Attachment

UTILITY COMMITTEE AGENDA February 26, 2007 - 5:00 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at appropriate times. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (736-7008 or e-m ail at Tm cdowell@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. Annexation Request - West Side of Bay Road at the Intersection with Lafferty Lane, Owned by David K. Harer, Ryan W. Lloyd, and Island Farm, Inc. The Equitable Owner is Stillman Glade Associates 2. Overview of Energy and Capacity Markets and Impacts to Customers and Generating Station Value 3. PACE/NAES Monthly Report (January) 4. Update - Options to Address Regulation 1146 Emission Control Requirements at McKee Run 3 Electric Generation Station 5. Proposed Energy Conservation Plan for Dover (Ron Zink, Sierra Club) 6. Adjournment by 6:30 P.M. /tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Agendas\2007\02-26-2007 UTILITY.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

UTILITY -02-26-2007-1 Staff recommends the adoption of the following Resolution setting the date of the annexation Referendum to be held on APRIL 12, 2007, for property located on the west side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane. A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER AND CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE SAID AREA. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area located on the west side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane, which is contiguous to the present City limits, into the limits of the City of Dover and within a zoning classification as recommended by the City of Dover Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That a special election be held for an area located on the west side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware. 2. That the election be held on the 12th day of April, 2007 commencing at the hours of 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Annex, 15 E. Loockerman Street, Dover, Delaware, for the purpose of submitting the question of annexation of the above area to those persons entitled to vote thereon. 3. That the election be held and conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dover as amended. 4. That this resolution be published in accordance with the City of Dover Charter. ADOPTED: * S:\ClerksOffice\Annexations\Annex-2007\US 113 - W Side across from Lafferty Ln\CAF 02-26-07 - 1 US 113 Referendum Resolution.wpd

PETITION TO ANNEX AND ZONE PROPERTY Before The City Council Utility Committee February 26, 2007 Applicant: Stillman Glade Associates, Inc. 30 The Green Dover, DE 19901 Owner: David Harer Ryan Lloyd The Island Farm 1106 Bay Road 1080 South Bay Road 16793 Island Farm Lane Dover, DE 19901 Dover, DE 19901 Milton, DE 19968 Location: US 113, Across from Lafferty Lane, South of Dover Size: +/-3.3 acres Tax Parcel #: ED-00-086.00-01-16.01-000, ED-00-086.00-01-04.00-000 and ED-00- 086.00-01-03.00-000. Application Date: January 23, 2007 County Zoning: BN (Neighborhood Business), RS-1 (Single Family Residence) Proposed Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial) AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) – Noise Zone ‘C’ Present Use: Residential dwelling Proposed Use: Hotel and Restaurant Comprehensive Plan Designation: Category 2 – Lands Desirable for Annexation Utility Availability: The properties are currently receiving electricity from the City of Dover. City water service is available from the east side of US 113. The developer will be required to jack and bore state roadway for access to water. Sanitary sewer service if available is serviced by Kent County. Cost-Rev Analysis: The Cost-Revenue analysis showed a positive cash flow to the City of approximately $56,805 over ten years.

File Number: AX-07-02 **NOTE: These properties are located within AEOZ Noise Zone ‘C’. The proposed use of a Hotel is not a permitted use under Article 3 §22.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Cost-Revenue analysis is based upon data provided by the applicant and is calculated as if the property will be used in the manner of a Hotel.

Synopsis of Cost/Revenue Analysis Model for Annexation AX-07-02: Lands of Herer, Lloyd, and the Island Farm located at 1106 Bay Road (3.3 acre) The following are notes regarding Cost/Revenue Analysis Model and the data inputs for the calculations. Model Calculations • The model was run using the 2006 budget. The applicants provided the development numbers. Residential Costs • None. Residential Revenue • None Non-Residential Costs • The Electric cost and revenue are suspected to be too high. The problem arises because of the percent usage by residential customers and not the percentage of population. • Police operation costs are suspected to be high. The problem arises because the calculation of cost is based on the index of taxes and not the proportion of crimes that occur related to this type of residential property. • The General Administrative costs are suspected to be too high. The problem arises because the calculated cost is based on the index of taxes. • The projected planning and inspection costs are suspected to be too high for post development years 2-9. The problem arises on how the numbers are calculated by the model. • The property currently has City of Dover Electric Service. Non-Residential Revenue • The Electric cost and revenue are suspected to be too high. The problem arises because of the percent usage by residential customers and not the percentage of population. • The property currently has City of Dover Electric Service. • The projected planning and inspection revenue is suspected to be too high for post development years 2-9. The problem arises on how the numbers are calculated by the model.

Model Development Plan City of Dover Cost/Revenue Analysis Module 0 Budget Year: 2006 Location: 1106 Bay Road NON-RESIDENTIAL COSTS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Development Dev. Dev. Post Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Service Type Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Formula Sewer & Water Capital Operating $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 $17,260 Sanitation Capital Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Police Capital Operating $23,678 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 $23,560 Fire Capital Operating Planning & Inspections Capital Operating $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 Streets Capital Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Library Capital Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Parks & Recreation Capital Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electric Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Operating $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 $245,870 General Administrative Capital Operating $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 $8,481 TOTAL COSTS $297,670 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUE Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Development Dev. Dev. Post Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Revenue Source Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Formula

Property Tax $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 $22,770 Transfer Tax $12 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Municipal Street Aid Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electric $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 $247,861 Sewer/Water $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 $22,689 Sanitation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Permits & Licenses $21,600 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 $3,207 Wastewater Impact Fee $30,592 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Comcast Franchise $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 TOTAL REVENUE $347,342 $298,356 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Development Dev. Dev. Post Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 TOTAL Total Costs $297,670 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $297,553 $2,975,647 Total Revenue $347,342 $298,356 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $298,344 $3,032,451 Net Cost/Revenue Impact $49,671 $803 $791 $791 $791 $791 $791 $791 $791 $791 $56,805

City of Dover Application No.: AX-07-02 Department of Planning & Inspections C-3 M IPM E AN L Y RT FFE L A MHP Site C-4 R-20 0 330 660 1,320 Feet Legend Plan Title: AX-07-02 Lands of Island Farm Inc., Harer, and Lloyd Plan Type: Annexation Dover Parcels Tax Parcels: ED-00-086.00-01-16.01-000, ED-00-086.00-01-04.00-000 and Dover Boundary ED-00-086.00-01-03.00-000 Site Area: 3.3 ac Zoning Owner: David Harer, Ryan Lloyd, and The Island Farm County Zoning: BN (Neighborhood Business ) and RS-1 (Single Family Residential, AEOZ - Noise Zone 'C' Proposed Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial) AEOZ - Noise Zone 'C' Date: 2-22-07 «

Washington New York Houston Columbia San Diego London Moscow Mexico City Overview of Energy and Capacity Markets and Impacts to Customers and Generating Station Value February 26, 2007

Agenda • Energy and Capacity Markets – Congestion • The Development of the Capacity Market in PJM • Impact to Customers and Generating Station Valuation 2 Proprietary & Confidential

Energy and Capacity Markets • Because Dover serves load (has customers) PJM requires Dover to provide for both energy and capacity. Energy is the actual power used in Dover and Capacity is a planning tool used to ensure sufficient electric resources are available to maintain the reliability of the electric grid • Energy needs for Dover are met through purchases from investment grade sellers (utilities and energy brokers) and self supply from the generating assets during high price periods • Dover meets its Capacity obligation through self supply (ownership of generating assets) and small purchases from the market (5,000 -10,000 kW) 3 Proprietary & Confidential

PJM Region Source: PJM 4 Proprietary & Confidential

Energy and Capacity Markets: Congestion • Congestion is the price premium certain loads pay for electricity when there is insufficient transmission to deliver lower cost electricity from remote generation • Recent “New York Times” article cited Energy Department estimate of congestion costs to be approximately $8 billion in 2008 for the eastern United States or about $40 per person assuming a population of 200 million • Congestion costs to Dover are minimized through forward purchases of energy from the market delivered to Dover/DPL zone. Estimates of the congestion cost to Dover for purchases from the PJM market are very small due to these forward purchases based on billings received from PJM • Primary driver for increased energy costs is fuel 5 Proprietary & Confidential

Historic PJM Energy Cost • PJM reports that on a fuel adjusted basis only, energy costs as defined by the pool average Locational Marginal Cost (“LMP”) have been flat since 1998. $70.00 $67.84 $60.00 $50.00 $44.81 $40.00 $35.41 $38.42 $40.45 $33.26 $33.67 $30.00 $28.04 $24.39 $20.00 $17.66 $19.37 $20.65 $19.58 $18.14 $20.37 $10.00 $0.00 / / / / / / / / 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Source: PJM 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 LMP Fuel Adjusted LMP 6 Proprietary & Confidential

Development of the Capacity Markets in PJM 7 Proprietary & Confidential

Shortcomings of the Current PJM Capacity Market • High volatility of capacity prices, most often near $0/kW-Month • No long-term forward commitment • Does not provide any locational value to capacity 8 7 6 CapacityPrices$kW-Month 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan-99 May-99 Sep-99 Jan-00 May-00 Sep-00 Jan-01 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03 Jan-04 May-04 Sep-04 Jan-05 May-05 Sep-05 Jan-06 May-06 Sep-06 8 Proprietary & Confidential

December FERC Ruling on PJM Capacity Markets • Capacity is valued on a locational basis, prices determined by new auction process • Phased-in three-year look ahead for capacity commitments • Dover’s capacity requirements for load can be met by: – existing generation or purchases from the market – demand resources • Laid out clear regulations applicable to Dover: – 4 Locational Deliverability Areas (“LDA”) in the transition period (3 years) – Followed by PJM creating potentially 20+ new LDAs following the transition period 9 Proprietary & Confidential

Interim Period Locational Deliverability Areas 10 Proprietary & Confidential

Long Term PJM Locational Deliverability Areas (LDA’s) • Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”) • Delmarva Power and Light Company • American Electric Power (“AEP”) • PECO Energy Company • Dominion • Potomac Electric and Gas Company • Dayton Power and Light, and Duquesne • Public Service Electric and Gas Company Light Company; • Jersey Central Power and Light • Virginia Power; Company • Pennsylvania Electric Company • Metropolitan Edison Company (“Penelec”) • PPL Electric Utilities Corporation • Allegany Power • PSEG northern region • Atlantic City Electric Company; • Delmarva southern region • Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; • Duquesne Light Company; 11 Proprietary & Confidential

Impact to Customers and Generating Station Valuation 12 Proprietary & Confidential

Impact to Customers • Beginning in June 2007, Dover will be required to meet their capacity obligations through self supply, contracting with third parties or by purchasing from PJM • The Capacity Market will have the effect of increasing the value of generating assets but requiring load serving entities to pay for the increased value of capacity • Dover’s generation capacity 170,000 kW will not meet the expected first year obligation of approximately 180,000-185,000 kW depending on final peak determination and reserve requirements. • At a $10/kW-yr auction clearing price the expected annual revenue to the generating assets (Dover) is $1.7 million (170,000 kW x $10/kW-yr.) • Costs to Dover’s load at $10/kW-yr. is estimated at $1.8 million to $1.85 million (180,000-185,000 kW peak x $10/kw-yr.) or 0.23 cents per kWh • Net costs to Dover (generation capacity revenue less cost to load) in the first year is estimated to be between $100,000 to $150,000. 13 Proprietary & Confidential

Generating Station Valuation • With the new Capacity Markets, expected cash flow value of existing generating assets is approximately $39 million over 20 years • Forward capacity value is critical to value of the assets representing the majority of value therein • Pace and NAES continue to seek ways to reduce costs to reflect peaking operations and reduce or eliminate near term losses Combined M cKee Run and Van Sant Cash Flow Forecast $MM Cash 10.0 Residual Cash Flow 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 -2.0 -4.0 14 Proprietary & Confidential

Cash Flows: Current Cost Structure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Cash Flows with Mckee Run and Vansant Energy Revenues $000 9,524 9,919 8,547 6,861 8,103 12,734 14,383 15,512 15,520 Capacity Revenues $000 1,085 1,589 2,293 3,289 3,066 3,547 5,194 5,283 5,374 Total Revenues $000 10,609 11,508 10,840 10,150 11,169 16,281 19,577 20,795 20,894 Total Fuel and Variable Cost $000 8,356 8,618 7,343 5,951 7,309 11,593 13,184 14,272 14,293 Gross Margin $000 2,253 2,890 3,497 4,199 3,859 4,689 6,392 6,523 6,602 Fixed Operating Cost $000 4,780 4,896 5,015 5,137 5,262 5,390 5,521 5,655 5,792 Revenue from Allowance Sales $000 1,273 1,375 1,485 1,202 1,298 1,403 1,515 1,635 1,766 Cash Flow $000 (1,254) (631) (34) 264 (104) 702 2,386 2,503 2,575 Debt Service $000 (928) (940) (953) (974) (991) (1,013) (1,029) (1,056) (1,081) Residual Cash Flow $000 (2,182) (1,572) (986) (710) (1,096) (311) 1,357 1,447 1,494 Cash Flows without Mckee Run and Vansant 170 MW Capacity Purchase Cost $000 (1,160) (1,700) (2,452) (3,519) (3,279) (3,794) (5,556) (5,651) (5,748) Debt Service $000 (928) (940) (953) (974) (991) (1,013) (1,029) (1,056) (1,081) Residual Cash Flow $000 (2,088) (2,640) (3,405) (4,493) (4,270) (4,807) (6,585) (6,707) (6,830) 15 Proprietary & Confidential

Cash Flows: Current Cost Structure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Cash Flows with Mckee Run and Vansan Energy Revenues $000 14,655 15,572 14,745 15,265 21,852 22,229 21,909 22,428 21,001 23,763 23,534 Capacity Revenues $000 6,835 7,414 7,542 8,630 9,755 9,923 10,094 10,267 10,444 10,624 10,807 Total Revenues $000 21,490 22,986 22,286 23,896 31,607 32,152 32,003 32,695 31,445 34,388 34,341 Total Fuel and Variable Cost $000 13,493 14,270 13,390 13,868 20,022 20,362 19,996 20,333 19,114 21,519 21,350 Gross Margin $000 7,997 8,717 8,897 10,027 11,585 11,790 12,007 12,363 12,331 12,869 12,992 Fixed Operating Cost $000 5,933 6,077 6,225 6,376 6,531 6,690 6,853 7,019 7,190 7,364 7,543 Revenue from Allowance Sales $000 1,907 2,059 2,224 2,402 2,450 2,496 2,543 2,590 2,639 2,689 2,739 Cash Flow $000 3,971 4,699 4,896 6,054 7,503 7,596 7,697 7,934 7,781 8,193 8,187 Debt Service $000 - - - - - - - - - - - Residual Cash Flow $000 3,971 4,699 4,896 6,054 7,503 7,596 7,697 7,934 7,781 8,193 8,187 Cash Flows without Mckee Run and Van 170 MW Capacity Purchase Cost $000 (7,312) (7,931) (8,067) (9,232) (10,434) (10,614) (10,797) (10,983) (11,172) (11,365) (11,560) Debt Service $000 - - - - - - - - - - - Residual Cash Flow $000 (7,312) (7,931) (8,067) (9,232) (10,434) (10,614) (10,797) (10,983) (11,172) (11,365) (11,560) 16 Proprietary & Confidential

City of Dover January Monthly Report Asset, Energy and Risk Management This Report was produced by Pace Global Energy Services, LLC (“Pace Global”) and is meant to be read as a whole and in conjunction with this disclaimer. Any use of this Report other than as a whole and in conjunction with this disclaimer is forbidden. Any use of this Report outside of its stated purpose without the prior written consent of Pace Global is forbidden. Except for its stated purpose, this Report may not be copied or distributed in whole or in part without Pace Global’s prior written consent. This Report and the information and statements herein are based in whole or in part on information obtained from various sources as of January 30, 2006. While Pace Global believes such information to be accurate, it makes no assurances, endorsements or warranties express or implied, as to the validity, accuracy or completeness of any such information, any conclusions based thereon, or any methods disclosed in this Report. Pace Global assumes no responsibility for the results of any actions and inactions taken on the basis of this Report. By a party using, acting or relying on this Report, such party consents and agrees that Pace Global, its employees, directors, officers, contractors, advisors, members, affiliates, successors and agents shall have no liability with respect to such use, actions, inactions, or reliance. This Report does contain some forward-looking opinions. Certain unanticipated factors could cause actual results to differ from the opinions contained herein. Forward-looking opinions are based on historical and/or current information that relate to future operations, strategies, financial results or other developments. Some of the unanticipated factors, among others, that could cause the actual results to differ include regulatory developments, technological changes, competitive conditions, new products, general economic conditions, changes in tax laws, adequacy of reserves, credit and other risks associated with City of Dover and/or other third parties, significant changes in interest rates and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Further, certain statements, findings and conclusions in this Report are based on Pace Global’s interpretations of various contracts. Interpretations of these contracts by legal counsel or a jurisdictional body could differ. over 25 Website: www.paceglobal.com Washington New York Houston Columbia San Diego London Moscow Mexico City

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2 Purchased Power ............................................................................................................ 3 Generation ...................................................................................................................... 4 Operations and Asset Management ................................................................................ 5 Energy Management ....................................................................................................... 9 Risk Management ......................................................................................................... 12 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................... 19 North American Energy Services January Report ..................................................... 19 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................... 20 PJM Invoice Breakdown ............................................................................................ 20 Proprietary & Confidential 1 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Generation v Budget Dover Load v 3 Year Average Load Load Cost v Budget Cost 15000 100,000 88 12000 75,000 86 MWh 9000 MWh $ /M W h 6000 50,000 84 3000 25,000 82 0 06 07 07 20 20 20 0 80 ly n ly Ju Ja Ju Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Actual Gen Budget Gen Actual Average Actual Weighted Average Budget Generation and Asset Management Net generation for the month of January credited by PJM was 232 MWh (McKee Run #2 ran out of merit only in early January to support local transmissions upgrades) compared to a budget of 4,500 MWh. Because the units ran out of merit order, a negative gross margin (or loss of $42,208) was realized. During the month of January, North American Energy Services reported that there were no lost time accidents, OSHA reportable incidents or environmental Notice of Violations. Costs attributable to the operations of the McKee Run and VanSant stations were $115,809 below a budget of $620,883 due to payroll timing timing (three budgeted, two realized) and lower than budgeted run times. For power year 2006-07, operations are $606,113 below a budget of $3,439,894. Energy and Risk Management Wholesale load for the month of January was 62,701 MWh’s verses a three year historic load of 65,300 MWhs. Purchased power (or hedges) accounted for 62,840 MWH’s of this volume at a cost of $4.64 million. Purchases and sales as well as other PJM related charges accounted for an additional cost of $258,694 inclusive of all load related fees. Total purchased power costs for the month of January was $5.15 million resulting in an all in cost of power with fees of $82.07/MWh or $1.93/MWh below the targeted annual average of $84.00/MWh. Dover is calculated to be 100% hedged on peak and 101% hedged off peak for an anticipated all in delivered cost of $82.77 for the 2006/07 power year. Hedging has begun for the 2007/08 power year and currently Dover is hedged 91% on peak and 80% off peak with a at market expected price of $83.40/MWh delivered to the Dover bus before any incentive fee paid to the Energy Manager. Hedging for 2008/09 and 2009/10 power years have also begun as described further in the report. All purchases are with investment grade entities. Based on current market conditions, certain hedges have moved to be “out of the money” or possess a negative market value to Dover. Credit is not currently required to be posted by the counterparties but such position is being closely monitored by Pace Asset Management. Proprietary & Confidential 2 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

