Detailed Report
Page 110/23/2012
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO 2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
Residential
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
1 SoCal Gas Company Residential Natural Gas
Natural Gas 24,778 17.9 465,78324,714 47 2,329
24,778 17.9 465,783Subtotal 1 SoCal Gas Company Residential Natural Gas24,714 47 2,329
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246, Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area.
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area.
2 PG&E Residential Electricity
Electricity 15,912 11.5 242,83915,782 355 968
15,912 11.5 242,839Subtotal 2 PG&E Residential Electricity 15,782 355 968
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
California.
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
California.
40,690 708,62229.3Subtotal Residential 40,496 402 3,297
Commercial
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
1 SoCal Gas Company Commercial Natural Gas
Natural Gas 7,030 5.1 132,1597,012 13 661
7,030 5.1 132,159Subtotal 1 SoCal Gas Company Commercial Natural Gas7,012 13 661
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246, Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area.
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area.
Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246,
pmorais@semprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais@semprautilities.com>, May 2012.
CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set
provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area.
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 210/23/2012
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO 2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
2 PG&E Commercial + Industrial Electricity
Electricity 13,241 9.5 202,06513,132 295 806
13,241 9.5 202,065Subtotal 2 PG&E Commercial + Industrial Electricity13,132 295 806
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
California.
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
California.
Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com <mailto:jillian.rich@pge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com
<mailto:ghgdatarequests@pge.com>, PG&E.
The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update
on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6
(2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for
California.
20,271 334,22314.6Subtotal Commercial 20,144 309 1,466
Waste
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
3 Community Solid Waste - Chicago Grade Disposal Method - Managed Landfill
Paper Products 5,067 3.700241,287
Food Waste 1,987 1.40094,629
Plant Debris 533 0.40025,393
Wood or Textiles 1,489 1.10070,890
9,076 6.5Subtotal 3 Community Solid Waste - Chicago Grade0 0 432,198
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste 1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
Notes:
1. Waste Type data not collected by landfill. State average waste characterization data is used for residential, commercial, and self haul waste.
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
Notes:
1. Waste Type data not collected by landfill. State average waste characterization data is used for residential, commercial, and self haul waste.
2. Emissions Factors from LGOP v1.1
3 Community Solid Waste - Cold Canyon Disposal Method - Managed Landfill
Paper Products 4 0.000199
Food Waste 2 0.00078
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 310/23/2012
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO 2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
Plant Debris 0 0.00021
Wood or Textiles 1 0.00059
7 0.0Subtotal 3 Community Solid Waste - Cold Canyon0 0 357
Source(s):Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
Notes:
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
Notes:
Source(s):
1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, pcron@iwma.com.
2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097
3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred =
94.48 mmcf/yr.
4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420
mmcf/yr.
Notes:
1. Waste Type data not collected by landfill. State average waste characterization data is used for residential, commercial, and self haul waste.
9,084 6.5Subtotal Waste 0 0 432,555
Other
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
1 - On-Road Transportation
Carbon Dioxide 60,041 43.360,041 0 0
60,041 43.3Subtotal 1 - On-Road Transportation 60,041 0 0
Sources:Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city
Using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 were counted 100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction-generated
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city
Using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 were counted 100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction-generated
VMT.
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city
Using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 were counted 100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction-generated
VMT.
Transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using the EMFAC2011 software. EMFAC2011 provides carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide emissions according to the unique vehicle composition of each county in California. Of the total on-road
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city
Using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 were counted 100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction-generated
VMT.
Transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using the EMFAC2011 software. EMFAC2011 provides carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide emissions according to the unique vehicle composition of each county in California. Of the total on-road
transportation emissions 93.2% are the result of gasoline consumption and 6.8% are the result of diesel fuel consumption.
Sources:
Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel
Demand model.
Transportation-related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources
Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e.
Notes:
Using origin-destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City:
1. Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city
2. Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city
3. External-External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city
Using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 were counted 100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction-generated
VMT.
Transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using the EMFAC2011 software. EMFAC2011 provides carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide emissions according to the unique vehicle composition of each county in California. Of the total on-road
transportation emissions 93.2% are the result of gasoline consumption and 6.8% are the result of diesel fuel consumption.
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 410/23/2012
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO 2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
1 - Off-Road and Agricultural Equipment
Carbon Dioxide 8,686 6.38,686 0 0
8,686 6.3Subtotal 1 - Off-Road and Agricultural Equipment8,686 0 0
Off-road vehicle and equipment emissions obtained from the California Air Resources Boards' OFFROAD2007 software. Emissions were calculated Off-road vehicle and equipment emissions obtained from the California Air Resources Boards' OFFROAD2007 software. Emissions were calculated
for construction equipment based on the city's share of countywide construction jobs, lawn & garden equipment based on the city's share of
countywide households, industrial equipment based on the city's share of countywide industrial sector jobs, light commercial equipment based on the
Off-road vehicle and equipment emissions obtained from the California Air Resources Boards' OFFROAD2007 software. Emissions were calculated
for construction equipment based on the city's share of countywide construction jobs, lawn & garden equipment based on the city's share of
countywide households, industrial equipment based on the city's share of countywide industrial sector jobs, light commercial equipment based on the
city's share of countywide commercial sector jobs, and agricultural equipment based on the city's share of countywide agricultural land. Household
Off-road vehicle and equipment emissions obtained from the California Air Resources Boards' OFFROAD2007 software. Emissions were calculated
for construction equipment based on the city's share of countywide construction jobs, lawn & garden equipment based on the city's share of
countywide households, industrial equipment based on the city's share of countywide industrial sector jobs, light commercial equipment based on the
city's share of countywide commercial sector jobs, and agricultural equipment based on the city's share of countywide agricultural land. Household
and job data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and agricultural data obtained from County GIS files.