PURCHASED POWER Dover Load v 3 Year Average Load Load Cost v Budget Cost 100,000 88 75,000 86 MWh $/M W h 50,000 84 25,000 82 0 80 Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Actual Average Actual Weighted Average Budget January Hedges or Purchased Power Counterparty Volume (MWh) Average Cost Cost to Dover ($/MWh) ($ millions) BP 18,600 73.10 1.36 Constellation 27,400 77.50 2.12 WPS 16,840 68.38 1.15 Connective (Capacity 313 5.00 --- Only) (equivalent cost) (equivalent cost) Total Energy Purchases 62,840 73.58 4.64 Dover Load 62,701 -- -- Balanced Purchased from PJM and Load Related Fees Purchased Power (Hedges) 62,840 MWh’s @ $74.58/MWh: $4,636,567 Power sold to PJM (139 MWh’s) and Additional PJM Related Costs $258,694 Total Cost to Serve Load (62,701 MWh’s) $4,895,261 All in $/MWh load cost inclusive of Energy Manager Fees: $82.07/MWh Highlights • Declining market pricing resulted in below budget purchases for the month of January • Generating units were not dispatch in merit order in the month due to soft prices, McKee Run #2 ran to support transmission work only in early January • Due to economics, McKee #2 ran on gas in early January. No replacement oil has yet been purchased. Expect to purchase No. 2 oil in February to support VanSant, No. 6 oil inventories are adequate Proprietary & Confidential 3 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

GENERATION Gross M argin vs Budget Generation v Budget 500 450 400 350 15000 300 250 12000 200 150 MWh 9000 100 50 $1000 0 6000 -50 Ju Au Se Oc No De Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Ju ly gu pte to ve ce nu br rc ril y ne -100 st mb be mb mb ary ua h r ry 3000 -150 er er er -200 0 -250 -300 06 07 07 -350 20 20 20 -400 ly Jan ly -450 Ju Ju -500 Budget Actual Actual Gen Budget Gen Energy Gross Margin includes capacity and ancillary services value. Month – January 2007 McKee McKee McKee MRS VanSant Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Facility Unit 11 All Units Capacity MW 17 17 102 136 39 175 On Line Hours Hrs 0 42.784 0 42.784 0 42.784 Starts # 0 1 0 1 0 1 Gross Generation MWh 0 307.171 0 307.171 0 307.171 Net Generation MWh 0 285.314 0 285.314 0 285.314 Total Auxiliaries MWh 41.80 63.657 178.468 367.524 40.438 407.962 Auxiliaries purchased MWh 41.80 41.80 178.468 345.667 40.438 386.105 Fuel Gas Used MMBTU 0 3,953,023 203,480* 4,156,503#* 0 4,156,503#* Fuel Oil Used MMBTU 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil Used Gallons 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Fuel MMBTU 0 3,953,023 203,480* 4,156,503#* 0 4,156,503#* Net Heat Rate BTU/KWh NA 13,855 NA 13,855 NA 13,855 Unit Trips # 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capacity Factor % 0% 2.26% 0% 0.28% 0% 0.22% Availability Factor % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% eFOR % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% HW Boiler Gas Usage MMBTU 2,156,005 2,156,005 Pilot Gas Usage MMBTU 0 141,105 141,105 141,105 January Emissions and to Date Tons emitted Seasonal tons Tons in Inventory current month emitted year to date SOx 0 0 2,718 NOx 0 0 172 Highlights: • McKee Run #2 ran for support of local transmission outages resulting in a $42,208 gross margin loss (fuel cost more than power) • Sales of excess NOx allowances were approved in January. Expected income of approximately $165,000 based on a $960/per ton sale price. Proprietary & Confidential 4 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

OPERATIONS AND ASSET MANAGEMENT Unit performance for the month of January is provided below Month – January 2007 McKee McKee McKee MRS VanSant Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Facility Unit 11 All Units Capacity MW 17 17 102 136 39 175 On Line Hours Hrs 0 42.784 0 42.784 0 42.784 Starts # 0 1 0 1 0 1 Gross Generation MWh 0 307.171 0 307.171 0 307.171 Net Generation MWh 0 285.314 0 285.314 0 285.314 Total Auxiliaries MWh 41.80 63.657 178.468 367.524 40.438 407.962 Auxiliaries purchased MWh 41.80 41.80 178.468 345.667 40.438 386.105 Fuel Gas Used MMBTU 0 3,953,023 203,480* 4,156,503#* 0 4,156,503#* Fuel Oil Used MMBTU 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil Used Gallons 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Fuel MMBTU 0 3,953,023 203,480* 4,156,503#* 0 4,156,503#* Net Heat Rate BTU/KWh NA 13,855 NA 13,855 NA 13,855 Unit Trips # 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capacity Factor % 0% 2.26% 0% 0.28% 0% 0.22% Availability Factor % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% eFOR % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% HW Boiler Gas Usage MMBTU 2,156,005 2,156,005 Pilot Gas Usage MMBTU 0 141,105 141,105 141,105 # Note: Does not include HWB or Pilot Gas Unit Trips/Outages During the month of January, Unit #2 at the McKee Run Facility was self dispatched on January 2nd and 3rd to support the City of Dover Electric Department while their line crews worked on upgrades to the 69KV electrical distribution system. The line work which required plant operation to support their line upgrade efforts has now been completed. Other Events During the month, Bob Sansone, Mike Corbett and Christopher Fancher from XL Insurance Services, the City of Dover’s insurance carrier, toured the McKee Run and VanSant facilities to provide technical support and assistance to the plant in a number of areas. Transformer Oil test results were reviewed and it was determined that no corrective actions are needed at this time. The recommendation by XL Insurance was to continue to monitor and sample the transformer oil on a regular basis as is presently set up in the plant’s preventative/predictive maintenance program. In addition, thermographic test results of the Unit 1 and 2 motor control centers and plant switchyard were reviewed with XL Insurance Services. There were several hot spots identified and work orders have been written up and entered into MAXIMO, the plant’s computerized maintenance management system to ensure the discrepancies are corrected in a timely manner. XL Insurance will provide a detailed report of their site visit which will also include their Proprietary & Confidential 5 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

recommendations on plant improvements. NAES proceeded to clean the McKee Run Fuel Oil Tank #2 that is now empty so that it can be assessed for either use as a holding tank for the remaining fuel in the McKee Run Fuel Oil Tank #1 or to take the tank completely out of service. We have not yet received the final report from the API 653 Inspection recently completed in early January. Once we receive the final report, the plant will submit their request for a time extension on the Out-of-Service Inspection required for McKee Run Tank #1 by June 30, 2007. We are also assessing quotes for the API 653 Inspection on the McKee Run Tank #2. Action plans/objectives as part of the appraisal process for the coming year were mutually developed for all employees and have been finalized and were presented to them in January. NAES is in the final stages of developing the Budget for the fiscal year 2007-2008. The last bit of information we need to complete the budget will not be available until January 31, 2007 at which time the budget will be submitted to Pace Global for final approval Power Year to Date Performance is provided below: Fiscal Year to Date 7/1/06-6/30/07 McKee McKee McKee MRS VanSant Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Facility Unit 11 All Units Capacity MW 17 17 102 136 39 175 On Line Hours Hrs 184.134 190.018 411.608 785.760 107.120 892.880 Starts # 6 5 21 32 31 63 Gross Generation MWh 1,499.154 1,580.808 20,801.383 23,881.345 3,377.692 27,259.037 Net Generation MWh 1,406.823 1,482.405 18,992.793 21,882.021 3,357.616 25,239.637 Total Auxiliaries MWh 317.878 323.950 3,359.008 4,000.835 196.201 4,241.623 Auxiliaries purchased MWh 225.547 225.547 1,550.418 2,001,511 176.125 2,222.223 Fuel Gas Used MMBTU 13,478,640 17,386,555 152,716,243 183,581,439# 42,000,242 225,581,681# Fuel Oil Used MMBTU 8,547,961 3,177,772 84,820,428 96,546,161, 2,941,527 99,487,689 Fuel Oil Used Gallons 57,177 21,256 565,969 644,402 21,083 661,485 Total Fuel MMBTU 22,135,237 20,604,237 237,535,619 281,315,124# 44,941,770 325,069,370# Net Heat Rate BTU/KWh 15,734 13,900 12,551 12,847 13,385 12,918 Unit Trips # 4 1 1 6 7 13 Capacity Factor % 1.60% 1.69% 3.61% 3.12% 1.67% 2.80% Availability Factor % 97.12% 98.01% 99.34% 98.16% 98.94% 98.35% eFOR % 1.35% 4.24% 0.66% 1.20% 0.0% 0.93% HW Boiler Gas Usage MMBTU 11,793,134 11,793,134 Pilot Gas Usage MMBTU 526,200 822,562 1,348,762 1,348,762 # Note: Does not include HWB or Pilot Gas Environmental, Health and Safety There were no Notice of Violations or Environmental excursions during the month. There was one opacity deviation during the month which occurred on January 2, 2007 and Unit 2 during full cycle soot blowing. It was the first time the unit had operated since December 13, 2006. The 2006 Annual and Semi-Annual Air Compliance Certifications for the McKee Run and VanSant Proprietary & Confidential 6 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Generating Facilities were completed and submitted to DNREC and the EPA. Included in the submission was the Quarterly Opacity Report for VanSant Generating Station and the Semi-Annual Operating Report for VanSant. Also during January, the Quarterly EDR’s (Electronic Data Reports) were filed for McKee Run Unit 3 and VanSant Unit 11. The audit feedback from the EPA and the Clean Air Market Division MDC check (Monitoring Plan Data Checking Software) stated that no errors were found. Emissions Allowances For the month of January no tons of SOx and less than 1 ton of NOx were emitted. Emissions verse banked allowances are cited below; Tons emitted Tons emitted year to Tons in Inventory current month date SOx 0 0 2,718 NOx 0 0 172 Current market pricing (2/15) for allowances are $497/ton for SOx and $960/ton for NOx. Note, NOx allowance retirement is only applicable to generation during the Ozone Season or generation between May 1 and September 30 of each calendar year. Generation Financial Performance Per the table below, the McKee and VanSant station experienced a net gross margin loss of $42,208 on energy sales for the month of January due to the fact the units ran out of merit (reliability reasons) to support transmission related work performed by the City’s electric distribution department. Summary of Generation Sales and Fuel Purchases Transaction Volumes Revenue/Cost PJM Invoice for Power Sold 232 MWh’s $10,695 Fuel and Transport 7,225 dth gas $57,881 Net Generation Revenue 232 MWh’s $47,186 * Excludes Black Start revenue shown in January estimates, such revenue is included below Plus Other Revenue Black Start: $4,978 Less Net Generation Revenue ($47,186) Realized margin for January ($42,208) Proprietary & Confidential 7 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Operating Costs Operating Costs for the month of January were $505,074 (budget $620,883) or better than budget by $115,809 due to timing of insurance costs and lower than expected labor costs and scheduling of certain maintenance activities. A breakdown of operating costs for January and year to date are provided below: Financial – Current Month Month – January 2007 Actual Budget Variance Personnel 265,393 372,632 107,329 Administrative 181,056 147,169 (33,887) EH & S 20,310 7,500 (12,810) Maintenance Expense 14,145 39,050 24,905 Operations Expense 24,169 54,532 30,363 Total $505,074 $620,883 $115,809 Financial – Fiscal Year to Date Number of Months – 7 Actual Budget Variance Personnel 1,749,578 1,940,893 191,315 Administrative 681,891 667,018 (14,873) EH & S 33,369 57,000 23,631 Maintenance Expense 268,261 386,850 118,589 Operations Expense 100,682 388,133 287,451 Total $2,833,781 $3,439,894 $606,113 . Proprietary & Confidential 8 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

ENERGY MANAGEMENT Purchased Power and Volumes and Pricing Purchased power for the month of January is summarized below. This power serves to hedge or protect Dover from the volatility of the wholesale power markets. Counterparty Volume (MWh) Average Cost Cost to Dover ($/MWh) ($ millions) BP 18,600 73.10 1.36 Constellation 27,400 77.50 2.12 WPS 16,840 68.38 1.15 Connective (Capacity 313 5.00 --- Only) (equivalent cost) (equivalent cost) Total Energy Purchases 62,840 75.58 4.64 Total volume of power delivered to the Dover bus was 62,701 MWh’s requiring Dover to sell 139 MWh’s from the PJM market for the month of January. Summary of Dover Load Costs Purchased Power (Hedges) 62,840 MWh’s @ $75.58/MWh: $4,636,567 Power sales to PJM (139 MWh’s) and Additional PJM Related Costs1 $258,694 Energy Manager Fee and Incentive (Fee @ $2.76/MWh, Incentive @ $1.24/MWh) $250,804 Total Cost to Serve Load (62,701 MWh’s) $5,146,065 Cost per MWh $82.07 1 Includes transmission charges, reserve charges, etc. See Appendix 2 for details. Proprietary & Confidential 9 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Purchased Commodity Gas Volumes and Pricing Mild weather and lower loads in PJM yielded lower on and off-peak market prices which did not warrant running of either the McKee Run or Van Sant generators except for reliability purposes which they did on gas in early January. Date Volume (Dth) Price ($/Dth) Total Commodity Cost ($) 12/29 650 6.40 4,160 12/29 1,950 6.40 12,480 1/2 2,000 5.79 11,580 1/12 400 6.15 2,460 1/19 300 6.49 1,947 1/26 375 7.75 2,906 Total Cost 5,675 35,533 Gas was purchased to maintain the fuel oil inventories at McKee Run at approximately 140 degrees. A firm delivery of natural gas is required to maintain this temperature. This firm delivery base load gas supply has been purchased from the Hess Corporation. The Details of this deal are as follows: Firm Gas Supply Price Per dth Total Cost 50 dth/day $7.05 $10,928 Gas Transportation Purchased Eastern Shore Natural Gas Pipeline and TransCo agreements provide for deliveries to the McKee Run and VanSant stations. These charges include a firm demand charge and prior period adjustments as follows: ESNG FT Demand Charge $4,342 TransCo FT Demand Charge $3,192 Total Purchases $7,534 Other Gas Purchases Due to the units being run for reliability, gas was purchased from the pipeline. Pace Global Asset Management made every effort possible to minimize the cash out exposure of being long on the pipeline. Below are the imbalances and demand charges from Eastern Shore Pipeline. Imbalance (dth) Estimated $/dth Estimated Total Cos (68) $7.80 ($530.40) Transport Volume Estimated $/dth Estimated Total Cost Firm 1,500 $0.017 ($25.50) IT 5,675 $0.5866 ($3,330) Proprietary & Confidential 10 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Purchased Commodity Fuel Oil Summary No fuel oil was burned or purchased during the month January, inventories of No.2 at VanSant will require purchases in February. Oil Inventory as of January 31: # 6 Oil: 1,304,646 gallons #2 Oil: 132,480 gallons Proprietary & Confidential 11 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

RISK MANAGEMENT 2006 - 2007 Power Year Hedge Position As of February 14th, estimated power consumption for Power Year 2006-2007 was hedged at 100% peak and 101% off-peak. Hedge volumes are based on the three year historical load profile of Dover at the Dover bus prior to any distribution losses to the retail meter. As shown below at these hedge levels an all in price to Dover is estimated at $82.77/MWh for the 2006/2007 power year. The 10 day value at risk (with an adverse market movement in commodity and load following) could increase this target number to $84.32/MWh. Price Date Forward Hedge % Power Year 2006-07 2/14/2007 Peak 100% Off Peak 101% At Market At Market + Risk* Energy Cost $71.61 $71.75 Incentive Non-Energy Items LSE Capacity $0.01 $0.01 Load Following $3.59 $5.00 FRC Margin $0.00 $0.00 $3.60 $5.01 Pass-Through Items Transmission $2.19 $2.19 Ancillary $1.37 $1.37 Losses $0.00 $0.00 $3.56 $3.56 Add Pace Fees $2.76 $2.76 Total Cost $81.53 $83.08 Add Incentive $1.24 $1.24 Current Expected $82.77 $84.32 * Includes estimate of 10-Day VaR & LF Risk Includes actual through Dec 2006 Proprietary & Confidential 12 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

2007 - 2008 Power Year Hedge Position For power year 2007-2008, the estimated power consumption was hedged 91%% peak and 80% off-peak. Hedge volumes are based on the three year historical load profile at the Dover bus prior to any distribution losses to the retail meter. As shown below at these hedge levels an all in price to Dover is estimated at $83.40/MWh before any incentive fee. Incentive fee will be estimated once the benchmark cost of supply is established for the 2007-2008 power year. The 10 day value at risk (with an adverse market movement in commodity and load following) could increase this target number to $85.61/MWh. Price Date Forward Hedge % Power Year 2007-08 2/14/2007 Peak 91% Off Peak 80% At Market At Market + Risk* Energy Cost $72.81 $73.52 Incentive Non-Energy Items LSE Capacity $0.01 $0.01 Load Following $3.50 $5.00 FRC Margin $0.00 $0.00 $3.51 $5.01 Pass-Through Items Transmission $2.24 $2.24 Ancillary $2.00 $2.00 Losses $0.00 $0.00 $4.24 $4.24 Add Pace Fees** $2.84 $2.84 Total Cost $83.40 $85.61 Add Incentive $0.00 $0.00 Current Expected $83.40 $85.61 * Includes estimate of 10-Day VaR & LF Risk ** No load growth assumed Proprietary & Confidential 13 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

2008 - 2009 Power Year Hedge Position For power year 2008-2009, the estimated power consumption was hedged 14.6% peak and 18.7% off- peak. Hedge volumes are based on the three year historical load profile at the Dover bus prior to any distribution losses to the retail meter. As shown below at these hedge levels an all in price to Dover is estimated at $79.98/MWh before any incentive fee. Incentive fee will be estimated once the benchmark cost of supply is established for the 2008-2009 power year. The 10 day value at risk (with an adverse market movement in commodity and load following) could increase this target number to $84.84/MWh. Price Date Forward Hedge % Power Year 2008-09 2/14/2007 Peak 14.6% Off Peak 18.7% At Market At Market + Risk* Energy Cost $69.30 $72.66 Incentive Non-Energy Items LSE Capacity $0.01 $0.01 Load Following $3.50 $5.00 FRC Margin $0.00 $0.00 $3.51 $5.01 Pass-Through Items Transmission $2.24 $2.24 Ancillary $2.00 $2.00 Losses $0.00 $0.00 $4.24 $4.24 Add Pace Fees** $2.93 $2.93 Total Cost $79.98 $84.84 Add Incentive $0.00 $0.00 Current Expected $79.98 $84.84 * Includes estimate of 10-Day VaR & LF Risk ** No load growth assumed Proprietary & Confidential 14 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

2009 - 2010 Power Year Hedge Position For power year 2009-2010, the estimated power consumption was hedged 14.5% peak and 18.4% off- peak. Hedge volumes are based on the three year historical load profile at the Dover bus prior to any distribution losses to the retail meter. As shown below at these hedge levels an all in price to Dover is estimated at $78.25/MWh before any incentive fee. Incentive fee will be estimated once the benchmark cost of supply is established for the 2008-2009 power year. The 10 day value at risk (with an adverse market movement in commodity and load following) could increase this target number to $81.97/MWh. Price Date Forward Hedge % Power Year 2009-10 2/14/2007 Peak 14.5% Off Peak 18.4% At Market At Market + Risk* Energy Cost $67.48 $69.96 Incentive Non-Energy Items LSE Capacity $0.01 $0.01 Load Following $3.50 $5.00 FRC Margin $0.00 $0.00 $3.51 $5.01 Pass-Through Items Transmission $2.24 $2.24 Ancillary $2.00 $2.00 Losses $0.00 $0.00 $4.24 $4.24 Add Pace Fees** $3.02 $3.02 Total Cost $78.25 $82.23 Add Incentive $0.00 $0.00 Current Expected $78.25 $81.97 * Includes estimate of 10-Day VaR & LF Risk ** No load growth assumed Proprietary & Confidential 15 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Credit and Counterparty Position Pace Global Asset Management continues to monitor the in the money or out of the money position with each of the power purchases Dover has transacted for to reduce it risk profile to its load obligations. Below are summaries or the power purchases made by Dover, their corresponding credit position, term, volumes and pricing. Dover: Counterparty Credit Risk Date: February 13, 2007 10-day Credit Risk ($000) - 97.5% Confidence Level With Offsets Without Offsets Credit Tenor Mark-to- Low Price High Price Line Mark-to- Low Price High Price Line Counterparty Credit Comment Rating Limit (months) Market Outcome Outcome Availability Market Outcome Outcome Availability Sempra Energy AA 1 $20,000 Moody's Credit Rating A1 ($655) ($3,383) $2,073 $20,000 $2,695 $1,639 $4,405 $17,305 Trading Constellation AA- 1 $15,000 Moody's Credit Rating A1 ($1,302) ($2,067) ($538) $15,000 $0 $0 $55 $15,000 BP Energy AA- 1 $20,000 Moody's Credit Rating A1 ($1,193) ($3,845) $1,459 $20,000 $2,940 $1,691 $4,530 $17,060 Conectiv BBB- 1 $10,000 Moody's Credit Rating Baa3 $18 ($609) $644 $9,982 $34 $0 $644 $9,966 WPS AA- 1 $15,000 Moody's Credit Rating A1 ($617) ($1,678) $445 $15,000 $286 $56 $920 $14,714 2006-2007 power year transactions are cited below: Power Year 2006/07 Transaction Detail Hedged ID Counterparty Timeblock Quality Trade Date Buy/Sell Start Date End Date Volume Allocation Price 2 BP Energy On Peak 5x16 Firm 6/22/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 25 MW per hour $90.25 7 BP Energy Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 6/22/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 25 MW per hour $57.70 1 Conectiv On Peak 5x16 Firm 6/22/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 9/30/2006 25 MW per hour $95.00 6 Conectiv Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 6/22/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 9/30/2006 25 MW per hour $56.00 3 Constellation On Peak 5x16 Firm 6/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 50 MW per hour $88.50 4 Constellation On Peak 5x16 Firm 6/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 8/31/2006 30 MW per hour $90.50 8 Constellation Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 6/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 25 MW per hour $57.75 9 Constellation Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 6/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2006 8/31/2006 25 MW per hour $56.65 5 WPS On Peak 5x16 Firm 7/12/2006 Buy 10/1/2006 6/30/2007 20 MW per hour $84.71 10 WPS Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 7/12/2006 Buy 10/1/2006 6/30/2007 25 MW per hour $56.65 Proprietary & Confidential 16 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Power year 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 transactions are cited below: Power Year 2007/08 Transaction Detail Hedged ID Counterparty Timeblock Quality Trade Date Buy/Sell Start Date End Date Volume Allocation Price 47 Sempra Energy Trading On Peak 5x16 Firm 12/27/2007 Buy 3/1/2008 4/30/2008 25 MW per hour $76.35 48 Sempra Energy Trading On Peak 5x16 Firm 12/27/2007 Buy 5/1/2008 5/31/2008 50 MW per hour $71.35 49 Sempra Energy Trading On Peak 5x16 Firm 12/27/2006 Buy 6/1/2008 6/30/2008 75 MW per hour $85.75 50 Sempra Energy Trading Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 12/27/2006 Buy 5/1/2008 6/30/2008 25 MW per hour $44.50 51 Sempra Energy Trading Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 12/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2007 6/30/2008 5 MW per hour $66.30 52 Sempra Energy Trading On Peak 5x16 Firm 12/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2007 6/30/2008 5 MW per hour $66.30 27 WPS On Peak 5x16 Firm 10/25/2006 Buy 12/1/2007 12/31/2007 20 MW per hour $85.50 28 WPS On Peak 5x16 Firm 10/25/2006 Buy 1/1/2008 2/29/2008 10 MW per hour $101.00 29 WPS On Peak 5x16 Firm 10/26/2006 Buy 7/1/2007 8/31/2007 20 MW per hour $112.00 30 WPS On Peak 5x16 Firm 10/26/2006 Buy 9/1/2007 9/30/2007 30 MW per hour $77.00 32 WPS On Peak 5x16 Firm 10/27/2006 Buy 10/1/2007 11/30/2007 20 MW per hour $75.00 33 WPS Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 10/27/2006 Buy 7/1/2007 6/30/2008 10 MW per hour $53.30 Power Year 2008/09 Transaction Detail Hedged ID Counterparty Timeblock Quality Trade Date Buy/Sell Start Date End Date Volume Allocation Price 53 Sempra Energy Trading On Peak 5x16 Firm 1/4/2007 Buy 7/1/2008 6/30/2009 15 MW per hour $69.05 54 Sempra Energy Trading Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 1/4/2007 Buy 7/1/2008 6/30/2009 15 MW per hour $69.05 Power Year 2009/10 Transaction Detail Hedged ID Counterparty Timeblock Quality Trade Date Buy/Sell Start Date End Date Volume Allocation Price 55 Sempra Energy Trading On Peak 5x16 Firm 1/4/2007 Buy 7/1/2009 6/30/2010 15 MW per hour $68.35 56 Sempra Energy Trading Off Peak 5x8+2x24 Firm 1/4/2007 Buy 7/1/2009 6/30/2010 15 MW per hour $68.35 Proprietary & Confidential 17 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

Proprietary & Confidential 18 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

APPENDIX 1 NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SERVICES JANUARY REPORT Proprietary & Confidential 19 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

APPENDIX 2 PJM INVOICE BREAKDOWN The PJM bill is a record of all Electricity Transactions, Transmission Services, Ancillary Services and Miscellaneous fees that allow the PJM to operate. Below is a list of the line items on the PJM bill including all generator activity. PJM Line Items Load Gen Net DA Energy ($113,055.92) 10,160.22 ($102,895.70) RT Energy $38,762.42 617.80 $39,380.22 Regulation Charges ($26,895.95) 0.00 ($26,895.95) Day Ahead Operating Reserves Charges ($4,582.19) 0.00 ($4,582.19) Balancing Operating Reserves Charges ($1,989.07) (394.77) ($2,383.84) Network Integration Transmission Service Charges ($145,641.41) 0.00 ($145,641.41) Transmission Owner Scheduling System Control and Dispatch Service Charges ($4,658.66) 0.00 ($4,658.66) PJM Scheduling System Control and Dispatch Service Charges ($18,201.36) 0.00 ($18,201.36) Synchronous Condensing Charges ($1,934.02) 0.00 ($1,934.02) Synchronized Reserve Charges ($12,949.53) 0.00 ($12,949.53) Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service Charges ($22,353.15) 0.00 ($22,353.15) Reactive Services Charges ($70.56) 0.00 ($70.56) Black Start Service Charges ($1,122.63) 0.00 ($1,122.63) Auction Revenue Rights Credits $69,918.33 0.00 $69,918.33 Black Start Service Credits $0.00 4,977.77 $4,977.77 Real-time Economic Load Response Program Charges ($3,325.51) 0.00 ($3,325.51) Expansion Cost Recovery Charges ($415.29) 0.00 ($415.29) Generation Deactivation (DPL Zone) Charges - Dec 2006 ($5,202.48) 0.00 ($5,202.48) Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Credits $997.72 0.00 $997.72 Transmission Losses (Point-to-Point) Credits $3,017.92 0.00 $3,017.92 PPA ($2,230.81) 0.00 ($2,230.81) ($251,932.15) 15,361.02 ($236,571.13) Due to the Settlement of Transmission Rate Case ER05-515: Pepco/ Dpl the city is entitled to an estimated refund of $512,640 to be spread over 12 months beginning in June -06. The credit comes through on the PJM bill as a reduction in the rate charged by DPL for Network transmission service. Pace will track this credit to ensure the proper refund is received by the city. The savings by month is as follows: June-06: $91,577.42 July-06: $94,630.00 Aug-06: $94,630.00 Sept-06 $91,577.42 Oct-06 $94,630.00 Nov-06 $94,630.00 (being researched, appears to be an over refund) Note: There will be many various prior period adjustments that will flow through on every invoice. These adjustments are for the most part small. However, unless the city has made an agreement these prior periods adjustment should be billed back to Duke. Proprietary & Confidential 20 Dover Monthly Report 1-07

North American Energy Services Dover, DE January 2007 Monthly Report Winter has come to McKee Run Generating Station 1 of 14

Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Environmental Health and Safety 3.0 Financial 4.0 Operations 5.0 Maintenance 6.0 Engineering 7.0 Summary of NAES Performance 2 of 14

1.0 Executive Summary Calendar of Events Date Operate Unit(s) to Support City of Dover 69KV November 28 - December 1, 2006 Line Outages December 4 - 7, 2006 December 11 – 15, 2006 December 18 – 22, 2006 January 2 – 5, 2007 XL Insurance Services – Site visit January 23 -25, 2007 McKee Run & VanSant Annual Title V January 31, 2007 Certification Due Unit 3 Annual Outage and #1 Fuel Oil Tank March 19 – March 26, 2007 Inspection (?) Two Year Accident Free Target April 5, 2007 Unit 11 Annual Outage April 16 – 29, 2007 Unit 1 Annual Outage October 8 - 15, 2007 Unit 2 Annual Outage October 15 - 22, 2007 Environmental, Health, and Safety Month Fiscal Year to Date (January 2007) 7/1/06-6/30/07 NOVs 0 0 Opacity Deviations 1 35 Environmental Deviations 0 0 OSHA Recordable 0 0 OSHA LTA's 0 0 Operations Month Fiscal Year to Date (January 2007) 7/1/06-6/30/07 Net Station Output (MWH) – Note 1 307.71 27,259.037 Period Hours 744 20,640 On line Hours 42.784 892.880 Planned Outage Hours 0 176.817 Maintenance Outage Hours 0 54.667 Forced Outage Hours 0 108.575 Reserve Shutdown Hours 2,933.216 19,406.841 Equivalent Forced Outage Hours 0 214.57 Station Availability - Note 2 100% 98.07% Note 1 – Net Station Output does not include station auxiliaries when units are off line. Note 2 – Availability is calculated using service hours + reserve shutdown hrs divided by hours in period. 3 of 14

Gross Generation vs. Forecast (Revised 12/1/2006 ) Total Gross Generation (MWh) 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Month Actual Gross Generation (MWh) Ttl MMBTU Gross Generation Forecast (MWh) 4 of 14

2.0 Environmental, Health and Safety During the month of January, there were no employee or contractor related injuries or illnesses. The annual OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses was completed and posted in the front office prior to the February 1 due date. A copy of the completed OSHA form was also forwarded to the NAES Safety Director, Mike Gallagher There were no Notice of Violations or Environmental excursions during the month. There was one opacity deviation during the month which occurred on January 2, 2007 and Unit 2 during full cycle soot blowing. It was the first time the unit had operated since December 13, 2006. The 2006 Annual and Semi-Annual Air Compliance Certifications for the McKee Run and VanSant Generating Facilities were completed and submitted to DNREC and the EPA. Included in the submission was the Quarterly Opacity Report for VanSant Generating Station and the Semi-Annual Operating Report for VanSant. Also during January, the Quarterly EDR’s (Electronic Data Reports) were filed for McKee Run Unit 3 and VanSant Unit 11. The audit feedback from the EPA and the Clean Air Market Division MDC check (Monitoring Plan Data Checking Software) stated that no errors were found. Safety Statistics Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FYTD Hours 5,389.5 5,697.75 5129.5 5,454 5,101.5 5,089.5 5,506 37,367.75 Worked First Aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cases OSHA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recordable Lost Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accidents Restricted Workday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accident Near Miss 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Date last OSHA Recordable 4/05/05 Date last Lost Time Accident 4/05/05 Days since last OSHA recordable 666 Days since last Lost Time Accident 666 5 of 14

Emissions (NOx & SO2) All data thru 1/31/07 NOx Summary - Year (May-Sept.)Tons Year Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3 Unit #11 TOTAL 2002 17.34 14.38 175.76 6.01 213.49 2003 9.34 7.84 127.36 2.45 146.99 2004 3.38 2.74 98.76 7.55 112.43 2005 20.16 20.64 103.3 2.19 146.29 2006 1.82 1.78 19.25 1.72 24.57 2007 0 0 0 0 0 SO2 Summary - Year (Jan.-Dec.)Tons Year Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3 Unit #11 TOTAL 2002 23.43 24.93 696.91 6.38 751.65 2003 22.77 18.89 490.14 2.35 534.15 2004 10.96 9.64 489.44 1.45 490.89 2005 49.91 52.08 530.24 2.30 634.69 2006 3.69 1.51 69.92 0.24 75.36 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 Training During the month of January, members of the 2007 Employee Safety Committee were selected and given instruction on the responsibilities of safety committee members. No other EH & S training was held during the month. 6 of 14

3.0 Financial Financial – Current Month Month – January 2007 Actual Budget Variance Personnel 265,393 372,632 107,329 Administrative 181,056 147,169 (33,887) EH & S 20,310 7,500 (12,810) Maintenance Expense 14,145 39,050 24,905 Operations Expense 24,169 54,532 30,363 Total $505,074 $620,883 $115,809 Financial – Fiscal Year to Date Number of Months - 7 Actual Budget Variance Personnel 1,749,578 1,940,893 191,315 Administrative 681,891 667,018 (14,873) EH & S 33,369 57,000 23,631 Maintenance Expense 268,261 386,850 118,589 Operations Expense 100,682 388,133 287,451 Total $2,833,781 $3,439,894 $606,113 3.1 Variance analysis For the month of January, we had a favorable variance of 115,809. The variance was due to the following: PERSONNEL EXPENSES - Labor, overtime, and burdens accounted for the majority of the favorable variance of $107,239 due to us having budgeted for three payrolls in the month of January and only two were actually were booked. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES - We had a negative variance of $33,387 which was mostly due to the cost of the cleaning contract for McKee Run Oil Tank #2. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY EXPENSES - We had a negative variance of $12,810 due to the fuel oil tank cleaning. In this area, Non-Hazardous Waste disposal costs exceeded those originally expected. MAINTENANCE EXPENSES - We had a positive variance of $24,905 with a large portion of that attributed to the low run time and minimal maintenance expenditures on high ticket items like the boiler and turbine. OPERATING EXPENSES – Positive variance of $30,363 due mostly to limited run time and the variable costs associated with operating hours such as water usage and water treatment chemicals. 7 of 14

4.0 Operations Month – January 2007 McKee McKee McKee MRS VanSant Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Facility Unit 11 All Units Capacity MW 17 17 102 136 39 175 On Line Hours Hrs 0 42.784 0 42.784 0 42.784 Starts # 0 1 0 1 0 1 Gross Generation MWh 0 307.171 0 307.171 0 307.171 Net Generation MWh 0 285.314 0 285.314 0 285.314 Total Auxiliaries MWh 41.80 63.657 178.468 367.524 40.438 407.962 Auxiliaries purchased MWh 41.80 41.80 178.468 345.667 40.438 386.105 Fuel Gas Used MMBTU 0 3,953,023 203,480* 4,156,503#* 0 4,156,503#* Fuel Oil Used MMBTU 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil Used Gallons 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Fuel MMBTU 0 3,953,023 203,480* 4,156,503#* 0 4,156,503#* Net Heat Rate BTU/KWh NA 13,855 NA 13,855 NA 13,855 Unit Trips # 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capacity Factor % 0% 2.26% 0% 0.28% 0% 0.22% Availability Factor % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% eFOR % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% HW Boiler Gas Usage MMBTU 2,156,005 2,156,005 Pilot Gas Usage MMBTU 0 141,105 141,105 141,105 # Note: Does not include HWB or Pilot Gas * Note: Includes fuel used to heat boiler to prevent freezing. Fiscal Year to Date 7/1/06-6/30/07 McKee McKee McKee MRS VanSant Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Facility Unit 11 All Units Capacity MW 17 17 102 136 39 175 On Line Hours Hrs 184.134 190.018 411.608 785.760 107.120 892.880 Starts # 6 5 21 32 31 63 Gross Generation MWh 1,499.154 1,580.808 20,801.383 23,881.345 3,377.692 27,259.037 Net Generation MWh 1,406.823 1,482.405 18,992.793 21,882.021 3,357.616 25,239.637 Total Auxiliaries MWh 317.878 323.950 3,359.008 4,000.835 196.201 4,241.623 Auxiliaries purchased MWh 225.547 225.547 1,550.418 2,001,511 176.125 2,222.223 Fuel Gas Used MMBTU 13,478,640 17,386,555 152,716,243 183,581,439# 42,000,242 225,581,681# Fuel Oil Used MMBTU 8,547,961 3,177,772 84,820,428 96,546,161, 2,941,527 99,487,689 Fuel Oil Used Gallons 57,177 21,256 565,969 644,402 21,083 661,485 Total Fuel MMBTU 22,135,237 20,604,237 237,535,619 281,315,124# 44,941,770 325,069,370# Net Heat Rate BTU/KWh 15,734 13,900 12,551 12,847 13,385 12,918 Unit Trips # 4 1 1 6 7 13 Capacity Factor % 1.60% 1.69% 3.61% 3.12% 1.67% 2.80% Availability Factor % 97.12% 98.01% 99.34% 98.16% 98.94% 98.35% eFOR % 1.35% 4.24% 0.66% 1.20% 0.0% 0.93% HW Boiler Gas Usage MMBTU 11,793,134 11,793,134 Pilot Gas Usage MMBTU 526,200 822,562 1,348,762 1,348,762 # Note: Does not include HWB or Pilot Gas 8 of 14