68,727 49.5Subtotal Other 68,727 0 0
Total 138,772 1,042,846100.0129,368 710 437,318
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
APPENDIX B:
CACP DETAILED REPORT FOR CITY
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS,
2005
Detailed Report
Page 17/19/2012
Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy Cost
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO
($)
2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
Buildings and Facilities
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
All Buildings and Facilities
Electricity 248 16.8 3,780 0246615
Natural Gas 68 4.6 1,283 06806
316 21.5 5,063 0Subtotal All Buildings and Facilities 314 6 21
Revised Inventory Notes:Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). N2O and CH4 emissions factors from LGOP v1.1
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). N2O and CH4 emissions factors from LGOP v1.1
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). N2O and CH4 emissions factors from LGOP v1.1
Original Inventory Notes:
Electricity data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com). Natural gas data retrieved from The Gas Company billing statements. Billing
Revised Inventory Notes:
Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May
2012.
Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). N2O and CH4 emissions factors from LGOP v1.1
Original Inventory Notes:
Electricity data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com). Natural gas data retrieved from The Gas Company billing statements. Billing
statements were provided by the Finance Department Richelle Rickard (805-470-3428).
316 5,063 021.5Subtotal Buildings and Facilities 314 6 21
Streetlights & Traffic Signals
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
All Streelights and Traffic Signals
Electricity 40 2.7 613 4354012
40 2.7 613 435Subtotal All Streelights and Traffic Signals 40 1 2
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Original Inventory Notes:
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Original Inventory Notes:
Data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com).
40 613 4352.7Subtotal Streetlights & Traffic Signals 40 1 2
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 27/19/2012
Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy Cost
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO
($)
2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
Water Delivery Facilities
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
Water Delivery Facilities
Electricity 0 0.0 2 0000
0 0.0 2 0Subtotal Water Delivery Facilities 0 0 0
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Original Inventory Notes:
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Original Inventory Notes:
Data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com).
0 2 00.0Subtotal Water Delivery Facilities 0 0 0
Wastewater Facilities
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
Wastewater Facilities
Electricity 266 18.1 4,059 0264616
Natural Gas 0 0.0 5 0000
266 18.1 4,064 0Subtotal Wastewater Facilities 264 6 16
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
2. Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morias at SoCalGas.
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
2. Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morias at SoCalGas.
Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E.
1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as
update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third-party-verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009).
2. Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morias at SoCalGas.
Original Inventory Notes:
Data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com). Service ID# 4949700205
266 4,064 018.1Subtotal Wastewater Facilities 264 6 16
Solid Waste Facilities
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
3 - All Facilities
Carbon Dioxide 49 3.3 0 04900
49 3.3 0 0Subtotal 3 - All Facilities 49 0 0
Data provided by Mike LaBarbera (805.466.3636) at Atascadero Waste Alternatives.
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 37/19/2012
Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy Cost
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO
($)
2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
49 0 03.3Subtotal Solid Waste Facilities 49 0 0
Vehicle Fleet
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
1 ComDev
Gasoline 14 1.0 207 4,2501411
14 1.0 207 4,250Subtotal 1 ComDev 14 1 1
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Community Development assigned gas cards to specific vehicles. This information was provided by Annette
Manier, Community Development Department, (805-470-3470). Light Trucks MY 1999 includes 2 - Ford Rangers. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 -
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Community Development assigned gas cards to specific vehicles. This information was provided by Annette
Manier, Community Development Department, (805-470-3470). Light Trucks MY 1999 includes 2 - Ford Rangers. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 -
Ford Explorer.
1 Fire Dept.
Diesel 60 4.1 829 14,5376000
Gasoline 12 0.8 172 2,2981211
72 4.9 1,001 16,835Subtotal 1 Fire Dept.72 1 1
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Fire Department assigned gas cards to specific vehicles; however, the fleet has changed since 2005 and it
was difficult to match present card information with specific vehicles in 2005. It was assumed all diesel consumption was by firetrucks and unleaded
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Fire Department assigned gas cards to specific vehicles; however, the fleet has changed since 2005 and it
was difficult to match present card information with specific vehicles in 2005. It was assumed all diesel consumption was by firetrucks and unleaded
gasoline by the remaining fleet vehicles. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the six vehicles. Gas card information was provided by
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Fire Department assigned gas cards to specific vehicles; however, the fleet has changed since 2005 and it
was difficult to match present card information with specific vehicles in 2005. It was assumed all diesel consumption was by firetrucks and unleaded
gasoline by the remaining fleet vehicles. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the six vehicles. Gas card information was provided by
Ellen Perkins, Fire Department, (805-470-3300). Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles (All MY) includes - Vehicle Numbers 501, 502, 503, 507, and 574. Light
Trucks MY 19987 to 1993 includes 2 - Chevy Blazers. Light Trucks MY 2001 includes 2 - Ford F250. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Chevy Tahoe
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Fire Department assigned gas cards to specific vehicles; however, the fleet has changed since 2005 and it
was difficult to match present card information with specific vehicles in 2005. It was assumed all diesel consumption was by firetrucks and unleaded
gasoline by the remaining fleet vehicles. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the six vehicles. Gas card information was provided by
Ellen Perkins, Fire Department, (805-470-3300). Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles (All MY) includes - Vehicle Numbers 501, 502, 503, 507, and 574. Light
Trucks MY 19987 to 1993 includes 2 - Chevy Blazers. Light Trucks MY 2001 includes 2 - Ford F250. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Chevy Tahoe
Fire Command Vehicle.