VanSant Lifetime through 1/31/07 Actual Starts Factored Starts Fired Hours VanSant 1148 1877.25 3,755.902 Since HGP - Dec 2004 100 209.55 342.699 CapacityTesting Summer 2006-2007 (June 1- Aug 31) Winter 2006-2007 (Dec 1- Mar 1) Unit Rated Net Reported Net Unit Rated Net Reported Net Capability (MW) Capability (MW) Capability (MW) Capability (MW) 1 17 17 1 17 17.3 2 17 17.4 2 17 17.45 3 102 102.68 3 102 105.18 VanSant 39 40.3 11 40 * Total 175 177.38 Total 176 139.93 * Note: The plant requested that Units 1, 2, 3 & 11 be included in the Winter Cap Test Exemption Program which states that the units do not have to demonstrate capacity unless called upon to run during the December – February cap test period. Units 1, 2 & 3 ran during the month of December and completed their respective capacity test. Historical Performance Month Generation* Gas* Oil* Availability Capacity Factor Starts (MWh) (MMBTU) (gal) 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 Jul 6,102.198 74,878,054 11,238 97.12 100 4.69 18.2 27 21 Aug 8,144.843 85,343,345 73,580 99.23 100 6.26 18.6 19 27 Sep 0 0 0 93.86 99.93 0 2.29 0 4 Oct 720.739 7,869,890 8,549 100 96.34 .55 0.33 3 2 Nov 4,068.753 44,648,124 54,148 98.10 100 3.21 0.19 9 2 Dec 5,917.68 56,444,693 517,970 100 100 4.52 17.69 4 9 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 Jan 285.314 4,156,503 0 100 100 0.22 0 1 1 Feb 98.87 0 6 Mar 90.99 .21 2 Apr 96.53 .01 6 May 100 .09 1 Jun 100 1.07 2 FYTD 24,954.323 179,623,911 665,485 97.68 98.55 2.96 4.99 58 83 * Note: Total Net Generation for all four units combined 4.1 Training During the month of January, the Senior Operators and Operation Supervisors continued with monthly online PJM training in order to meet PJM training requirements and for further exam preparation. Auxiliary Operators have also been included in PJM training tasks and have now been officially entered into the PJM system complete with access to the on line training offered by the PJM website. The operating teams continued to train on water chemistry testing and treatment of the Hot Water Boiler System, dry startups and shutdowns of the units, and the plant air system. The teams continue to utilize their lab training by testing oil samples collected when the units operate on fuel oil. 9 of 14

4.2 Personnel We continue to have an opening in the operations department due to an employee leaving the company in October to pursue other career opportunities. At the present time, plant management has decided to leave the position open and is actively adjusting the operations teams’ work schedules to meet plant needs. 10 of 14

5.0 Maintenance During the month of January, the plant maintenance staff continued addressing our backlog of work orders and focused on keeping all units available to our client and PJM. Sixty-seven work orders were issued during the month with a total of seventy work orders being completed. The table below summarizes the monthly work order activities. Work Order Report January- 07 Outstanding From Outstanding Previous Issued This Completed at the end of Priority # Months Month This Month the month P1 0 0 0 0 P2 0 4 4 0 P3 4 12 16 0 P4 8 32 30 10 P5 1 0 1 0 P6 0 0 0 0 P7 5 8 10 3 P8 4 7 5 6 P9 2 1 0 3 P6 - 1 0 0 0 0 P6 - 2 0 0 0 0 P6 - 3 0 2 2 0 P6 – 4 2 1 1 2 P6 – 5 0 0 0 0 P6 – 6 0 0 0 0 P6 – 7 2 0 0 2 P6 - 8 1 0 1 0 PM 10 34 31 12 Totals 29 67 70 26 Note: PM's are included in the priority totals Notable activities during the month include: 1) During the month, annual OSHA required crane inspections were completed on the three cranes in the plant. 2) We continued to meet with plant staff in order to make preparations for the upcoming annual outages on McKee Run Unit 3 and VanSant Unit 11. 3) The plant staff performed ultrasonic testing (UT) and mapping of the reheat tubes in Unit 3 boiler and found one tube with a two inch crack and five others that warrant replacement due to thinning of the tubes. This work is currently being planned and scheduled. Replacement tube sections are in stock in the plant warehouse. 11 of 14

The following work orders remained open at the end of the month: Work Due Date Brief Description of Work Order Reason for Past Due Order # 5638 6/3/05 Replace H2 feed line in plant The line has been prefabricated and will be installed in March 2007 outage period 5711 6/20/05 New control room CEMS view Computer has been dedicated, need to node configure computer, expect assistance from the OEM within 60 days 6353 4/30/06 Golf cart will not charge Work in progress – a low priority with two additional carts available 6652 10/13/06 Plan and price a smoke detector Work in progress. Waiting for vendor system for admin bldg and quotes for elevator addition to the warehouse. quoted work. 6654 11/17/06 Steps for 006 Outfall Plan is being developed 6655 11/17/06 Steps for 001 Outfall Plan is being developed 6731 12/14/06 Leaking regulator on B acid pump Waiting on parts, on order at VanSant 6772 1/11/07 #1 and#2 cooling water strainers Waiting on parts, on order hard to operate 6818 1/29/07 Install hand railing around the hot Waiting on piping to be bent in a reheat line on unit 3, 4th floor semi-circle by vendor 12 of 14

6.0 Engineering Unit Trips/Outages/Operations During the month of January, Unit #2 at the McKee Run Facility was self dispatched on January 2nd and 3rd to support the City of Dover Electric Department while their line crews worked on upgrades to the 69KV electrical distribution system. The line work which required plant operation to support their line upgrade efforts has now been completed. Other Events During the month, Bob Sansone, Mike Corbett and Christopher Fancher from XL Insurance Services, the City of Dover’s insurance carrier, toured the McKee Run and VanSant facilities to provide technical support and assistance to the plant in a number of areas. Transformer Oil test results were reviewed and it was determined that no corrective actions are needed at this time. The recommendation by XL Insurance was to continue to monitor and sample the transformer oil on a regular basis as is presently set up in the plant’s preventative/predictive maintenance program. In addition, thermographic test results of the Unit 1 and 2 motor control centers and plant switchyard were reviewed with XL Insurance Services. There were several hot spots identified and work orders have been written up and entered into MAXIMO, the plant’s computerized maintenance management system to ensure the discrepancies are corrected in a timely manner. XL Insurance will provide a detailed report of their site visit which will also include their recommendations on plant improvements. We proceeded to clean the McKee Run Fuel Oil Tank #2 that is now empty so that it can be assessed for either use as a holding tank for the remaining fuel in the McKee Run Fuel Oil Tank #1 or to take the tank completely out of service. We have not yet received the final report from the API 653 Inspection recently completed in early January. Once we receive the final report, the plant will submit their request for a time extension on the Out-of-Service Inspection required for McKee Run Tank #1 by June 30, 2007. We are also assessing quotes for the API 653 Inspection on the McKee Run Tank #2. Action plans/objectives as part of the appraisal process for the coming year were mutually developed for all employees and have been finalized and were presented to them in January. We are in the final stages of developing the Budget for the fiscal year 2007-2008. The last bit of information we need to complete the budget will not be available until January 31, 2007 at which time the budget will be submitted to Pace Global for final approval 13 of 14

7.0 Summary of NAES Performance to Date Measure Month Year to Date eFOR 0.0% 0.93% Budget (Actual vs. Budget) 82.38% 86.87% Safety 0 0 Environmental 0 0 Capacity Tests Completed Summer Winter Summer Winter Unit 1 No No Yes Yes Unit 2 No No Yes Yes Unit 3 No No Yes Yes Unit 11 No No Yes No 14 of 14

An Energy Plan for Our City to: ƒ Reduce Emissions ƒ Lower Energy Bills ƒ Save Taxpayer Dollars ƒ Protect our Environment ƒ Protect our Health In association with Our City Council Our Mayor’ Office And over 500 other U.S. cities representing over 50 million citizens Sponsored by the Sierra Club & supported by the League of Women Voters

Explore, enjoy and protect the planet Cool CITIES Solving Global Warming One City at a Time sierraclub.org/coolcities COOL CITIES TAKE THE LEAD 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 (see today to reduce global warming pollution, seattle.gov/mayor/climate). and cities of all sizes are pursuing innovative energy solutions. These Cool Cities are working to meet this C ommunities all over America goal with practical and innovative energy While every city’s energy solutions plan are responding to the threat solutions that reduce energy waste and pol- will be unique, there are three key com- of global warming with smart lution, and thereby cut our dependence on mon Cool City strategies: Green Vehicle energy solutions. These “Cool oil, benefit public health, and save money. Fleets, Energy Efficiency, and Cities” are taking decisive action to reduce Renewable Energy. heat-trapping emissions, lower energy bills, save taxpayer dollars, and protect our GLOBAL WARMING: environment. NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT GREEN VEHICLE SOLUTIONS At a time when the federal government is Scientists have concluded that burning The biggest single step we can take to curb failing to act, mayors and other local lead- fossil fuels—like oil, coal, and natural global warming is making our cars, trucks, ers are taking the lead to curb global warm- gas—to power our cars, homes, and and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas. ing. Beginning with Seattle Mayor Greg businesses is causing global temperatures Many cities are cutting their global warming Nickels, more than 200 mayors represent- to rise. This heating of the earth poses a emissions by purchasing gas-electric hybrid ing 42 million Americans in 38 states have serious threat to our health, safety, cars and SUVs for their city vehicle fleet. signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection economy, and environment. Agreement to reduce global warming car- By using less gasoline, hybrid vehicles bon dioxide (CO2) pollution in their cities to The good news is that we have the tools release a fraction of the global warming and

air pollution emitted by conventional vehi- meet the goals of the U.S. Mayors cles while saving money at the gas pump. Climate Protection Agreement. Local Some cities are also providing incentives, businesses, builders, faith groups, such as free parking and lower registration environmentalists, and labor unions are fees, to encourage the purchase of hybrids working together to make their cities by local residents and businesses. more livable and vibrant while lowering energy bills, creating good jobs, and tackling a global problem. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTIONS RE-ENERGIZING YOUR CITY Energy efficiency means using less energy through better technology to light streets Cool Mayor: Mayor Joseph Adams, of University City, As the news of successful city solutions and power buildings and industrial facilities. Missouri, accepts the Sierra Club’s Cool City award for spreads, more cities are joining in the Cool Reducing energy use is one of the most signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Cities movement to lead our country and cost-effective and fastest ways to meet Agreement. our world into a new energy future. Cool our energy needs. Lowering energy Cities are literally re-energizing our nation, costs enables communities to invest proving that we can solve global warming less pollution. From high-tech interior and more in schools, job creation, and new one city at a time. street lighting, energy-efficient building infrastructure. standards and retrofits, to efficient com- Now it’s your city’s turn. Since fossil fuel power plants account for bined heat-and-power, cities in every region more than one-third of U.S. global warm- of the country are modernizing lighting, ing emissions, saving energy also means heating, cooling, and other systems. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS TAKE ACTION: Cities across the nation are investing in BECOME A COOL CITY clean and renewable power like solar and wind energy to lower global warming 1. Join the U.S. Mayors Climate emissions and create a reliable source of Protection Agreement to reduce safe, homegrown electricity. global warming pollution Many cities are adopting “renewable ener- 2. Green your city’s vehicle fleets gy standards” that require a specific per- with hybrid and other cleaner cars centage of the electricity sold in a city or utility area to come from renewable 3. Modernize city buildings with sources by a specific target date. money-saving energy-efficiency Other cities are incorporating renewable technology energy technologies, such as solar photo- voltaic panels, into the design of public 4. Invest in clean and safe renewable buildings. Renewable power and energy energy efficiency are essential solutions for replac- ing electricity from dirty, fossil-fuel-burn- ing power plants. LEARN MORE: COOL CITIES: BRINGING For a list of cities that are becoming Clean Harvest: Waverly Light & Power in Iowa has COMMUNITIES TOGETHER “cool,” and for resources and specific installed wind turbines on land leased from local examples of smart energy city solutions farmers, creating clean electricity for the city and The most successful Cool Cities are and model action plans, go to additional income for farmers. engaging the entire community to help sierraclub.org/coolcities. SIERRA CLUB HEADQUARTERS: 85 Second St., Second Floor • San Francisco, CA 94105 • (415) 977-5500 MARCH 2006 SIERRA CLUB LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 408 C St. NE • Washington, DC 20002 • (202) 547-1141 • sierraclub.org

ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities and the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community’s most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea level increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world’s population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world’s global warming pollutants; and WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and

WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound investment decisions; and WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike; and WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and job creation through energy conservation and new energy technologies; and WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, reads: The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels; B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes 1) clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a

flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such as: 1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan. 2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities; 3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit; 4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology; 5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money; 6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use; 7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system; 8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel; 9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production; 10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; 11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and

12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from around the nation to join this effort. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The U.S. Conference of Mayors will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations to track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting.

1 Introduction to the Cool City Program. Why it is important to become involved and case histories of cities now participating. 2 Cities are not waiting on federal action to begin work. 3 New Energy for Cities. Solar Energy, Building Codes, Financing, and Training are all discussed in this section. 4 The cost of each program, dollars saved by the taxpayer and fuel reductions from actual city studies. 5 Public petitions asking for strong city action.

Explore, enjoy and protect the planet Cool CITIES Solving Global Warming One City at a Time Sierra Club’s Guide to Local Global Warming Solutions

Cool Cities Acknowledgements Written by Glen Brand and Brendan Bell, Sierra Club’s Global Cool Cities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Warming and Energy Program Four Steps to Become Special Thanks to John Byrne Barry, Dan Becker, Glen Besa, Pete a Cool City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Connolly, Aloma Dew, Kurt Ehrenberg, Annie Finch, Kim Haddow, Dave Hamilton, Cesia Kearns, Jill Miller, Brian O’Malley, Ayrianne GREEN VEHICLE SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Parks, Colleen Sarna, Emily Templin, Jenn Tuttle, and Christa Wagner. Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Houston, TEXAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 COVER PAGE PHOTOS: Marion County, FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Skyline of Chicago, one of the more than 200 cities that have pledged to Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 reduce local heat-trapping pollution. PHOTO BY ROBERT GLUSIC 2. Iowa’s Waverly Light & Power is the first municipal utility to install its own wind turbines. PHOTO BY WAVERLY LIGHT & POWER ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Investing in clean energy not only saves taxpayer dollars and protects the Salt Lake City, UTAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 environment, it also creates good jobs for the future. PHOTO BY APOLLO ALLIANCE 4. The Western Area Power Administration’s 4-kilowatt photovoltaic array at its Scottsdale, ARIZONA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Rocky Mountain Customer Service Center building east of Loveland, Colorado. PHOTO BY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION Twin Falls, IDAHO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 You can find this guide and more information about our Cool Cities campaign St. Paul, MINNESOTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 at sierraclub.org/coolcities RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . 11 Fort Collins, COLORADO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Columbia, MISSOURI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Waverly, IOWA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CONCLUSION & TAKE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The Sierra Club’s members are 750,000 of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Sierra Club is America's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. This report was funded by a grant from The Sierra Club Foundation. 85 Second St., Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 977-5500 408 C St. NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 547-1141 sierraclub.org MARCH 2006 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Cool CITIES Solving Global Warming One City at a Time WAVERLY POWER AND LIGHT INTRODUCTION— Re-Energizing Our Cities DAVID WASSERMAN SALT LAKE CITY A ll over America, cities, counties and states are launching an exciting grassroots movement to help solve one of our country’s most pressing problems: global warming. Frustrated by stalling on the federal level, local leaders are moving for- ward with innovative energy solutions that cut The strategies that these and other Cool Cities are pursuing fall under three categories: Cleaner Vehicles, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy. Every one of these local solutions is already saving taxpayer dollars and improving public health by reducing energy waste and pollution. By taking innovative our dependence on oil, benefit public health, actions, forward-looking cities are re-energizing and save taxpayer dollars. These mayors, county our nation, proving that we can solve global commissioners, and governors are leading the warming one city at a time. way toward a safer and more secure future. The purpose of this guide is to provide a resource for citizens and local officials who are ready to take real action to reduce energy waste and heat-trapping global warming pollution in
their communities. In the following pages, you Every one of these local solutions is will find inspiring city success stories from a broad range of cities, from larger metropolitan already saving taxpayer dollars and centers such as Salt Lake City, St. Paul, and Charlotte to smaller cities like Twin Falls, improving public health by reducing Idaho, and Waverly, Iowa. energy waste and pollution.

Cool CITIES 2 GLOBAL WARMING— Statement: Global Response to Climate Change,” June 2005—royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3222] The Time to Act Is Now The scientific community has concluded Cities Take the Lead that burning fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural The good news is our cities have not become para- gas—to power our cars, homes and businesses lyzed by the threat of global climate change. Instead, is causing global temperatures to rise. This they are taking the lead with the “U.S. Mayors Climate heating of the earth poses a serious threat to Protection Agreement” initiated by Seattle Mayor Greg our health, safety, and environment. Nickels. Introduced on February 16, 2005—the same The national science academies of the United day that the Kyoto Protocol international global warm- States, England, France, Russia, Germany, ing treaty took effect in 141 nations—the agreement is Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India gathering support around the country and has earned issued the following joint declaration in June the backing of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. To date, 2005: “The scientific understanding of climate more than 200 mayors representing more than 42 mil- change is now sufficiently clear to justify lion Americans in 38 states have signed on, pledging to nations taking prompt action.” The world’s reduce global warming carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution leading scientists ask us to “recognize that citywide to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. [Go to delayed action will increase the risk of adverse seattle.gov/mayor/climate for more information on the environmental effects and will likely incur a mayors’ climate protection agreement.] greater cost.” [Source: “Joint Science Academies’ How will these cities accomplish these ambitious goals in the next seven years? And how can your city become a Cool City? GEO-HEAT CENTER/NREL Seattle: Cool City Model The city of Seattle is on the forefront of global warm- ing local solutions. Under Mayor Greg Nickels’ leader- ship, the city government has already reduced its own global warming pollution by more than 60 percent by constructing green buildings and operating alternative fuel vehicles. Seattle City Light is the only electric utility in the country producing zero net greenhouse gas emis- sions, and the city is working to expand transportation KATRIN SCHOLZ-BARTH/NREL choices, recycling, and urban forest restoration. Mayor Nickels has also created a Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection, composed of busi- ness, environmental, government, community, and labor leaders. The Commission is developing a plan for Seattle to meet its global warming pollution reduction targets, and identifying key economic opportunities for Seattle’s transition to a clean energy future. “By making smart choices like building sustainable buildings, replacing old vehicles with a ‘Clean and Green’ fleet, and setting strict ‘no-net-emissions’ goals for Seattle City Light, the City has shown we can take Keeping Warm, Keeping Cool—In Klamath local action on global problems,” said Mayor Nickels. Falls, Oregon, a geothermal district heating system keeps the sidewalks clear and dry at the Basin Transit LEARN MORE station. The 22,000 square-foot garden on the To find out about Seattle’s Climate Initiative, see “green” roof of Chicago’s city hall cools the building ci.seattle.wa.us/environment/climateinitiative.html during the city’s hot summers.

Cool CITIES 3
Cool Cities Across America WASHINGTON OREGON WISCONSIN NEW YORK NEW HAMPSHIRE RHODE ISLAND Seattle Portland Ashland New York Nashua Providence Tacoma Eugene Greenfield Albany Keene Pawtucket Bainbridge Island Corvallis La Crosse Rochester Manchester Warwick Bellingham Lake Oswego MINNESOTA Madison Hempstead VERMONT MASSACHUSETTS Lynnwood Apple Valley Washburn Mt. Vernon Burlington Boston Edmonds Duluth Wauwatosa Buffalo Cambridge Redmond Eden Prairie West Allis Ithaca Medford Issaquah MONTANA Minneapolis MICHIGAN Niagara Falls Malden Kirkland Missoula St. Paul Ann Arbor Rockville Centre Newton Renton Billings Southfield Schenectady Somerville Vancouver COLORADO Grand Rapids White Plains Worcester Lacey MISSOURI Olympia Aspen CONNECTICUT UTAH Boulder NEBRASKA Clayton ILLINOIS Bridgeport Burien Salt Lake City Florissant Chicago Auburn Denver Bellevue OHIO WASHINGTON, D.C. Easton Moab Kansas City Schaumburg Toledo Fairfield Telluride KANSAS PENNSYLVANIA Park City Maplewood Carol Stream Dayton Hamden CALIFORNIA Topeka Philadelphia NEVADA St. Louis Highland Park Garfield Heights Erie Hartford Apple Valley OKLAHOMA Sunset Hills Waukegan Aliso Viejo Las Vegas Brooklyn Mansfield Norman University City DELAWARE Arcata INDIANA KENTUCKY Middletown ARKANSAS Gary Wilmington New Haven Berkeley Louisville Burbank Little Rock Columbus Lexington MARYLAND Stamford San Leandro Fort Wayne Capitola NEW MEXICO TEXAS North LIttle Annapolis NEW JERSEY San Mateo Michigan City Chino Albuquerque Denton Rock Baltimore Bayonne Santa Barbara Cloverdale Hurst Chevy Chase Bloomfield Santa Cruz Cotati San Luis Obispo Austin LOUISIANA VIRGINIA Elizabeth Del Mar Santa Monica Laredo New Orleans Alexandria Hamilton Dublin Santa Rosa McKinney Alexandria FLORIDA Virginia Beach Hope Fremont Sebastopol Miami NORTH CAROLINA Hopewell Hayward Sonoma Port St. Lucie Asheville Kearny Healdsburg Stockton West Palm Beach Durham Newark Hemet Sunnyvale Gainseville Chapel Hill Plainfield Irvine Thousand Oaks Pompano Beach SOUTH CAROLINA Robbinsville Lakewood Vallejo Tamarac Charleston Westfield Long Beach West Hollywood Sunrise Sumter Los Angeles Windsor Hollywood HAWAII Holly Hill GEORGIA Monterey Park Honolulu Lauderhill Atlanta Morgan Hill Maui Pembroke Pines Athens Novato Hilo Miramar East Point Oakland Tallahassee Macon Palo Alto Petaluma Key Biscayne Richmond Key West Rohnert Park Hallandale Beach Sacramento San Bruno San Francisco San Jose As of February 27, 2006, 208 mayors from 38 states representing more than 42 million Americans have pledged to reduce global warming carbon pollution in their cities to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. “With the passage of significant international accords and adoption of this statement by U.S. mayors, we have hope that the global community can successfully join together, as nations did to solve the problem of ozone depletion, to prevent the most devastating consequences of global climate change.” —Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson

Cool CITIES 4 PUTTING GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS INTO ACTION Four Steps to Become a Cool City Getting your city to become part of the fight against global warming is as simple as the four steps outlined below. These steps are modeled on the Cities for Climate Protection program, a successful initiative run by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to help cities reduce global warming pollution. Encouraging your city to join ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection program is an excellent way to fulfill the Cool Cities pledge. But any city can start making a difference by putting existing smart energy solutions to work today. Visit iclei.org for more information on the Cities for Climate Protection program. “Minneapolis has set high standards for CO2 reduction Step 1: Take the “Cool Cities” Pledge and we're meeting them—a strategy that has earned our city The first step towards curbing global warming pollution tremendous environmental and economic benefits. Climate disrup- in your community is to ask your mayor to sign the U.S. tion is a global problem but we feel the effects locally. We are thrilled Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. This agreement with Seattle and Mayor Greg Nickels’ initiative and will work hard to sets the goal of reducing citywide global warming carbon challenge our nation through our example.” —Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, in front of his hybrid car dioxide (CO2) pollution to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. See seattle.gov/mayor/climate Step 2: Conduct a Global Warming Emissions Inventory The next step is to conduct an inventory of your city’s Step 4: Implement and Monitor Progress current global warming emissions. This information will Of course, a plan alone cannot cut global warming pollu- identify the city’s major CO2 sources (and the greatest tion. It is essential that your city put the plan into action and opportunities for reductions), and will provide a baseline monitor its progress periodically. With a strong commitment, to judge the city’s progress towards its goal. Cities can a sound plan, and real action, your city will be on its way receive technical assistance to conduct a global warming toward meeting the goals of the U.S. Mayors Climate emissions inventory from a variety of sources including Protection Agreement. state and federal agencies as well as ICLEI through its Cities for Climate Protection program. Step 3: Create a Solutions Plan After completing its global warming inventory, your city will be ready to develop a solutions plan that can reduce emissions while lowering energy costs for the city.
While every city’s energy solutions plan will be unique, there are three important strategies: Green Vehicle Fleets, With a strong commitment, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy. In some com- a sound plan, and real action, bination, these solutions, which are illustrated with specific success stories later in this guide, will form the foundation your city will be on its way toward of your city’s comprehensive energy-saving plan. For examples of Cool City Solutions Plans, visit meeting the goals of the U.S. Mayors sierraclub.org/coolcities Climate Protection Agreement.

Cool CITIES 5 Green Vehicle Solutions The technology exists today to significantly For a model green fleets ordinance, see the reduce global warming pollution from city of Denver’s ordinance at America’s cars, trucks, and SUVs. Improving www.greenfleets.org/denverrevised.html automobile fuel economy is the biggest single step to curbing global warming, since every Solution #2—Hybrid Vehicle gallon of gasoline burned creates 28 pounds of Incentives heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution. In addition to purchasing hybrid vehicles [Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory: U.S. for city fleets, local governments can encourage Department of Energy.] citizens and businesses to buy hybrid vehicles Because transportation is a major source of with a wide range of incentives. Some cities are global warming pollution, numerous cities are already providing incentives such as free park- incorporating gas-electric hybrid vehicles and ing for hybrid vehicles and lower registration other fuel-efficient vehicles into their fleets. By fees and taxes. using less gasoline, hybrid vehicles release a fraction of the global warming pollution emit- Solution #3—Clean Buses ted by conventional vehicles while saving City residents have long had to endure the money at the gas pump. Cities are also switch- sight and smell of black smoke belching from ing away from polluting diesel city and school dirty diesel-engine buses. Now many cities are buses to cleaner alternatives like compressed replacing these polluting old buses with buses natural gas (CNG) powered vehicles. that run on cleaner compressed natural gas (CNG) or with hybrid-electric diesel engines. Solution #1—Green Fleets Governments of all sizes regularly purchase automobiles to help provide a wide range of “Increasingly, cities are providing the answers taxpayer services. Recognizing an opportunity to some of America’s toughest problems. So it’s fitting for action, many cities, counties, and states are that we’re leading the way on global warming as well.” saving taxpayer dollars and reducing air pollu- —Madison, Wisconsin, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz tion by “greening” their fleets with hybrid gas- electric and other vehicles that go farther on a gallon of gas. Currently, 48 U.S. towns and cities in 36 states have green fleets programs, as do 26 county and 17 state governments. From police departments and school districts to administra- tive agencies and taxi services, green fleets are a winning city solution. [Source: greenfleets.org] For a general overview and step-by-step advice for writing a green fleets ordinance in your city, go to greenfleets.org/stepone.html NOTE: You can find all links referenced in this report at sierraclub.org/coolcities.

Cool CITIES 6 Houston TEXAS In April 2005, Bill White, the mayor of the nation’s 4th largest city, announced plans to convert a substantial portion of the city of Houston’s fleet of cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles to hybrids by the year 2010. The city estimates that 80 percent of all new vehicle purchases and over 50 percent of the city’s fleet could be hybrid vehicles by the year 2010. Considering the size of the city’s light duty fleet (more than 3,500), Houston’s investment in hybrids will pay big dividends down the road. Over its projected five-year life-cycle, the Toyota Prius hybrid should provide net savings of almost $1,900, in comparison to a conventional gasoline-only full-sized sedan, according to a city of Houston study. Because hybrids are so fuel efficient, they release a fraction of the global warming pollution Gentlemen, Start Your emitted by conventional vehicles. Over the lifetime of the vehicle, a hybrid Toyota Prius will Hybrid Engines—Houston release 43 fewer tons of global warming pollution compared to an average sedan. Mayor Bill White announces “This makes economic sense, it makes environmental sense and it is going to set an example,” the greening of his city’s fleet. said Mayor White. “We’re going to save on fuel costs and we’re going to help save our air quality.” LEARN MORE Details on the city of Houston’s greenfleets program are available at: houstontx.gov/mayor/press/20050408.html Charlotte NORTH CAROLINA When Charlotte’s fleet managers found that hybrid gas-electric vehicles are less expensive to operate than conventional cars, Mayor Pat McCrory and Council members Susan Burgess and John Tabor took action. Working with city staff and with the cooperation of Mecklen- burg County, the City Council supported a plan to bring the total number of hybrids in the fleet to over two dozen by the end of 2006—more than tripling the city/county’s current number of hybrids. Although they typically cost more initially than standard gasoline-fueled cars, gas-sipping hybrids save on gasoline, have lower maintenance costs, and retain a higher resale value at the end of their useful life, according to Charlotte’s Fleet Environmental Analyst David Friday. Mr. Friday estimates that switching from a gas-only Ford Taurus to a hybrid Toyota Prius or Honda Civic would save city taxpayers approximately $800-$1200 annually per vehicle, including over $400 in annual fuel costs. “This results in a payback of the extra purchase cost within 2.5 to 5.5 years, depending on the model chosen and miles driven,” said Friday. [Source: “Ford Taurus to Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius Comparative Analysis,” David Friday, Charlotte Fleet Environmental Analyst, May 2005] LEARN MORE Charlotte’s Fleet Environmental Analyst David Friday can be reached at dfriday@ci.charlotte.nc.us.

Cool CITIES 7 Marion County FLORIDA When gas-electric hybrid vehicles hit the market, Wyatt Earp, Director of Fleet Management for the Marion County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, did some cost analysis to see whether it would be a good idea to pay a little more up front for a car that gets superior mileage. The answer? “It costs a little more to start with, but operating expenses are less,” says Earp. “Plus, we’re working for the environment and showing people that we don’t need to be so dependent on foreign oil.” You Have the Right to Get Good Mileage—For Wyatt The Toyota Prius vehicles are used by the department to deliver subpoenas, transfer prison- Earp, director of fleet manage- ers, and run administrative errands. In addition, trained civilians use one of the hybrids to ment for Marion County Sheriff’s cruise the county checking out bridges, pipelines, and other potential terrorist targets as Department in Florida, purchasing part of the department’s “Homeland Security Patrol”. fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles and reducing dependence on oil make “We work to conserve as much energy as we can—that’s our obligation to the American sense for the environment— people,” said Earp, a descendent of the legendary frontier lawman. “We spend taxpayers’ and the county budget. money wisely, and that means we don’t run experiments. We’ve got a good car here. Hope- fully American car companies will offer something similar, soon.” Earp also manages the annual procurement of cars for the Florida Sheriff’s Association, which negotiates wholesale rates for about 5,000 city and county agencies. Last year it bought 100 hybrids. “Now the word is getting around. I think we’ll have 10 times more orders than we had last year,” Earp says. LEARN MORE Visit the Marion County Public Affairs department’s Web site at: marioncountyfl.org Washington D.C . The millions of visitors who visit our nation’s capitol each year to see the monuments and museums can breathe easier because of the city’s clean, natural gas buses which improve air quality and cut global warming MARK WENZLER pollution. Over the past four years, the Washing- ton Metropolitan Area Transit Authori- ty has replaced 414 of its polluting diesel buses with cleaner burning, compressed natural gas buses. Every natural gas bus replaces the need for nearly 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel each year. Since natural gas buses release 25 percent less global warming emissions than diesel, these cleaner buses result in real cuts in global warming pollution. Natural gas buses also help to reduce smog. Compared to traditional diesel buses, the city’s natural gas buses release over 50 percent less smog-forming nitrogen oxides and 85 per- cent less soot pollution. LEARN MORE Visit the Washington’s transit authority Web site at: wmata.com/about/met_news/pressroom/archived_releases/pr_cng.cfm

Cool CITIES 8 Energy Efficiency Solutions Energy efficiency means using less costs and reducing pollution. energy through better technology to power The U.S. Green Building Council has also developed buildings, light streets, and industry. Reducing LEED standards for existing buildings. The standards pro- energy use is one of the most cost-effective and vide guidance on improving the energy efficiency of fastest ways to save energy and reduce global building operations and other systems without making warming pollution. major changes to the interior and exterior of the build- Every city can make substantial energy effi- ing. Cities around the country have made major strides ciency improvements by putting policies in in improving the energy efficiency of police and fire sta- place to promote efficient technologies and tions, city office buildings, and schools. integrating them into planning decisions. The policies outlined below represent some of the Solution #3—Energy Efficient Street Lighting most effective steps currently being taken on Street lighting and traffic signals can use a significant the city and local level. amount of energy. By replacing traditional light fixtures with super-efficient light emitting diode (LED) bulbs, Solution #1—Making New Buildings cities are reaping energy and cost savings. More Energy Efficient Incorporating energy efficiency requirements Solution #4—Public Benefit Funds into municipal building codes increases the Cities with community-owned, local municipal utili- overall energy efficiency of new buildings. Many ties can integrate energy efficiency into the city’s overall cities have chosen to adopt the Leadership in energy plan. If your city has a municipal utility, it can Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) set up a local Public Benefits Fund (PBF), where a small standards created by the United States Green surcharge on consumer energy bills is used to create a Building Council (usgbc.org). LEED standards fund to finance energy efficiency projects in the utility provide energy efficient design guidelines for a service area, thus lowering the overall energy costs for variety of building types and developments. consumers. Austin Energy (austinenergy.com) and the Sacramento Solution #2—Energy Efficiency Municipal Utility District (smud.org) are examples of Retrofits to Existing Buildings municipal utilities that have used public benefit funds to lower energy use and costs through energy efficiency. In addition to improving the energy effi- ciency of new buildings, cities can make sub- stantial energy efficiency improvements to Solution #5—Combined Heat and Power existing buildings. Modernizing lighting, heat- Cities and businesses can also benefit from energy ing, cooling, and other operations can reduce efficient combined heat and power (CHP) systems. the energy requirements of existing buildings These systems produce both electricity and steam for in a cost-effective manner, lowering energy heating and cooling from a single power plant located near consumers. As a result, CHP systems recover heat that is normally wasted at power plants and funnel the heat into surrounding buildings. This reduces energy costs and lowers pollution by eliminating the need for “The International Panel on Climate separate fuel sources for electricity and heating. Change has warned that New Orleans is the North American city most vulner- able to the effects of climate change. The rise of the Earth’s temperature, causing sea level increases that could add up to one foot over the next 30 years, threatens the very exis- tence of New Orleans. We will continue to col- laborate and support efforts on global warming.” —New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin

Cool CITIES 9 Salt Lake City UTAH Salt Lake City has dramatically reduced its energy costs by aggressively pursuing energy efficiency measures. Currently, the city saves over $32,000 a year on its energy costs as a result of installing 861 light emitting diode (LED) traffic signals. The city plans to expand this program to all of its 1630 red and green lights, which is expected to save over 500 tons of SALT LAKE CITY heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) pol- lution each year with annual cost sav- ings of $53,000. The city has also found that LED signals require less mainte- nance than conventional lighting. In addition, the city has replaced the conventional incandescent bulbs in its city and county office buildings with more energy efficient compact fluores- cent bulbs (CFLs). These bulbs use much less energy and last significantly longer, saving the city over $33,000 a year and reducing CO2 emissions by 344 tons per year. These energy efficiency measures are a part of a city wide action plan to protect the envi- ronment and reduce global warming emissions. LEARN MORE Read Salt Lake City’s plan at slcgov.com/environment/actionplan.htm Scottsdale ARIZONA The city of Scottsdale has been a leader in the Southwest on energy efficiency for buildings. In 1998, Scottsdale introduced Arizona’s first green building program which helps builders and home owners learn about how to integrate ener- gy efficiency and water saving fea- tures into new homes. Between 1998 and 2003, the green building program worked with 99 builders and issued 230 permits for green building projects in the city. In March 2005, Scottsdale became the first city in the nation to require that all new city buildings and renovation projects meet LEED GOLD standards for energy Harnessing the Desert Sun— efficiency and sustainability – one of the highest LEED ratings. New energy-efficient homes in Scottsdale use both renewable tech- LEARN MORE nologies like solar panels, as well as Read about Scottsdale’s green building program at scottsdaleaz.gov/greenbuilding thick adobe walls that cool the house in the summer and keep it warmer in the winter.

Cool CITIES 10 Twin Falls IDAHO Like many other school districts around the country with growing numbers of students and decreasing budgets, the Twin Falls school district began searching for creative ways to reduce costs. School officials realized that the district could reduce energy costs and cut pollution by increasing the energy efficiency of its 11 schools. The upgrades included more efficient lighting and improvements to the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning sys- tems. The upgrades are expected to generate $3.5 million in energy savings. In an innovative financing agreement, the school district signed an energy savings perform- ance contract with Minnesota-based Honeywell Corporation. Under a performance con- tract, a private company pays to make energy efficient improvements and is then reim- bursed with the money saved through lower energy bills over the lifetime of the project. According to Dr. John Miller, the Director of Operations for the Twin Falls School District, the performance contract gave the school district “the capital to accomplish in months, what would have normally taken us a decade to complete because of budget constraints.” LEARN MORE The Twin Falls school district project Web site is available at newsite.schoolfacilities.com/cd_1695.aspx St. Paul MINNESOTA DISTRICT ENERGY ST. PAUL During the long, cold Minnesota winters, the majority of the buildings in downtown Saint Paul stay warm using District Energy’s energy-efficient combined heat and power (CHP) system. Provid- ing electricity to the grid and heating service to more than 80 percent of downtown Saint Paul and adjacent areas, including the Minnesota State Capitol and nearly 300 homes, the system uses heat drawn from a biomass-fired power plant located in the heart of the city. By using a renewable resource as its primary fuel and by capturing ambient heat that would other- wise have been wasted, St. Paul’s CHP system reduces overall energy consumption, costs, and pollution. LEARN MORE Details of Saint Paul’s CHP system are available at districtenergy.com/currentactivities/chp.html Heat and Power— By producing both heat and electricity from one power plant, the District Energy plant helps save money and cut pollution.