1 Parks
Gasoline 24 1.6 342 02332
24 1.6 342 0Subtotal 1 Parks 23 3 2
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1- 1980 Cushman Scooter, 1- 1986 Ford Ranger, 1- 1980 Chevy
Truck, 1- 1990 GMC Truck. Heavy Duty Vihicles MY 2002 includes 1- 2002 Dodge Truck 3/4 Ton dump bed.
1 Police Department
Diesel 1 0.1 11 0100
Gasoline 132 9.0 1,910 013076
133 9.0 1,922 0Subtotal 1 Police Department 131 7 6
All vehicle gas consumption data provided by Terry Buckley, Police Department (ext. 3258). The Police Department tracks vehicle fuel consumption. All vehicle gas consumption data provided by Terry Buckley, Police Department (ext. 3258). The Police Department tracks vehicle fuel consumption.
Police Department personnel use government credit cards in addition to assigned gas cards to purchase fuel. These purchases do not show up in the
gas card billing statements provided by the Finance Department. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the 23 vehicles. Passenger Cars
All vehicle gas consumption data provided by Terry Buckley, Police Department (ext. 3258). The Police Department tracks vehicle fuel consumption.
Police Department personnel use government credit cards in addition to assigned gas cards to purchase fuel. These purchases do not show up in the
gas card billing statements provided by the Finance Department. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the 23 vehicles. Passenger Cars
MY 2005 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - BMW Motorcycle. Passenger Cars MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY
All vehicle gas consumption data provided by Terry Buckley, Police Department (ext. 3258). The Police Department tracks vehicle fuel consumption.
Police Department personnel use government credit cards in addition to assigned gas cards to purchase fuel. These purchases do not show up in the
gas card billing statements provided by the Finance Department. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the 23 vehicles. Passenger Cars
MY 2005 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - BMW Motorcycle. Passenger Cars MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY
2003 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - Dodge Intrepid. Passenger Cars MY 1999 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - Ford Taurus.
Passenger Cars MY 2001 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 2000 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 1998
All vehicle gas consumption data provided by Terry Buckley, Police Department (ext. 3258). The Police Department tracks vehicle fuel consumption.
Police Department personnel use government credit cards in addition to assigned gas cards to purchase fuel. These purchases do not show up in the
gas card billing statements provided by the Finance Department. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the 23 vehicles. Passenger Cars
MY 2005 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - BMW Motorcycle. Passenger Cars MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY
2003 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - Dodge Intrepid. Passenger Cars MY 1999 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - Ford Taurus.
Passenger Cars MY 2001 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 2000 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 1998
includes 1 - Ford Taurus. Passenger Cars MY 1997 includes 2 - Dodge Intrepid. Passenger Cars MY 1995 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria.
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 47/19/2012
Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy Cost
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO
($)
2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
Passenger Cars MY 1984 to 1993 includes 1 - 1955 Chevy. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Expedition. Light Trucks MY 1987-1993 includes Passenger Cars MY 1984 to 1993 includes 1 - 1955 Chevy. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Expedition. Light Trucks MY 1987-1993 includes
1 - 1989 Jeep. Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles includes 1 - 1981 Chevy Bus.
Passenger Cars MY 1984 to 1993 includes 1 - 1955 Chevy. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Expedition. Light Trucks MY 1987-1993 includes
1 - 1989 Jeep. Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles includes 1 - 1981 Chevy Bus.
1 PW Building Maintenance
Gasoline 7 0.4 94 1,827610
7 0.4 94 1,827Subtotal 1 PW Building Maintenance 6 1 0
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the three vehicles. Light Trucks MY 2002 includes 1 - Ford
F150. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - Chevrolet (C-11).
1 PW Operations
Gasoline 1 0.1 11 319100
1 0.1 11 319Subtotal 1 PW Operations 1 0 0
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Light Trucks MY 2005 includes 1 - Ford Explorer.
1 PW Streets
Gasoline 6 0.4 88 1,922601
6 0.4 88 1,922Subtotal 1 PW Streets 6 0 1
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline is evenly distributed between the nine vehicles within the fleet. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY
1985 to 1986 includes 1 - 1980 3/4 Ton Chevy Utility Truck, 1 - 1981 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, 1 - 1982 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, and 1 - 1984 1 Ton
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline is evenly distributed between the nine vehicles within the fleet. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY
1985 to 1986 includes 1 - 1980 3/4 Ton Chevy Utility Truck, 1 - 1981 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, 1 - 1982 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, and 1 - 1984 1 Ton
Chevy Service Truck. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 1990 to 1995 includes 1 - 1990 GMC 1 Ton Service Truck. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 -
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline is evenly distributed between the nine vehicles within the fleet. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY
1985 to 1986 includes 1 - 1980 3/4 Ton Chevy Utility Truck, 1 - 1981 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, 1 - 1982 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, and 1 - 1984 1 Ton
Chevy Service Truck. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 1990 to 1995 includes 1 - 1990 GMC 1 Ton Service Truck. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 -
1973 Chevy 1/2 Ton, 1 - 1989 1/2 Ton Chevy Pick-up, and 1 - 1990 1/2 Ton GMC Pick-up. Light Trucks MY 2002 includes 1 - 1/2 Ton Dodge Pick-up.