Cool CITIES 11 Renewable Energy Solutions By harnessing natural sources of energy Solution #3—City Utility Contracts like the sun and the wind, renewable ener- Some cities are incorporating renewable gy sources can replace our reliance on outdated, energy requirements into their contract polluting power plants that rely on fossil fuels. renewals with privately owned local utilities. Today’s solar panels efficiently transform sun- For example, Denver, Colorado is working light into electricity while blending into the with its local utility, Xcel Energy, to establish design of homes and office buildings. Modern modest renewable energy goals as part of the wind turbines rise high above the ground, cap- city’s contract. turing the strongest winds to produce reliable APOLLO ALLIANCE electricity. Currently, dirty fossil fuel power plants account for over a third of the nation’s total global warming emissions. Meeting our energy needs with clean, renewable energy can move the country towards a brighter, cleaner, and cheaper energy future. Cities around the country are discovering that investing in innovative renewable energy sources reduces global warming pollution and creates a reliable source of clean, homegrown electricity. Solution #1—Renewable Energy Standards A renewable energy standard requires an increase in the percentage of electricity from clean, renewable energy sources (such as wind ASCENSION TECHNOLOGY, INC./NREL and solar power) in a city or utility area by a spe- cific target date. These standards are phased in over time so that renewable energy capacity can be built and incorporated into the necessary energy management and reliability plans. For instance, a 20 percent Renewable Energy Standard could be phased in over ten years, requiring an additional 2 percent of electricity generation to come from renewable sources each year. Cities that operate municipal utilities have been able to set renewable energy standards for their community-owned utilities. Clean Energy, Good Jobs—Clean energy invest- Solution #2—Solar and Wind ments not only save taxpayer dollars and protect the environment, they also create good jobs for the future. Installations One example is the rooftop solar panels powering Some cities are moving forward by financ- Northeastern University’s Eli Student Center in Boston. ing the construction of renewable energy proj- ects themselves. In some cases, cities are work- ing with local municipal utilities to construct wind turbines. In other cases, cities are work- ing with privately owned utilities and renew- able energy developers to construct solar arrays on city buildings, schools, and homes.

Cool CITIES 12 Fort Collins COLORADO Sitting along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountain Front, the city of Fort Collins has embraced renewable energy and energy efficiency as key components to meet the city’s energy needs. In 2003, the City Council adopted the Electric Energy Supply Policy which aims to “maintain high system reliability, maintain competitive electric rates, and reduce the environmental impact of electricity generation.” This program sets strong clean energy targets, and is working to produce 15 percent of the city’s electricity with renewable energy by 2017 and reduce per capita energy consump- tion 10 percent by 2012. Over the full time frame of the program, Fort Collins expects to reduce its global warming carbon dioxide emissions by 472,000 tons. Clean energy is not only reducing global warming emissions in Fort Collins, but it is also saving money by reducing costs. According to the city’s municipal utility, the cost of meeting energy needs through energy efficiency is about 1.7 cents per kWh, while the cost of providing energy is about 3.7 cents per kWh. That means that in Fort Collins ener- gy efficiency is meeting citizens’ needs at half the cost of energy coming from existing power plants. According to Michael B. Smith, Fort Collins’ Utilities General Manager, “We are pleased that some of our future energy growth will come from renewable energy sources. The Electric Energy Supply Policy is a positive blueprint for the future.” Funding for the city’s efficiency and renewable energy programs comes from a 2 per- cent increase in customer rates. Even with these increases, Fort Collins continues to enjoy electricity rates below the state average, and will see lower energy costs as a result of the energy efficiency programs. LEARN MORE Read Fort Collins’ Electric Energy Supply Policy at ci.fort-collins.co.us/utilities/energypolicy.php Columbia MISSOURI Last year, with 78 percent of the vote, the citizens of Columbia, Missouri overwhelming- ly approved a plan to require the city to increase its use of renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, over the next 20 years. The measure will create a Renewable Energy Standard that requires that the city’s municipal utility obtain 2 percent of its power from renewable energy by 2007, ramping up to 15 percent by 2022. Columbia’s successful ballot initiative is part of a growing national trend of voter-driven policies to increase the use of clean, renewable energy sources. Voters in Colorado recently approved a statewide Renewable Energy Standard that requires utilities in the state to produce 10 percent of their electricity with clean energy sources like wind and solar power by 2015. LEARN MORE Additional information about Columbia’s renewal energy standard is available at dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/MO04R.htm

Cool CITIES 13 Waverly IOWA WAVERLY LIGHT & POWER Wind energy is not only generating pollu- tion-free energy to the town of Waverly, but it is also providing local economic development. As the first municipal utility in the United States to install its own wind turbines, Waverly Light & Power serves 4,300 customers in a 33 square-mile area. The utility has constructed wind turbines on land leased from local farmers, creating electricity for the city and additional WAVERLY LIGHT & POWER income for the farmers. Waverly Light & Power’s Board of Trustees has set a goal of increasing wind produc- tion to 10 percent of the total local power supply, and is advancing quite well towards that target. Currently, the city’s wind tur- bines generate 5.52 percent of the area’s total electricity generation, and provide enough electricity to meet the needs of 761 homes each year. That translates into a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 6,850 tons per year. LEARN MORE Read more on Waverly Light & Power’s Web site at waverlyia.com “This is not only an environmental protection issue, but also an economic development and sustainability issue. Protecting our environment, we are protecting our resources and preserving them for future generations to come.” —Hallandale Beach, Florida, Mayor Joy Cooper

CONCLUSION— Re-Energizing Your City As the success stories in this guide prove, cities are making real progress cutting global warming pollution. No longer waiting for the federal government to act, mayors and other local leaders are putting into place winning energy solutions right now. By using the innovative technologies of cleaner cars, energy efficiency and renewable energy, cities across America are protecting our health and environment, while saving tax- payer dollars. As the news of these successful city solu- tions spreads, more cities are joining in the Cool Cities movement. Together, they are helping to lead our country and our world into a new energy future. And that’s cool. Now it’s your city’s turn. LEARN MORE: sierraclub.org/coolcities TAKE ACTION: 1. Join the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to reduce global warming pollution 2. Green your city’s vehicle fleets with hybrid and other cleaner cars 3. Modernize city buildings with money- saving energy efficiency technology 4. Invest in clean and safe, renewable energy

NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE Cities, States Aren't Waiting For U.S. Action on Climate By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 11, 2006; A01 With Washington lawmakers deadlocked on how best to curb global warming, state and local officials across the country are adopting ambitious policies and forming international alliances aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. The initiatives, which include demands that utilities generate some of their energy using renewable sources and mandates for a reduction in emissions from motor vehicles, have emboldened clean-air advocates who hope they will form the basis for broader national action. But in the meantime, some businesses say the local and state actions are creating a patchwork of regulations that they must contend with. This flurry of action is part of a growing movement among state and local leaders who have given up hope that Congress and the administration will tackle major issues, and are launching their own initiatives on immigration, stem cell research and energy policy. Last week alone, former president Bill Clinton launched an effort with 22 of the world's largest cities to cut their emissions, while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they will explore trading carbon dioxide pollution credits across the Atlantic. Recently, 22 states and the District of Columbia have set standards demanding that utilities generate a specific amount of energy -- in some cases, as high as 33 percent -- from renewable sources by 2020. And 11 states have set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California also has passed legislation mandating that automakers reduce their vehicles' carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2016, and 10 other states have committed to adopt the same standards if the law survives a court challenge. In addition, as many as 10 states in the Northeast are working to establish state-by-state ceilings for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and allow industries such as power plants to trade pollution credits for carbon emissions while cutting greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent by 2019. California, Oregon and Washington are negotiating a similar pact.

Some local officials said they are pushing ahead with plans because the Bush administration, which has promoted cleaner technology but opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, has failed to adequately address the problem. "Like most mayors, I'm disappointed the federal government has not taken more of a lead on this issue, but so be it. We're moving forward," said Albuquerque Mayor Martin J. Chavez, who is expanding public transportation in his city and has persuaded some other U.S. mayors to pledge to make their cities' buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, meaning their net carbon dioxide emissions would be zero. But some experts say there is a political imperative at work, as well. Tim Profeta, who worked for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) before leaving last year to direct Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said local politicians feel greater pressure to address the threat of rising sea levels and other climate-related conditions. "State and local governments are less removed from their constituents, so they're more responsive to voters' concerns," said Profeta, who sits on North Carolina's climate-change commission and has met with British officials on the subject. "Climate change is on people's minds, and they're asking for action." North Carolina state Sen. Charles W. Albertson (D) said he is not "completely convinced" that human activity is causing global warming, but he pushed for the climate- change commission because he worries that environmental changes are threatening his coastal constituents' homes and livelihoods. "What if it's taking place and we're not doing anything about it?" he asked. Bush's top environmental adviser, James L. Connaughton, said the president welcomes state and local initiatives because they complement the administration's approach to global warming. "They're pursuing a portfolio of policies, not a one-size-fits-all policy," Connaughton said in an interview Aug. 4, adding that the United States is also focused on voluntary pacts such as China's pledge to improve its power production efficiency 20 percent by 2010. "At the end of the day, what matters is performance, and we're all making about the same rate of progress." Some state officials and environmentalists said their efforts will soon surpass anything Bush has done to combat climate change. Richard Cowart, who has advised officials on both coasts on carbon-trading systems as a director of the Vermont-based Regulatory Assistance Project, said that together, the two proposed trading systems "represent one of the largest efforts to rein in carbon emissions in the world."

And Dan Becker, global warming director for the Sierra Club, said auto manufacturers will cut emissions now that states representing a third of the country's market are preparing to regulate carbon dioxide. "Obviously, what we're trying to do is reach a tipping point," Becker said. "We're probably close to where the car companies will have to cry 'uncle.' " The automakers are suing to block California's law, however, and the Bush administration may block it on the grounds that it amounts to usurping the federal government's right to set national fuel economy standards. Margo Thorning, senior vice president of the American Council for Capital Formation, said this array of state regulations could harm the U.S. economy. "I don't think it's terribly helpful to have the industry wondering what are the car standards in California vis-a-vis the standards in Arizona," said Thorning, whose think tank is funded in part by Exxon Mobil Corp. "It adds a lot of uncertainty and slows the kind of investment we'd like to see in the U.S." These overlapping carbon dioxide regulations may force the administration's hand. Robert E. Busch, PSEG Services Corp. president, said during a Washington panel discussion in February that "you sort of don't blame" environmentalists for pursuing state caps on carbon dioxide, but added, "The answer to this problem is not 50 different approaches to greenhouse gases in the United States. That makes no sense at all." And Richard J. Osborne, vice president of public and regulatory policy at Duke Energy Corp., told a Duke University audience in September that his utility backed federal legislation on climate change because the "patchwork of state actions" might produce "state-by-state chaos." Clinton, who is establishing an international consortium so cities from Cairo to Los Angeles can bargain for energy-efficient products and trade policy ideas, said state and local experiments could eventually form the basis for federal action on climate change. "What we need to do is get more case studies," Clinton said in an interview last week, adding that while voters care more about global warming now than when he was president, as for candidates, "unfortunately, it's not one of those issues where if you don't do something about it, you'll get beat." Some federal officials are participating in the emerging carbon-trading economy: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) has registered his farm's hardwood trees on the Chicago Climate Exchange, calculating that the 3,440 tons of carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees will trade for more than $15,000. Matt Petersen, president of the advocacy group Global Green USA, said that over the past decade, he has found state and local officials to be more open to imposing energy

efficiency standards on commercial buildings and to renewable-energy tax credits. Global Green is advising West Hollywood officials on drafting green building standards for new private construction and is lobbying the Louisiana government to give developers an incentive to rebuild New Orleans in an energy-efficient way. "We had to do a lot of work and hand-holding early on," Petersen said. "The people who asked the toughest questions are now the biggest advocates." © 2006 The Washington Post Company

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm • The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs and Clean Energy The Apollo Alliance provides a message of optimism and hope, framed around rejuvenating our nation’s economy by creating the next generation of American industrial jobs and treating clean energy as an economic and security mandate to rebuild America. America needs to hope again, to dream again, to think big, and to be called to the best of our potential by tapping the optimism and can-do spirit that is embedded in our nation’s history. In 1961, John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to send a man to the moon and return him safely home again within the decade. It was an audacious dare. The technology did not yet exist, but he marshaled the resources of a nation -- focusing public investment, research, science and technology education, worker training, and America’s industrial might on a common purpose. It was leadership toward a common positive goal and it worked. In less than eight years Neil Armstrong placed the first human footprint on the lunar surface, and President Kennedy to this day remains honored for his vision and as a leader of courage. Now America has an Apollo project for the 21st century. Today the stakes are much, much higher. We face an economy hemorrhaging its highest paying and most productive jobs, cities falling apart with over a trillion dollars in unmet public investment in crumbling schools, transportation, and infrastructure. The middle class is increasingly insecure as career ladders are broken and not replaced in new service sector jobs. And on a global scale we face never before seen environmental disruption, rising social inequity, and the emergence of fundamentalist anger that threatens our very security. We need new leaders of vision, and a new unifying call to action. The Apollo Alliance is a joint project of the Institute for America's Future and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy. The Apollo Alliance is a 501-c3 organization. Apollo Alliance National Steering Committee National Advisory Board Labor Unions file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (1 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Environmental Organizations Economic, Social Justice, Faith-Based, and Regional Partners Business Partners and Endorsers Foundations Apollo Alliance National Steering Committee: Ruben Aronin, Global Green USA Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations * Robert L. Borosage, Institute for America’s Future Dan Carol, The Cause Company Bruce Hamilton, Sierra Club Bracken Hendricks, Center for American Progress Bill Holmberg, ACORE Van Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Mindy Lubber, CERES Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Joel Rogers, Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) Marco Trbovich, United Steelworkers of America (USWA) * Designates Chair of the National Steering Committee National Advisory Board: Phil Angelides, California State Treasurer President Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations, An Idea Lab Company Angela Glover Blackwell, Policy Link Chairman Julian Bond, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) President Thomas Buffenbarger, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Senator Maria Cantwell, MS Congress (D-WA) * Henry Cisneros, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas President Leo W. Gerard, The United Steel Workers of America * Jan Hartke, Executive Director, EarthVoice file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (2 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Vice President Gerry Hudson, SEIU Local 1199 Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., US Congress (D-IL) * Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Systems and Mitchell Kapor Foundation Bill Lucy, Secretary/Treasurer, AFSCME William Lynch William McDonough, Architect, Author, Educator Kathleen A. McGinty, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Energy President Terence M. O’Sullivan, Laborers’ International Union of North America Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club * Art Pulaski, Secretary-Treasurer, California Labor Federation Governor Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania Anthony Thigpenn, Executive Director AGENDA President Danny Thompson, Nevada Labor Federation * Designates Co-Chair of the National Advisory Board The Apollo Alliance has been endorsed by the following labor unions: AFL-CIO AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council (IUC) AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Dept National Heavy and Highway Alliance Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Intl. Union (BCTGM) Boilermakers Union (IBB) California Labor Federation Graphic Communications Industrial Union (GCIU) Hawaii AFL-CIO Illinois AFL-CIO Indiana AFL-CIO International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) International Union of Electrical Workers (IUE-CWA) King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (3 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) Metropolitan Detroit, AFL-CIO Michigan AFL-CIO Minnesota AFL-CIO Oregon AFL-CIO Paper and Allied Chemical Employees (PACE) Pennsylvania AFL-CIO Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA) Transportation Workers Union (TWU) United Automobile and Aerospace Workers (UAW) United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) UNITE HERE! United Steel Workers of America (USWA) Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO Wisconsin AFL-CIO We have been endorsed by the following environmental organizations: Center for Environmental Health Ceres Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions The Detroit Project EarthVoice Environment 2004 Environmental Law and Policy Center Energy Action Global Green USA Greenpeace USA Healthy Schools Network League of Conservation Voters Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) National Parks Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (4 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Rainforest Action Network Republicans for Environmental Protection The Sierra Club The Sierra Student Coalition South Carolina Coastal Conservation League Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Economic, Social Justice, Faith-Based, and State & Local Partners: ACORN Action for Grassroots Economic and Neighborhood Development Alternatives (AGENDA) Black Farmers USA Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU) Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Jim Hightower and The Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (COUP) Plug in Partners South Carolina Coastal Conservation League Urban Agenda Business Partners Supportive of Apollo: Trade Associations 25 x 25 American Wind Energy Association Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities Environmental Business Association of New York North Carolina Solar Center American Solar Energy Society Renewable Energy Long Island The American Council On Renewable Energy file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (5 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Financial & Legal Services Arete Capital Bruce Oreck, Esq. Chaucery Financial Advisors Ecosa Capital Expansion Capital Partners Enright Premier Wealth Advisors, Inc. Sigma Capital Group, Inc. First Affirmative Financial Network Green Money Journal Paladin Private Equity Partners Renewal Associates, LLC Progressive Asset Management Raymond James & Associates Vantage Point Venture Partners Sustainable Jobs Fund Ventures White & Lee, LLP Synergistic Dynamics, Inc Renewable Energy Technology/Products/Services Austin Energy Clean Edge Clean Energy Group Community Energy, Inc. Conergy, INC Solectria Renewables OurEnergy East Haven Wind Farm NRG Systems EcoLogical Solutions Energy Innovations/Idea Labs Bonneville Environmental Foundation Environmental Energy Solutions McKenzie Bay International NativeWind Northern Power Systems PV Powered Sunlink, LLC Cape Wind Associates Hawaii PV Coalition file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (6 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Pacific Ethanol Olympia Green Fuels Clean Air Now Sharp Solar HyGen Industries US Renewables Group Pioneer Valley Photovoltaics Native Energy, LLC Daystar Technologies PPM Energy 3 Phases Energy Services Pro Vision Technologies, Inc. Blue Sun Biodiesel California Cars Initiative Community Fuels Cooperative Community Energy Corp Renewable Energy Access Environ Corporation Shepherd Advisors Sterling Planet Inc. United Bio Lube, Inc. Global Resourse Options, Inc Wilson Turbo Power, Inc Energy Efficiency Conservation Services Group Engage Networks Inc. Lightly Treading, Energy & Design Kinsley Power Systems McKinstry Johnson Controls Virent Energy Systems Burlington Electric Department Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Washington Electric Cooperative Consumer Products Aspen Skiing Company The Saunders Hotel Group and Environmental Consulting Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Ben & Jerry's file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (7 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm Working Assets Seventh Generation Pacific Bioscience Labs Strider Corporation Bay Towel Green Buildings/Infrastructure/Economic Dev. Blue Wave Strategies Ervin + Company All American Home Center William Maclay Architects & Planners William McDonough Partners Schultz Development Group, LLC CTO, NatureWorks (formerly Cargill-Dow) Duce Construction Corporation Quantec LLC NYC Transit Center for Smart Energy Mazria Architects Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center Business Leaders Mitch Kapor, Founder of Louts Robert Preston, Merrill Lynch Paul Adams, CEPTYR, Inc The Apollo Alliance acknowledges the generous support of the following individuals and foundations: Beldon Fund The Belvedere Fund The Bullitt Foundation Nathan Cummings Foundation The Energy Foundation The Ford Foundation French American Charitable Trust file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (8 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm General Service Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The John W. and Clara C. Higgins Foundation John Hunting Move On New-Land Foundation New York Community Trust (NYCT) The Overbrook Foundation The Peninsula Foundation Rockefeller Financial Services Tides Foundation Town Creek Foundation The United Nations Better World Fund The Wallace Global Fund file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ezra%20Temko/Desktop/Cool%20Cities/apollo%20about.htm (9 of 9)2/13/2007 2:53:35 PM