1 Wastewater
Diesel 125 8.5 1,717 012500
Gasoline 12 0.8 178 01211
138 9.3 1,894 0Subtotal 1 Wastewater 137 1 1
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Diesel fuel was distrubeted evenly between the Front End Case Loader and Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck.
Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the remainder of the fleet. Diesel Heavy Duty Trucks All MY includes 1- Front End Case Loader
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Diesel fuel was distrubeted evenly between the Front End Case Loader and Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck.
Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the remainder of the fleet. Diesel Heavy Duty Trucks All MY includes 1- Front End Case Loader
and 1- Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - 1984 Chevy truck and 1 - 1992 GMC medium duty with crane. Light
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Diesel fuel was distrubeted evenly between the Front End Case Loader and Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck.
Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the remainder of the fleet. Diesel Heavy Duty Trucks All MY includes 1- Front End Case Loader
and 1- Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - 1984 Chevy truck and 1 - 1992 GMC medium duty with crane. Light
Trucks MY 1999 includes 1 - Ford F250. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2003 includes 1 - Ford F550 Super Duty. Light Trucks MY 2003 includes 1 - Dodge
Ram.
1 Zoo
Gasoline 8 0.5 113 2,302811
8 0.5 113 2,302Subtotal 1 Zoo 8 1 1
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
Detailed Report
Page 57/19/2012
Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
(%)
Energy Cost
(tonnes)(MMBtu)
Equiv CO
($)
2CO
(tonnes)
N O
(kg)
CH
(kg)
422
maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the four vehicles.Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the four vehicles.Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1
- 1979 Chevy Luv 4x4, 1 - 1985 Dodge Sedan, 1 - 1990 Chevy S-10, and 1 - Isuzu Trooper.
403 5,672 27,45627.4Subtotal Vehicle Fleet 398 15 13
Employee Commute
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
1 Employee Commute
Diesel 48 3.2 652 04801
Gasoline 137 9.3 1,969 01341015
185 12.6 2,621 0Subtotal 1 Employee Commute 181 10 16
Passenger Cars Alt. Method includes motorcycles.
185 2,621 012.6Subtotal Employee Commute 181 10 16
Transit Fleet
San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA
1 Dail-A-Ride
Gasoline 119 8.1 1,712 26,72511683
119 8.1 1,712 26,725Subtotal 1 Dail-A-Ride 116 8 3
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Transit Fleet information was provided by Amanda Muether, Dispatch, (805) XXX-XXXX. Heavy Duty Vehicles
MY 2002 includes 1 - Chapion Type III Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2005 includes 1 - Eldorado Aerotech Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2003
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Transit Fleet information was provided by Amanda Muether, Dispatch, (805) XXX-XXXX. Heavy Duty Vehicles
MY 2002 includes 1 - Chapion Type III Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2005 includes 1 - Eldorado Aerotech Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2003
includes 2 - Ford Type III Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2000 includes 1 - Eldorado Champion Bus
1 North County Shuttle (Fixed Route)
Gasoline 95 6.4 1,361 26,9509273
95 6.4 1,361 26,950Subtotal 1 North County Shuttle (Fixed Route)92 7 3
All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are
maintained by individual Departments. Transit Fleet information was provided by Amanda Muether, Dispatch, (805) 461-5000. Heavy Duty Vehicles
MY 2003 includes 1 - Ford Type III Bus with Graphics.
213 3,073 53,67514.5Subtotal Transit Fleet 209 14 6
Total 1,473 21,107 81,566100.01,455 53 75
This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software.
APPENDIX C:
DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY-WIDE INVENTORY
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page C-1
Detailed Methodology for Community-Wide Inventory
This appendix provides the detailed methodology and data sources used for calculating GHG
emissions in each sector of the community-wide inventory.
OVERVIEW OF INVENTORY CONTENTS AND APPROACH
The community inventory methodology is based on guidance from ICLEI International Local
Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) (October 2009) and the Association of
Environmental Professionals California Community-wide GHG Baseline Inventory Protocol (AEP
Protocol) (June 2011). The community inventory identifies and quantifies emissions from the
residential, commercial/industrial, transportation, off-road, and solid waste sectors. Emissions
are calculated by multiplying activity data—such as kilowatt hours or gallons of gasoline
consumed—by emissions factors, which provide the quantity of emissions per unit of activity.
Activity data is typically available from electric and gas utilities, planning and transportation
agencies and air quality regulatory agencies. Emissions factors are drawn from a variety of
sources, including the California Climate Action Registry, the Local Governments Operations
Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1 (May 2010), and air quality models produced by the California Air
Resources Board.
In this inventory, all GHG emissions are converted into carbon dioxide equivalent units, or CO2e,
per guidance in the LGOP version 1.1, AEP Protocol, and IEAP. The LGOP provides standard
factors to convert various greenhouse gases into carbon dioxide equivalent units; these factors
are known as Global Warming Potential factors, representing the ratio of the heat-trapping
ability of each greenhouse gas relative to that of carbon dioxide.
The following sections describe the specific data sources and methodology for calculating GHG
emissions in each community sector.