New Energy for Cities Energy-Saving & Job Creation Policies for Local Governments The Apollo Alliance apolloalliance.org M IL WAU WI KEE • MADISON

Included in this Document Introduction (p. 1) Invest in Renewable Power (p. 3) Build High-Performance Cities (p. 35) 1. Solar Energy (p. 4) 1. Rehab Building Codes (p. 36) 2. Geothermal Energy (p. 6) 2. Brownfield Redevelopment (p. 37) 3. Wind Energy (p. 7) 3. Location Efficient Mortgages (p. 37) 4. Biomass Energy (p. 8) 4. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) (p. 38) a. Landfill Gas (p. 8) 5. Stop Subsidizing Sprawl (p. 39) b. Municipal Biomass Collection (p. 9) a. Fees and Charges for Infrastructure c. Methane Digesters (p. 10) Development (p. 39) d. Combined Heat & Power/Cogeneration (p. 11) b. TIF Reform (p. 40) e. Co-Firing (p. 12) 6. Smart Grid Expansion (p. 41) Create High-Performance Buildings (p. 13) Financing the Clean Energy Future (p. 42) 1. Updating Building Codes (p. 13) 1. Clean Energy Funds (p. 42) 2. Energy Audits & Retrofits (p. 14) 2. Bonding Initiatives (p. 43) 3. Green Building Standards for Public Buildings (p. 16) 3. Pension Fund Investments (p. 44) 4. Green Building Incentives for the Public Sector (p. 17) 4. Energy Savings Performance Contracts (p. 45) 5. Green and Efficient Purchasing (p. 19) 6. Building Operations & Maintenance (p. 20) Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy a. Information Technology (p. 20) Future (p. 46) b. Conservation (p. 20) 1. Job Training Standards (p. 46) 7. Innovative Approaches to Utilities (p. 21) a. Regional Energy Industry Partnerships (p. 46) a. Demand Side Management (p. 21) b. Job Training and Weatherization Asssistance b. Green Pricing Programs (p. 22) Programs (p. 47) c. Public Benefits Funds (p. 23) c. Apprenticeship Utilization (p. 48) d. Decoupling (p. 24) 2. Job Quality Standards (p. 50) e. RPS/Feed-In Tariffs (p. 26) 3. Best Value Contracting (p. 51) f. Community Choice Aggregation (p. 27) About the Apollo Alliance (p. 52) Drive toward Energy Independence (p. 28) Endnotes (p. 53) 1. Clean and Efficient City Fleets (p. 28) 2. Clean and Efficient Private Fleets (p. 30) 3. Incentives for Efficient Car Use (p. 31) 4. Improving Mass Transit (p. 32) 5. Upgrading Traffic Signals and Street Lights (p. 33) 6. Green Infrastructure (p. 34)

For More Information This report was written by the Apollo Strategy Center: Kate Gordon, Matt Mayrl, Satya Rhodes-Conway, and Brian Siu. For more information on this report, or for additional copies, please contact gordon@apolloalliance.org or 608.265.5899.

Introduction F or decades, Americans have fled to the suburbs in search of clean air and open space. Ironically, some of the “greenest” places in America are its dense, vibrant cities. New York City, seen by many as an urban jungle, was recently called the “greenest city in the U.S.” because so many of its residents live in efficient multi-story buildings, and use public transit, bicycles, or their own feet to commute to work.1 City residents also consume about half as much electricity as those who live in more spread-out suburban areas. So cities can be models for saving energy. But just as important, cities can be models for creating good jobs producing energy, constructing high-performance buildings, and manufacturing clean- energy technologies. The manufacturing, construction, installation, and maintenance of renewable energy and energy efficiency systems will happen almost entirely in metropolitan areas. The physical infrastructure America needs to build these new technologies—factories, universities, and research parks—is in or near cities. The workers that provide a strong foundation for America’s clean energy future already live near this infrastructure. Best of all, because union densities are higher in cities, clean energy jobs in the city are far more likely to be good-paying union jobs than those created outside the city. America’s towns and cities have the innovative and hard-working people, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the political independence to lead the way towards a future where clean energy and good jobs go hand in hand. And there has never been a better, or more urgent, time for cities to flex this power. By reducing energy imports and shifting to homegrown fuels, cities can reduce our $200 billion trade deficit in oil and gas, creating millions of new jobs at home. They can stop funding politically unstable regimes. They can reduce the pollution that makes urban air unhealthy, contributes to asthma and other lung disease, and leads to global warming. Last but not least, by investing in energy- saving technology and cleaner fuels, cities across the country can create millions of good jobs in manufacturing, construction, and maintenance. In this report, we lay out the Apollo Alliance’s Four-Part Plan for how cities can embrace a clean energy future: • Invest in Renewable Power Generate 25 percent of electricity from clean, renewable sources, through policies and programs that prioritize local production, workforce development, and good jobs. • Create High-Performance Buildings Revitalize the built environment by renovating public and private buildings, lowering energy consumption, moving toward renewable energy, and creating good jobs and job training for local residents. • Drive Toward Energy Independence Reduce oil consumption 25 percent by 2025 by promoting efficient technologies and clean, renewable fuel alternatives, through policies and programs that prioritize local production and good jobs. • Build High-Performance Cities Promote low-energy, high-performance cities and communities connected by regional transportation networks, through policies and programs that prioritize local hiring and good jobs. New Energy for Cities, 

Introduction Many Apollo Alliance strategies—whether energy efficient measures or renewable energy systems—involve up-front capital costs that will result in reduced energy use and savings over time. For that reason, we propose a number of financing options, from bonding initiatives to low-interest loans, for cities to use to fund clean energy projects. Moreover, though the Apollo plan automatically creates millions of new jobs in manufacturing, installation, construction and services, cities must ensure that these jobs are high-skill jobs paying a family-supporting wage. To ensure that working Americans have a stake in the 21st century energy economy, we recommend that towns and cities include job quality and job training standards in all new energy policies. With Apollo’s Four Part Plan, we offer dozens of proven policies and practices for city officials to choose from. This report is not exhaustive—many towns and cities across the country have made real breakthroughs in energy policy that could not be included here for reasons of space. Instead, we aim to give a glimpse of what is possible when local governments decide to begin the journey toward a cleaner energy future. By starting on this journey, local governments not only help the environment and create good jobs for local residents; they also help themselves by cutting energy costs, relieving pressure on tight budgets, and demonstrating the essential value of public investment in new energy technologies. , New Energy for Cities

Invest in Renewable Power A n increasing number of cities are turning toward, clean, efficient renewable energy to power their buildings and infrastructure. These renewable energy systems allow cities to become more independent from the grid and imported fossil fuels, boost the market for renewable technologies, move to more reliable and affordable resources, and display a visible public commitment to a sustainable energy future. In areas with high summer or winter electricity demands, using small-scale renewable energy systems can also protect residents and businesses from the costly effects of blackouts and brownouts. Cities can and should leverage their control over public buildings, as well as their ability to provide financing and incentives to renewable energy developers, to bring high-quality jobs in the renewable energy industry to their communities. The vast majority of these jobs are in manufacturing, so cities should concentrate on attracting PV cell, wind turbine, and geothermal heat pump manufacturers, as well as the component part manufacturers that support all these industries. Cities can also ensure that projects on public buildings, or that involve public subsidy, include job quality and training standards. What Cities are Doing Now At the end of 2005, the Mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico signed a comprehensive renewable energy measure into law. The resolution calls on the city to adopt policies to establish and implement a City Renewable Energy Initiative, including the following elements: • The City Office of Economic Development and the Energy Conservation Council will develop a program to provide tax incentives and tax credits, up to $1 million, for solar energy manufacturers or solar research and development companies located within the city. • The City Department of Municipal Development and the Energy Conservation Council will begin a process to retrofit all existing city-owned buildings and facilities with renewable energy systems, solar energy in particular. The goal of this program is to secure 15 percent of the power for all city-owned facilities from renewable sources within fifteen years. All new facilities over 100,000 square feet will be equipped with renewable energy systems capable of generating at least 25 percent of the facility’s estimated energy requirements. • The City Finance Department will develop a rebate program to encourage the use of renewable energy by city residents, and will amend the Industrial Revenue Bond application process to add points for the creating, production, or use of renewable energy in industrial facilities. • The city will propose new procurement standards that require agencies to purchase products that reduce toxic chemicals and greenhouse gas emissions, maximize water and energy efficiency, favor renewable energy sources, favor recyclable or compostable materials, and consider life-cycle economics of each product including its manufacture, transportation, use, and disposal. The resolution also calls on the city to lobby the state legislature to pass net-metering legislation, which will enable the city to sell excess renewable energy from its upgraded city buildings back to the utility grid. For more information • Gene Bustamante, Energy Specialist • Energy Conservation Council • 505.768.5374 • gbustamante@cabq.gov Policy link • Resolution R-05-329: www.cabq.gov/energy/documents/ Resolution329.doc New Energy for Cities, 

Invest in Renewable Power 1 Solar Energy O ne of the most visible commitments a city can make to renewable energy is to install solar electric panels (called photovoltaic What Cities are Doing Now Chicago, Illinois is part of a public-private partnership focused on advancing or “PV” panels) on public buildings, and to the development of the solar energy industry in the Chicago metropolitan area. The Chicago Solar Partnership, which includes the solar design and installation encourage their use on private residences and company Spire Solar Chicago and the Pipe Fitters Local 597, provides outreach businesses throughout the city. Installing PV and education on solar energy and technical assistance to end users. Founded in panels on city buildings provides extra security 2000, the partnership has already worked to install nearly 2 MW of solar power from blackouts during periods of strong in Chicago, mostly on buildings within city limits. electricity demand, such as hot summer days. Because the sun is most intense during mid- This is a model project because it focuses not only on energy production but also on jobs. In 2003, Chicago gave interest-free financing to the solar manufacturer day, PV panels provide electricity when demand Solargenix Energy in order for the company to relocate their facility to the old is highest. Solar power can also be used to stockyard district in downtown Chicago. The facility now employs 15 people full- heat a building’s water supply. Constructing time, and manufactures 30–40 solar collectors per day. or retrofitting a building to harness solar For more information energy for lighting or hot water is easy, cost • Kathy Quasey, Program Developer effective, and environmentally friendly. Solar • Chicago Solar Partnership energy is also one of the most environmentally • 312.744.0470 • kathy.quasey@cityofchicago.org friendly ways to generate electricity and heat. • http://www.chicagosolarpartnership.com/ According to the EPA, a typical 6 kW solar system will save 32 pounds of nitrogen oxides, Santa Clara, California rents private citizens and businesses solar 44 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 17,199 pounds equipment to heat their swimming pools, process water, and domestic hot of carbon dioxide each year—equivalent to water. The solar components (solar collectors, controls and storage tanks) the carbon dioxide that would be absorbed are owned and maintained by the city; renters pay an initial installation fee by planting two acres of trees. In addition and a monthly utility fee that varies according to the size of the installation. Renters keep any money saved in energy bills. to installing these systems on their own buildings, many cities encourage their use on For more information • Santa Clara City Solar Utility private buildings through tax credits and other • 408.615.2200 incentives. • www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pub_utility/ws_water_heating.html Oroville, California has proved itself to be a forerunner in the use of solar energy and development. During the California energy crisis, when electricity rates jumped nearly 41 percent, the Oroville Sewage Commission was struggling to keep up with rising costs and increase self-reliance and sustainability. Within six months, using a combination of general fund revenues and redevelopment agency bonds, Oroville installed a 520 kW solar system in its Wastewater Treatment Plant that cut power costs by about 80 percent. The system results in annual savings of $58,000 for the sewage treatment plant in demand rates alone and is projected to pay for itself in only nine years. The wastewater treatment plant has notable environmental benefits as well, reducing emissions by 1.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide, 5,800 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 2,800 pounds of nitrogen oxide. For more information • Ray Sousa, Superintendent • Sewerage Commission-Oroville Region • 530.534.0353 • scor-ray@oroville.net , New Energy for Cities

Invest in Renewable Power 1 Solar Energy cont... Honolulu, Hawaii, in partnership with the Hawaiian Electric Company, offers low- interest loans (0 percent or 2 percent) to qualified homeowners who want to install Solar Water Heating Systems on their homes. Landlords of affordable or low-income properties are also eligible for the program. Honolulu estimates that home owners who install the solar water heating systems can expect to use 90 percent less fossil fuel-based electricity than they would without the systems. To further promote the purchase of solar hot water systems, the Hawaiian Electric Company provides $750 rebates off the purchase prices of qualified systems. For more information • Dan Tully • Ron Richmond, Analyst • Rehabilitation Loan Branch • Hawaiian Electric Utility Co. • 808.527.5917 • 808.543.4784 • www.co.honolulu.hi.us/dcs/solarloan.pdf • ron.richmond@heco.com Tucson, Arizona developed an innovative third-party financing mechanism for installing solar hot water heaters on city swimming pools. Called an Independent Energy Producer (IEP) contract, the city’s RFP calls for private companies to bid on designing, building, operating, maintaining, and financing Solar Pool Heaters and Domestic Hot Water Heating systems for five existing public pools. Under the IEP contract, the private company builds and maintains the system with no up-front cost to the city. Once the system is in place, Tucson will pay the difference between its original energy costs and its new costs to the contractor, thus paying off the cost of construction. Once the system is paid off, Tucson will own the system and benefit from future reduced energy bills. For more information • Vinnie Hunt, Energy Manager • 520.791.4724 • vhunt1@ci.tucson.az.us Policy link • In conjunction with the United States Department of Energy, the city of Tucson constructed an informative website that explains how to structure third-party financing contracts for renewable energy systems, available at: http://energy.sandia.gov/index.htm. Oakland, California developed one of the state’s largest municipal solar projects with a combined 1.1 MW serving Oakland’s Ice Center and Municipal Service Center. The two systems cover 85,000 square feet of roof space. At the Ice Center, the 372 kW PV system generates 31 percent of the electricity used to make the ice for two skating rinks in downtown Oakland, and the 760 kW system at the Municipal Service Center in the Coliseum Business Park covers 82 percent of that building’s energy needs. The systems are estimated to eliminate 385 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year and save $244,000 in energy costs each year. The PV systems were coupled with energy efficiency measures as a way to further decrease the facilities’ utility costs and to increase the percentage of electricity generated by solar. For more information • Scott Wentworth, Energy Engineer • City of Oakland Public Works Agency • 510.615.5421 • swentworth@oaklandnet.com New Energy for Cities, 

Invest in Renewable Power 2 Geothermal Energy G eothermal energy systems use the Earth’s natural sub-surface heat to produce electricity, or to directly heat water What Cities and Counties are Doing Now North Bonneville, Washington replaced the 20 year-old electric resistance duct system in its City Hall with a ground-coupled geothermal heat pump system that provides both heating and cooling for the 4,600 square foot building. The system or air. To date, there are already 2,800 circulates heating and cooling fluid at a rate of 9 to 15 gallons/minute through deeply MW of geothermal capacity deployed in the drilled pipes. Regardless of outside temperature, the fluid always returns to surface United States, enough to power 1.7 million at the average ground temperature of 54 degrees Fahrenheit, dramatically decreasing households. While the geothermal resources the pressure on the building’s existing heating and cooling system. The total cost of needed to directly produce electricity are the system was $16,761. Staff estimate that the system decreases electricity use by 34,000 kWh/yr, saving $1,500 per year compared to the old electric resistance geographically limited, every region of the U.S system. has some available geothermal energy. For more information • Ray Hays, Public Works Manager Geothermal heat pumps, the most common • 509.427.8182 building-scale geothermal technology, are generally used to take pressure off buildings’ The Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority in Canton, Ohio was faced with the challenge of how to improve living conditions at Metropolitan Towers, a 150-unit, eight-story HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) building comprised mostly of studio apartments. Built in 1972, the building was in systems. The heat pump transfers heat from decline and the vacancy rate was rising dramatically. The Housing Authority decided the soil to the house in winter and from to install a geothermal energy heat pump system to save energy dollars while still the house to the soil in summer, using an providing a comfortable environment. At the same time, the building received an entire energy retrofit, including new roofing, energy-efficient windows, compact fluorescent environmentally friendly heat exchange fluid lighting, low-flow toilets, a centralized domestic water heating system and additional similar to antifreeze. This process is very insulation. SMHA saves $29,000 annually as result of these improvements, and efficient, reducing electricity consumption by releases 40,000 tons less carbon dioxide into the air than it did before the retrofit. 30 to 60 percent. Operating and maintenance For more information costs are quite low. Because of the easy • Steve Ewing, Energy & Compliance Supervisor application and quick payback periods of • Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority geothermal systems, several cities are also • 330.454.8051 • ewingnets@aol.com or info@starkmha.org providing incentives for integrating them into new construction projects. Thief River Falls, Minnesota provides low-interest loans and incentives to customers installing or retrofitting ground source heat pumps. The current program offers up to $8,000 at five percent interest and a rebate of $2,000 to offset the cost of installing the system’s external loop field. The town has also installed heat pumps in various public buildings including the elementary school, utility shop building and City Hall. For more information • Arlo Rude, Utilities Director • 218.681.5816 • citytrf@citytrf.net The Big Island of Hawaii uses geothermal energy to meet approximately 20% of its total energy needs. Puna Geothermal Venture delivers an average of 25–30 megawatts of energy on a continuous basis. Located about 21 miles south of the city of Hilo, the facility is located on about 25 acres along the Lower East Rift Zone of the Kilauea Volcano. From 1997–2001, this project displaced the need to burn 475,000 barrels of fuel oil on average each year. With the State of Hawaii’s 90% dependence on foreign oil, a diversified renewable portfolio is especially important. For more information • Barry Mizuno • Puna Geothermal Ventures • 808.965.6233 • www.punageothermalventure.com , New Energy for Cities