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
All residential and commercial/industrial sector emissions are the result of electricity
consumption and the on-site combustion of natural gas. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas Co.) provided residential electricity
and natural gas consumption data. Specifically, data was provided by:
Jillian Rich, Program Manager with PG&E Green Communities and Innovator Pilots
(jillian.rich@pge.com), and John Joseph, PG&E GHG Data Requests
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
Page C-2 City of Atascadero
Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor with Southern California Gas Company,
Customer Programs (pmorias@semprautilities.com)
The raw data received from PG&E and SoCal Gas Co. is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.
This raw data was input into the CACP2009 software in kWh and therms. PG&E provided a
2005 carbon dioxide (CO2) coefficient for electricity use and SoCal Gas Co. provided a carbon
dioxide (CO2) coefficient for natural gas (see ―electricity and natural gas coefficients‖ section).
Emissions coefficients for methane (CH4) and nitrogen dioxide (N2O) emissions were provided
by the California LGOP version 1.1 and were converted into carbon dioxide equivalents and
added to the CO2 emissions to obtain carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions.
All commercial/industrial sector emissions are the result of electricity consumption and the on-
site combustion of natural gas. Commercial and industrial electricity were combined into one
section by PG&E due to the California 15/15 Rule. The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision
97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. The 15/15 Rule requires that any aggregated
information provided by the utilities must be made up of at least 15 customers. A single
customer's load must be less than 15% of an assigned category. If the number of customers in
the complied data is below 15, or if a single customer's load is more than 15% of the total data,
categories must be combined before the information is released. The rule further requires that if
the 15/15 Rule is triggered for a second time after the data has been screened already using the
15/15 Rule, the customer must be dropped from the information provided. As a result, PG&E
aggregated commercial and industrial energy consumption into one report, whereas SoCal Gas
Co. separated commercial and industrial gas usage (shown in the chart below) into two reports.
It would have been misleading to present an ―Industrial‖ category for only natural gas emissions;
therefore, the SoCal Gas Co. emissions were aggregated with commercial as well.
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE
2005 Residential
Energy Emissions Scope Input Data
Metric Tons
Metric Tons CO2e
per year
PG&E Electricity 2 71,151,775 kWh 15,912
SoCal Gas Co. Natural Gas 1 4,657,834 Therms 24,778
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page C-3
TABLE 2: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USE
2005 Commercial /
Industrial Energy
Emissions
Scope Input Data Metric Tons CO2e
per year
PG&E Commercial +
Industrial Electricity 2 59,204,973 kWh 13,241
SoCal Gas Co. Commercial +
Industrial Natural Gas 1 1,321,587 Therms 7,030
To make the Inventory more accurate and representative of the city‘s real impact on climate
change, tailored coefficient sets were obtained from PG&E and the LGOP version 1.1. Sources
and coefficient values are summarized in the table below.
TABLE 3: ELECTRICITY COEFFICIENT SETS
Coefficient Set Unit Value Source
Average Grid
Electricity Set Lbs / MWh
489 CO2
0.011 N2O
0.03 CH4
Jillian Rich, Program Manager with PG&E Green
Communities and Innovator Pilots
(jillian.rich@pge.com), and John Joseph, PG&E
GHG Data Requests (ghgdatarequests@pge.com)
and LGOP version 1.1
TABLE 4: NATURAL GAS COEFFICIENT SETS
Coefficient Set Unit Value Source
Fuel CO2 (Natural
Gas) Set kg/MMBtu 53.06 CO2 Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1
RCI Average Set –
Residential kg/MMBtu 0.0001 N2O
0.005 CH4 Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1
RCI Average Set –
Commercial +
Industrial
kg/MMBtu 0.0001 N2O
0.005 CH4 Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
Page C-4 City of Atascadero
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
On-road transportation emissions were derived from local jurisdiction vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) data and regional vehicle and travel characteristics. The transportation analysis,
conducted by Fehr & Peers, utilized the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
Regional Travel Demand model to develop transportation-related GHG emissions data and
VMT for trips that have an origin and/or destination in the city.
The SLOCOG Travel Demand Model was recently updated and validated to reflect 2010
conditions and to comply with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) guidelines on
implementation of Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). The update included expanding the times of day,
calibration of multiple modes, and reflecting the auto and of non-auto RTP transportation
system, all beneficial when quantifying potential GHG reduction strategies. A 2005 land use
scenario was developed by extrapolating 2035 and 2010. Similarly, a 2020 land use scenario
was developed by interpolating between 2010 and 2035. See Summary for the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments Model Improvement Project to Meet the Requirements of
California Transportation Commission Guidelines for Regional Transportation Plans in
Response to SB375 (February, 2012) for details on model calibration and validation.
Using the model, Fehr & Peers allocated vehicle trips and VMT to each of the cities in San Luis
Obispo County and the unincorporated county by weighting trips based on their origin and
destination. The VMT summarized for land use with each of the incorporated cities and
unincorporated county includes:
a) All of the VMT associated with trips made completely internally within each jurisdiction;
b) Half of the VMT generated by jobs and residences located within each jurisdiction but
that travels to/from external destinations (this is consistent with the recent SB 375
Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) decision that the two generators of an
inter-jurisdictional trip should each be assigned half of the responsibility for the trip and
its VMT); and
c) None of the responsibility for travel passing completely through the jurisdiction with
neither an origin point, or a destination within the city (also consistent with RTAC
decision).
The gateways exiting the model area were included in the VMT calculation. This means that a
jurisdiction will be held responsible for some VMT occurring outside of the model borders. For
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page C-5
example, if a household in Pismo Beach travels across the Santa Maria Bridge to Santa
Barbara, or through San Luis Obispo City to reach King City.
To capture the effects of congestion, the model VMT for each time period were summarized by
speed for each time period and then aggregated to daily. The VMT results are summarized in
Table 5 for the baseline year (2005) and Table 6 for 2020.
TABLE 5: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER JURISDICTION, 2005
Vehicle Miles Traveled per
Jurisdiction, 2005
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Average Weekday Daily Average Annual1
Arroyo Grande 231,019 80,163,593
Atascadero 375,925 130,445,975
Grover Beach 116,140 40,300,580
Morro Bay 140,915 48,897,505
Paso Robles 424,515 147,306,705
Pismo Beach 324,400 112,566,800
San Luis Obispo 2,280,295 791,262,365
Unincorporated County 2,635,017 914,350,899
Total 6,528,226 2,265,294,422
1 Average Annual VMT was calculated by applying a multiplier of 347 to average weekday daily VMT to account
for the total number of weekdays in one year based on the recommendation from Caltrans.
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
Page C-6 City of Atascadero
TABLE 6: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER JURISDICTION, 2020
Vehicle Miles Traveled per
Jurisdiction, 2020
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Average Weekday Daily Average Annual1
Arroyo Grande 267,068 92,672,596
Atascadero 501,605 174,056,935
Grover Beach 154,957 53,770,079
Morro Bay 167,302 58,053,794
Paso Robles 559,372 194,102,084
Pismo Beach 508,625 176,492,875
San Luis Obispo 3,298,712 1,144,653,064
Unincorporated County 3,378,180 1,172,228,460
Total 8,835,821 3,066,029,887
1 Average Annual VMT was calculated by applying a multiplier of 347 to average weekday daily VMT to account
for the total number of weekdays in one year based on the recommendation from Caltrans.
The EMFAC2011 model developed by the California Air Resources Board was then used to
calculate emissions from the VMT figures above. EMFAC defaults for San Luis Obispo
County include regionally-specific information on the mix of vehicle classes and model
years, as well as ambient conditions and travel speeds that determine fuel efficiency. Types
of emissions accounted for include: running exhaust, idle exhaust, starting exhaust, diurnal,
resting loss, running loss, and hot soak. The model estimates carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrous oxide emissions from these factors and inputted vehicle activity data.
WASTE SECTOR
Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of methane generation from the decomposition
of landfilled solid waste in the base year (2005). The methane commitment method embedded
in CACP2009 is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s Waste Reduction Model
(WARM) model for calculating life cycle emissions from waste generated within the jurisdictional
boundary of the city in 2005. The analysis does not use the waste-in-place method, which
calculates emissions from all waste generated in 2005 and all waste already existing in the
landfill before the baseline year.
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page C-7
The waste sector only takes into account the waste sent to landfills from city residents,
businesses, and institutions. It does not calculate emissions from the total amount of waste sent
to county landfills (Paso Robles, Cold Canyon, and Chicago Grade) in 2005 since those landfills
accept waste from the unincorporated county and incorporated cities.
Solid waste tonnage data per jurisdiction was provided by:
―2005 Disposal Report‖ by quarter, prepared by the San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste
Management Board on 3/6/06. Document provided by Peter Cron, San Luis Obispo
County Integrated Waste Management Authority (pcron@iwma.com).
Since the composition of waste sent to landfill in 2005 is unknown for the city, the following
statewide average waste composition study was utilized:
CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study,
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097.
The waste characterization study‘s distribution of waste by type was then converted into the five
categories included in the CACP2009 software, which resulted in the following waste
characterization:
Paper products: 21.0%
Food waste: 14.6%
Plant debris: 6.9%
Wood/textiles: 21.8%
All other waste: 35.7%
The CACP2009 software does not have the ability to assign an individual methane recovery
factor to each landfill; therefore, we took a weighted average (60%) based on the portion of
waste in each landfill. The methane recovery factors of the landfills are well documented by the
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District based on the system operations at that time.
Table 7 includes the methane recovery factors for the Chicago Grade and Cold Canyon
landfills. Emissions factors were obtain from the LGOP version 1.1.
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
Page C-8 City of Atascadero
TABLE 7: COMMUNITY GENERATED WASTE, 2005
Methane
recovery and
indicator
inputs, 2005
Methane
Recovery
Total gas
generated
(mmcf/yr)
Total gas
transferred
(mmcf/yr)
Data Source
Waste
Tonnage
from city,
2005 (tons)
Chicago Grade 60% 157.47 94.48 APCD 2005
Inventory 31,097
Cold Canyon 60% 700.00 420.00 APCD 2005
Inventory 26
OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SECTOR
Off-road emissions were obtained from the California Air Resources Board‘s
OFFROAD2007 model. The model was run using default equipment population, usage, and
efficiency data for San Luis Obispo County. Emissions outputs were scaled to the local
jurisdiction level by indicators identified in Table 8. Results were converted from short tons
per day to metric tons per year. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions were converted to
carbon dioxide equivalent units based on the Global Warming Potential factors from LGOP
version 1.1.
TABLE 8: COUNTY-WIDE EMISSIONS INDICATORS
Equipment Type Allocation Indicator Source
Agricultural Equipment Acres of cropland San Luis Obispo County, GIS shape files
Construction and Mining
Equipment
Construction and mining jobs U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies, On the Map Tool
Industrial Equipment Industrial jobs U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies, On the Map Tool
Lawn and Garden
Equipment
Households Economics Research Associates. (July
2006). SLOCOG Long Range Socio-
Economic Projections. 2005 baseline data
Light Commercial
Equipment
Service and commercial jobs U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies, On the Map Tool
APPENDIX C: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page C-9
The OFFROAD2007 software calculates emissions from other sources of off-road equipment as
well, including recreational vehicles and watercrafts; however these emissions were not
included because there was no feasible methodology for separating these emissions per
jurisdiction within the county. Population is proven to not be an accurate indicator of
consumption rates. To remain consistent with protocol and practice, emissions must be
separated in a spatial manner, similar to how highway emissions are determined by road
segment length within each jurisdiction. It should also be noted that many location-sources of
off-road emissions, such as recreational vehicle emissions, occur in state parks or beaches
outside of the jurisdiction of each city or the county.
2020 AND 2025 FORECAST
The GHG emissions forecast provides a ―business-as-usual estimate,‖ or scenario, of how
emissions will change in the year 2020 and 2025 if consumption trends and behavior
continue as they did in 2005, absent any new federal, state, regional, or local policies or
actions that would reduce emissions. The year 2020 was selected for the forecast in order
to maintain consistency with AB 32 and the year 2025 was selected in order to maintain
consistency with the General Plan planning horizon.
The 2020 and 2025 forecasts calculate business-as-usual growth based on population and job
growth rates obtained from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments report, "San Luis
Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast" prepared by AECOM in
August 2001. Mid-range estimates of growth were used in both instances (Figures ES-5 and 6-
1). Specifically population growth rates were applied to residential, waste, off-road, and
wastewater sectors; job growth rates were applied to the commercial/industrial sector. For the
transportation sector, Fehr & Peers provided VMT estimates for the year 2020 as shown in
Table 6 above, which was extrapolated for the year 2025.
It should be noted that these forecasts do not take into consideration any planned or actua l
efficiency or conservation measures after 2005. For example, the State Renewable Energy
portfolio has advanced significantly since 2005, but the forecast calculates 2020 energy
emissions by assuming constant emissions factors.
APPENDIX D:
DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR CITY
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY
APPENDIX D: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATION S
INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page D-1
Detailed Methodology for Government Operations GHG
Emissions Inventory
The municipal operations inventory follows the LGOP version 1.1, which was adopted in 2010
by CARB and serves as the national standard for quantifying and reporting GHG emissions from
local government operations.
BUILDING SECTOR
The building sector includes all emissions from natural gas and electricity consumed in City-
owned and - operated buildings and facilities. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and
Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas Co.) provided municipal electricity and natural
gas consumption data respectively. Specifically, data was provided by:
Jillian Rich, Program Manager with PG&E Green Communities and Innovator Pilots
(jillian.rich@pge.com), and John Joseph, PG&E GHG Data Requests
Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor with Southern California Gas Company,
Customer Programs (pmorias@semprautilities.com)
This raw data was input into the CACP2009 software in kWh and therms. PG&E provided a
2005 carbon dioxide (CO2) coefficient for electricity use and SoCal Gas Co. provided a carbon
dioxide (CO2) coefficient for natural gas. Emissions coefficients for methane (CH4) and nitrogen
dioxide (N2O) emissions were provided by the California LGOP version 1.1 and were converted
into carbon dioxide equivalents and added to the CO2 emissions to obtain carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) emissions (see Appendix C, Tables 3 and 4).
VEHICLE FLEET SECTOR
The vehicle fleet sector includes gasoline and diesel vehicles from the following City
departments:
Community Development
Community Services
Fire
Police
Public Works
Gasoline and diesel consumption for calendar year 2005 was obtained from fuel billing
statements provided by the Finance Department. The Police Department provided their own fuel
APPENDIX D: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATION S
INVENTORY
Page D-2 City of Atascadero
usage data as there record keeping was more complete. Specific sources of data within each
organization are outlined in the notes of Appendix B. Emissions were calculated using the
EMFAC software for the San Luis Obispo region, consistent with the community methodology
described in Appendix C.
EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SECTOR
Employees were surveyed in June 2009 using an online survey instrument. The questions,
attached as Appendix E, asked employees about their current commuting patterns. Of those
questions, we used the following for our analysis:
What is your approximate one-way distance to work (in miles)? Please indicate the most
direct distance to work, discounting midway destinations that would be taken whether or
not you drove to work each day (i.e. dropping off children at school).
Please indicate the type of transportation you take to work each day in your average
work week. Please note that there are two types of carpooling.
Drive alone
Carpool with fellow City
employees
Carpool with drivers not
employed by the City
Vanpool
Public transit
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walk
Telecommute
Other
What type of vehicle do you drive?
What type of fuel does your vehicle use?
If you carpool with fellow City employees, how many City employees ride with you? If
you carpool with a different number each day, please indicate the average.
Approximately 69 employees responded to the survey with usable information, meaning that all
essential questions were answered. Answers with mileage left blank or with highly inconsistent
APPENDIX D: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATION S
INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page D-3
data (ex: saying they walked three days to work, biked two, and drove five) were omitted. In
addition, if a respondent did not describe their ‗other‘ category of transportation, the entry was
omitted.
To perform this analysis, we took the following steps:
1) Separate entries by what type of vehicle they own and operate (compact, midsize car,
full-size car, small truck, medium-small truck, large truck, motorcycle or ―don‘t drive‖).
Within each new group, separate the entries by diesel, gasoline or hybrid.
2) For each group of entries with the same vehicle type and technology, multiply the
number of miles to work by 2 (to get round-trip estimate) and then by the number of
‗drive alone‘ days for each entry. Multiply the number of miles to work by the number of
‗carpool‘ days (half of the ‗drive alone‘ emissions). Note: If a respondent entered that
they motorcycle to work, but own a car as well, the motorcycle miles were moved to the
motorcycle category). Adjust for hybrids (see below).
3) Add all miles per vehicle type and technology and multiply by 52.18 work weeks/year.
4) Calculate the multiplier to adjust survey response data to the entire 2005 employee
population. In 2005, there were 128 employees. This, divided by the 69 survey entries,
gives us our multiplier of 1.74.
5) Multiply the mileage per vehicle per technology type by the multiplier.
6) Divide the number of hybrid miles by 2.2 and add the difference to the ‗passenger car‘
category. This is to account for the large increase in hybrid sales between 2005 and
2009 (Source: Hybridcars.com sales statistics).
7) Manipulate the vehicle classes to fit the CACP2009 software categories.
8) Enter final miles into the CACP2009 software per vehicle type and fuel.
APPENDIX D: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATION S
INVENTORY
Page D-4 City of Atascadero
TABLE 1: 2009 EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SURVEY
Vehicle Group 2009 Survey Results Adjusted for 2005 Annual VMT Fuel Type
Light Trucks 56,197.86 Gasoline 107,536.92 Gasoline
313.08 Diesel 6,645.64 Diesel
Large Trucks 22,620.03 Gasoline 19,750.03 Gasoline
16,843.70 Diesel 34,785.80 Diesel
Passenger Vehicle 138,885.77 Gasoline 34,785.80 Gasoline
Motorcycle 208.72 Gasoline Gasoline
Total 306,621.16 Gasoline 610,176.11 Gasoline
20,819.82 Diesel 41,431.44 Diesel
The CACP2009 software does not provide a method of calculating emissions from hybrid cars.
As a result, these emissions were divided by 2.20 based on the difference between average fuel
economy of a 2005 Toyota Prius and the average fuel economy included in the 2005 SLO
EMFAC data and then entered into the CACP2009 software under 'passenger vehicle' (Source:
www.fueleconomy.gov).
STREETLIGHT SECTOR
PG&E provided electricity usage from streetlights in kWh for 2005. The total kWh were entered
into the CACP2009 software using the electricity coefficients identified in Appendix C.
WATER / SEWAGE
This sector calculates emissions from energy consumption associated with City-owned and
operated water and wastewater facilities and point-source emissions that arise due to
fermentation of degraded biomass in the wastewater lagoons. The Finance Department
provided the electricity consumption for each of the water facilities. Operational data provided by
the Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager was utilized to determine total methane and nitrous
oxide emissions using ICLEI‘s Wastewater Emissions Data tool. Both of these sources are
outlined in Appendix B. These totals were entered into the CACP2009 software with the
electricity and natural gas coefficient sets outlined in Appendix C.
APPENDIX D: DETAILED
METHODOLOGY FOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATION S
INVENTORY
City of Atascadero Page D-5
WASTE
Atascadero Waste Alternatives reported solid waste tonnage produced by City operations. The
City produced 168.65 tons of waste in 2005 that was sent to managed landfill. The waste
composition was unknown for the city; therefore, the California averages provided by the 2004
California Integrated Waste Management Board Waste Characterization Report were used. A
weighted average methane recovery factor of 60% was used in this analysis, as outlined in
Appendix C.
APPENDIX E:
CITY EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SURVEY, 2009
APPENDIX E: CITY EMP LOYEE
COMMUTE SURVEY, 2008
City of Atascadero Page E-1
City Employee Commute Survey, 2009
1) What is your approximate on-way distance to work (in miles)? Please indicate the most
direct distance to work, discounting midway destinations that would be taken whether or
not you drove to work each day (i.e. dropping off children at school).
___________________
2) Please indicate the type of transportation you take to work each day in your average work
week. Please note that there are two types of carpooling.
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Drive Alone
Carpool with fellow City employees
Carpool with other drivers not
employed by the City
Vanpool
Public transit
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walk
Telecommute
Other
3) What type of vehicle do you drive?
Compact/Sub-Compact car (Civic, Corolla, Focus, Neon, Cavalier, Jetta or similar)
Mid-size car (Accord, Camry, Passat, Monte Carlo, Sable, Sebring or similar)
Full-size car (Impala, Intrepid, Taurus, Crown Victoria, Bonneville, Town Car or similar)
Small Truck/SUV/Pickup (RAV4, Chev S10, Pickup (4 cylinder), PT Cruiser or similar)
Medium-Small Truck/SUV/Pickup (Minivan, Sonoma Pickup Truck or similar)
Medium-Large Truck/SUV/Pickup (Durango, Safari Cargo Van, Ford F150 or similar)
Large Truck/SUV/Pickup (Suburban, Expedition, Navigator, Ford E250/350/450 or similar)
Motorcycle
I don‘t drive alone or drive a carpool
APPENDIX E: CITY EMP LOYEE
COMMUTE SURVEY, 2008
Page E-2 City of Atascadero
4) What type of fuel does your vehicle from question 3 use?
Gasoline
Diesel
Biodiesel
Hybrid
Electric
I don‘t drive to work or drive a carpool
Other (Specify): ___________________________________
5) If you carpool or vanpool with fellow City employees, home may City employees ride with you? If
you carpool with a different number each day, please indicate the average. If ‗not applicable‘,
please enter ―0‖.
Enter # of people: ___________________________________