Invest in Renewable Power 3 Wind Energy O f all renewable energy technologies, the one with greatest potential to replace a large number of conventional power plants is wind What Cities are Doing Now Bowling Green, Ohio led the development of Ohio’s first utility-scale wind farm, a groundbreaking project that is spurring interest in wind power development throughout the state. In the late nineties, Bowling Green’s Utilities Department power. Wind power is cost-competitive with established a green power pricing program that set aside money to pay for future coal-fired plants, produces no emissions, and wind and solar development, including further testing of the region’s wind resources. offers price stability to customers and utilities. When wind resources proved to be sufficient, Bowling Green led a coalition of ten municipal utilities which issued bonds to finance the wind farm’s construction. The wind farm consists of four 1.8 MW towers, and produces enough electricity to Municipal utilities located in areas with strong power a village of 1,560 homes. wind resources can easily begin increasing For more information the supply of wind power available to utility • Daryl Stockburger, Director of Utilities customers. In cities with private utilities, • City of Bowling Green local government can commit to purchasing • 419.354.6246 a set amount of wind power each year and • daryl.stockburger@bgohio.org can encourage residents to do so as well. In addition, cities can promote small-scale wind In 2005, Boulder, Colorado partnered with Western Resource Advocates and several renewable energy suppliers in a commitment to increase city residents’ turbines by adopting wind-friendly zoning and renewable energy purchases. Boulder was already one of the nation’s leading planning regulations. supporters of wind power, with more than 5,000 households and 300 commercial and industrial customers purchasing wind power for their home or business. However, the city sought to deepen its commitment by setting a goal to sign up 500 additional wind power customers from the residential and commercial sectors. In just two months, the Boulder Wind Challenge succeeded in signing up 1,150 new wind power subscribers, more than twice the initial goal. New subscribers purchased almost sixteen million kWh of renewable energy, which has the same environmental benefits as taking 2,440 cars off the road for a year and saving 92 acres of trees from deforestation. Due in part to the challenge’s success, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated Boulder a Green Power Community, the first place in Colorado to receive this designation. For more information • Carolyn Weinreich • Office of Environmental Affairs • 303.441.1914 • weinreichc@ci.boulder.co.us Mason City, Iowa recently passed City Ordinance 06–03, which allows the construction of small windmills on private property in commercial, industrial and residential zones. Mason City’s ordinance requires permits for windmills and sets limits on where they can be built. Residential windmills cannot exceed 100 feet in height and can be put only in backyards. The lot has to be big enough so that if the windmill topples it doesn’t cross property lines. Mason City’s ordinance was spurred by a local resident who wanted to construct a windmill to power his local business. Because of the area’s strong wind resources, this resident estimates he can save enough on electric bills to pay for a $40,000 system in eight to ten years. For more information • Mayor Roger Bang • 641.421.3600 • mayor@masoncity.net New Energy for Cities, 

Invest in Renewable Power 4 Biomass Energy Tfromheenergy most widely available form of renewable is bioenergy—the energy derived Landfill Gas (LFG) plants and plant-derived materials, including trees, plants, wood wastes, animal N early every city in America has a nearby landfill. An increasing number of cities are harnessing the methane gas these landfills produce, and using it to generate power. As of December 2005, there are approximately 395 wastes, and some industrial wastes. This operational LFG energy projects in the United States and nearly 600 landfills diverse set of raw materials can be converted that are good candidates for projects. About two-thirds of these projects into equally diverse forms of energy— generate electricity, and the other third pipe the gas to local businesses that electricity, liquid and gaseous fuels, and a use it for heating purposes. variety of products. By better utilizing urban and exurban biomass resources, cities can For more information on landfill gas technology and to find out whether there move toward a homegrown source for fuel is a good landfill candidate near your city, visit the EPA’s Landfill Gas Outreach and power, while also decreasing waste and Program at: www.epa.gov/landfill/overview.htm. preserving open farmland. What Cities are Doing Now Denton, Texas partnered with California-based Biodiesel Industries, Inc. to harness the landfill gas from a city-managed dump, and use it to power a biodiesel production facility. The new biodiesel facility has an initial production capacity of three million gallons of pure biodiesel per year. For more information • Vance Kemler, Director of Solid Waste • 940.349.8444 • vance.kelmer@cityofdenton.com Burbank, California recently installed a ten-microturbine gas system at its landfill to divert approximately 160 cubic feet per minute of gas from the landfill flare and generate up to 300 kilowatts of green power. The system has just one moving part, uses no oil, lubricants or coolants, and is designed to operate at full load capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. For more information • Bonnie Teaford, Public Works and Capital Project Manager • 818.238.3915 • bteaford@ci.burbank.ca.us , New Energy for Cities

Invest in Renewable Power 4 Biomass Energy cont... Municipal Biomass Collection TusereeinitAmerican trimmings and fallen branches produce a large amount of wood waste cities each year. Most cities already collect this material and as wood chips for landscaping in city parks. However, some cities are beginning to view this wood waste as a valuable renewable energy source and are finding higher-value uses for it. What Cities are Doing Now Saint Paul, Minnesota, through its partner District Energy St. Paul, contracts with a local company to manage a wood recycling facility that turns waste wood into biomass fuel. The local company sorts through the wood and diverts 300,000 tons of wood waste to a nearby co-generation facility, where it is used to produce electricity for local residents. The initiative saves the city money by keeping wood wastes out of the landfills and helps the environment by providing a renewable fuel for the power plant. For more information • Rick Person, Project Manager • District Energy St. Paul, Inc. • Department of Public Works • 651.297.8955 • 651.266.6122 • http://www.districtenergy.com/ • rick.person@ci.stpaul.mn.us The Phillips Community Energy Cooperative (PCEC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota is working to transform a waste transfer station in South Minneapolis into a model of environmentally friendly, community-based energy. The Phillips Biomass Community Energy Project will use urban tree trimmings and agricultural residues to fuel a combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Slated to come online in 2007, the project is expected to generate 20 MW of electricity that will be sold to the electric grid, while the heat will be used for homes in the community surrounding the project. When running at full capacity, the project will meet the energy needs of approximately 20,000 households, creating greenhouse gas reductions equivalent to taking 40,000 cars off the road. In addition, the project will create approximately 20 good-paying permanent jobs and another 200 jobs during construction of the project. For more information • Carl Nelson • The Green Institute/PCEC • 612.278.7117 • cnelson@greeninstitute.org • http://renewableenergy.greeninstitute.org/ New Energy for Cities, 

Invest in Renewable Power 4 Biomass Energy cont... Methane Digesters IFiguring n agricultural areas, many cities struggle with preserving their water quality as runoff from manure-fertilized fields enters streams and rivers. out environmentally responsible ways to control the manure produced by farm animals is a top priority for rural communities. But human and animal waste disposal is also an issue for urban communities; recently some cities have become concerned by the large amounts of pet waste disposed of in city landfills. In the face of these challenges, cities are developing new ways to promote the use of methane digesters. Methane digesters are large holding tanks that use bacteria to break down human, animal, and other organic wastes. As these wastes decompose, they produce methane gas, which is then captured by the digester and burned in a boiler to produce renewable power. Methane digesters are an exciting solution to both the need for renewable energy, and the problems of waste disposal and odor control. What Cities and Counties are Doing Now San Francisco, California is piloting a program to turn dog waste into energy. In partnership with a private company that collects the city’s trash, San Francisco is distributing special biodegradable bags in one of the city’s main dog parks. These biodegradable bags allow trash collectors to deposit them, and their contents, directly into a methane digester. The methane can be piped directly to a gas stove, heater, turbine or anything else powered by natural gas. According to the city, animal feces make up nearly four percent of residential waste, or 6,500 tons a year—nearly as much as disposable diapers. For more information • San Francisco Recreation and Park Department • 415.831.2700 Cayuga County in central New York State is planning an innovative partnership with ECO Technology Solutions to develop and construct a community anerobic digester to process organic waste from local dairies and food processors; the resulting biogas will generate electricity for various county buildings. The Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District is leading the project as a way to tackle both energy and water quality problems in the community. Cayuga County will collect manure from several small to mid-size farmers who cannot support a manure treatment facility on their own. The collected manure will be used to power a digester, which the county expects to generate 625 kW of electricity. In return, local farmers will receive a truckload of liquid fertilizer to use in place of land-spread manure. This liquid fertilizer is a byproduct of the digester process and is lower in phosphorus, preserving water quality in the county. This innovative renewable energy project is expected to be operational by spring 2007. For more information • Jim Hotaling, Executive Director • Bill Cetti • Cayuga County Soil and Water • ECO Technology Solutions Conservation District • 703.669.3221 • 315.252.4171 • jim-hotaling@ny.nacdnet.org 10, New Energy for Cities

Invest in Renewable Power 4 Biomass Energy cont... Combined Heat and Power (CHP)/Cogeneration Ccogeneration) ities can significantly improve the efficiency of their electrical and heating systems through the use of combined heat and power (CHP, a.k.a. technology. CHP systems use the same fuel combustion to produce both thermal energy for heating (usually in the form of steam) and electricity (often via a steam-driven turbine). These efficient systems recover heat that normally would be wasted in an electric plant, and save the fuel that would otherwise be used to produce heat or steam in a separate unit. CHP fuel savings are typically 35 percent compared to standard power stations and heat-only boilers, and CHP plants are 70–90 percent efficient,2 compared to efficiencies of 33–60 percent for standard power plants.3 This increase in efficiency and decrease in fuel use translates into cost savings and emissions reductions. What Cities are Doing Now Honolulu, Hawaii has installed a 200 kW cogeneration unit on its City Hall, Honolulu Hale. The cogeneration unit, along with lighting and HVAC upgrades, was installed with assistance from the United States Department of Energy’s Rebuild America program. As a result of the retrofit, energy use decreased 39 percent, saving more than $125,000 per year. For more information • Allyn Lee, Project Manager • City and County of Honolulu • 808.523.4106 • alee2@co.honolulu.hi.us Philadelphia, Pennsylvania recently negotiated a long-term service agreement with Trigen–Philadelphia, a local power company, to secure the development of a combined heat and power facility in the city. Trigen bought an aging steam heating district system in southwest Philadelphia in 1996 that provided 70 percent of Philadelphia’s downtown buildings and institutional facilities with steam for heating, cooling, domestic hot water production, and cooking through 33 miles of underground steam pipe. This large central steam system provided heat to a number of downtown buildings through oil-fired boilers, but did not produce electricity for the grid. Pursuant to its agreement with the city, Trigen retrofitted the old steam system with a 118 MW gas turbine that funnels its exhaust gases through a heat recovery system to generate high pressure steam. This high pressure steam then goes through a 52 MW condensing steam turbine to generate electricity; the system also provides low-pressure steam for continued use in the district heating system. The new system has a fuel conversion efficiency of 70 percent, more than twice the national average for utility generation. The project also uses 13 percent less fuel than separate heat and power, conserving 1.6 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas and 61,000 barrels of oil a year, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 110,000 tons—the equivalent of planting 30,000 acres of forest or displacing the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 10,000 households. For more information • Kevin Brown, Vice President and General Manager • Trigen–Philadelphia • 215.875.6900 ext. 128 New Energy for Cities, 11

Invest in Renewable Power 4 Biomass Energy cont... Co-firing A nother way of using biomass to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels is to burn it in conjunction with traditional fossil fuels at existing power plants. While most of the nation’s older power plants cannot easily burn 100 percent biomass, many can burn a combination of biomass and fossil fuels. Using biomass as a secondary and supplemental fuel source in power plants reduces carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. This approach provides a low-cost renewable energy option that utilizes local biomass resources and existing energy infrastructure. As with all biomass-based strategies, it is important that cities considering co-firing projects prioritize responsible land-use policies, such as burning agricultural and wood waste (corn stover, crop wastes, wood pellets, etc.) rather than allocating vast tracts of open land to biomass fuel crops. It is also important to avoid co-firing any waste products that may create toxic air pollution. What Cities are Doing Now The cities of Hibbing and Virginia, Minnesota are working with state and federal officials to repower two older coal-fired power plants with locally-sourced biomass material. The Laurentian Energy Authority, a joint venture of the two cities’ public utilities, seeks to capitalize on the market created by Minnesota’s renewable energy requirements. The repowered plants will produce 35 MW of renewable power from biomass, preserve 70 existing jobs and create 60–100 new jobs in the communities. The project will use biomass grown and harvested by local loggers, stored at a separate wood yard between the two cities. The cities of Hibbing and Virginia supported the project with $84 million in revenue bonds that will be repaid by monies generated by the project. For more information • Terry Leoni, General Manager • Jim Kochevar, General Manager • Virginia Department of Public • Hibbing Department of Public Utilities Utilities • 218.748.7564 • 216.262.7728 • leonit@vpuc.com • jimk@hpuc.com 12, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings R esidential and commercial buildings account for over a third of U.S. energy use and carbon emissions.4 As construction methods and insulation technology have improved, so too has our ability to build structures that use less energy, contribute fewer pollutants to our environment, and improve comfort and productivity. City governments, which directly control thousands of public buildings and have influence over millions of private residential and commercial buildings, are in a key position to bring innovative design and efficient construction principles into everyday use around the country. Cities also have the leverage to ensure that the many construction, operating and maintenance jobs that are associated with green building and energy efficiency retrofits go to high-skilled, well-paid workers in their communities. 1 Updating Building Codes M illions of new buildings are constructed in American cities each year. Updating building codes so that new construction What Cities and Counties are Doing Now Seattle, Washington adopted its first energy code in 1980, and most recently adopted the Washington State Energy Code with amendments in 2004. This code is considered by building professionals across the country to be one of the better is more efficient can save residents and examples of a state and local energy code, because it sets mandatory standards for businesses countless dollars in energy costs. most houses and businesses at levels that are more stringent even than the IECC For example, the US Department of Energy recommends. (DOE) estimates that incorporating efficient For more information design into new buildings can cut heating and • Seattle Department of Planning and Development cooling costs by close to 50 percent.5 Updating • 206.684.8600 building codes can also create new jobs in Policy link construction, upgrading and installation—jobs • Seattle Energy Code: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/energy/default.htm that are often unionized and pay a family- supporting wage.6 The city of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado have adopted, with local amendments, the 2003 International Codes. This includes all building, mechanical, plumbing, fuel gas, fire, property maintenance, and existing building codes. Pitkin County has also In order to ensure that all new buildings taken a larger look at the issue of residential energy efficiency and included extra constructed in a city meet a minimum requirements for especially high-energy homes. For example, homes with certain high energy-use features (for instance, the home is more than 5,000 square feet, level of energy efficiency, city or county or includes a hot tub or heated pool) must install energy-efficient appliances or governments can adopt legislation updating renewable energy equipment to offset that extra energy consumption, or must existing residential and commercial building contribute to a fund that invests in such features elsewhere in the community. codes to the most recent International For more information Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) standards. • City of Aspen Community Development Updating building codes to the most recent • 970.920.5090 IECC standards, and requiring that any future • http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/41/bldg_efficient.cfm IECC updates be adopted within one year of Policy links publication, ensures that new construction • IECC codes: www.iccsafe.org/ • DOE Building Energy Codes Program (financial and technical assistance): uses less energy, contributes fewer pollutants www.energycodes.gov/implement/doe_assist.stm to our environment, and improves comfort and • Building Codes Assistance Project: www.bcap-energy.org/ productivity. New Energy for Cities, 13

Create High-Performance Buildings 1 Updating Building Codes cont... On March 30, 2005 the Phoenix, Arizona City Council adopted a new “Phoenix Building Construction Code,” which includes the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and its 2004 Supplement. The new code also provides minimum health and safety standards for the construction of buildings in Phoenix. For more information • Anne Sobczak • City of Phoenix Development Services • 602.534.3878 • anne.sobczak@phoenix.gov • www.phoenix.gov/DEVSERV/index.html 2 Energy Audits & Retrofits C ities directly control many buildings and must pay utility bills for all of them. Incorporating efficiency measures in city What Cities are Doing Now Springfield, Massachusetts is preparing to embark on an estimated $20 million energy improvement program for public buildings through projects ranging from new boilers to attic insulation. The city will hire a firm to conduct an energy audit of buildings presents a great opportunity for 90 buildings, including City Hall, Symphony Hall, schools, libraries, fire stations, the local governments to save money and help the police station and park buildings. environment. Simple retrofits to windows and For more information electrical, lighting, or heating systems can yield • Patrick J. Sullivan, Director large energy cost savings. Such retrofits not • Parks, Buildings & Recreation Management only save the government money, they also lead • 413.787.6440 to more comfortable work environments, which • http://www.springfieldcityhall.com/Park/ have been linked to higher worker and student The city of Chula Vista, California developed a City Energy Plan to protect city productivity. agencies, residents and businesses from the high cost and unreliable supply of energy. City offices implemented network software to put computer monitors City governments should conduct energy audits in sleep mode when unattended for more than ten minutes—a move that saves on all city-controlled buildings to inventory approximately $13,000 per year. The city also replaced appliances with higher efficiency models. In addition, the city enacted an extensive public awareness and current energy use and identify the most cost- education campaign that provided residents with a free home energy audit, energy saving and efficient retrofits available for these efficiency compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and information on energy rebates. The buildings. These audits and retrofits generally city’s efforts resulted in a 15 percent reduction in citywide energy use in 2001. The bring in significant savings, thus paying for city’s free energy audit program was also a success: 1,500 homes were audited. themselves quickly. As an example, federal For more information government efficiency standards instituted • Office of the City Manager in the mid-1980s reduced building energy • Recycling and Conservation Division • 619.691.5122 consumption by 23 percent over a 15-year • SaveEnergy@ci.chula-vista.ca.us period, saving taxpayers an estimated $1.4 billion per year.7 Cities can also encourage building owners in the private sector to conduct similar audits and retrofits, for instance by requiring that buildings include efficiency upgrades prior to building sale. 14, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 2 Energy Audits & Retrofits cont... Berkeley, California was the first city in the nation to require that anyone selling a residential building install conservation measures at time of sale, or whenever improvements valued at more than $50,000 are made to residential property. Cost and energy-saving measures required by Berkeley’s Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) include insulating ceilings, water heaters, and hot water pipes; sealing furnace ducts; installing fluorescent lighting and weather stripping; blocking hot-air flow out of chimneys; and conserving hot water by installing low-flow shower heads. To date, approximately 12,000 residences (30 percent of the housing stock) have been certified as meeting RECO requirements. Berkeley also requires conservation measures in commercial buildings that are sold or substantially renovated. For more information • Phil Kamlarz, City Manager • 510.981.7100 Policy link • Berkeley Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance: http://www.ci.berkeley. ca.us/bmc/Berkeley_Municipal_Code/Title_19/16/index.html • Commercial Buildings—Energy Conservation Measures: http://www.ci.berkeley. ca.us/bmc/Berkeley_Municipal_Code/Title_19/72/index.html Ashland, Oregon offers extensive assistance to homeowners who audit and retrofit their homes, including home energy analysis, duct sealing and weatherization rebates, zero interest loans, and rebates for energy efficient appliances. For more information • Cathy Cartmill • City of Ashland Conservation Division • 541.552.2063 • cartmilc@ashland.or.us • http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1366 New Energy for Cities, 15

Create High-Performance Buildings 3 Green Building Standards for Public Buildings W hile energy audits and building codes can help existing buildings become more efficient, implementing green building standards What Cities are Doing Now In 2005, with the help of the New York City Apollo Alliance, New York for city-funded projects ensures that future City passed Local Law 86, which will require many of the City’s new municipal buildings, additions, and renovations to achieve rigorous standards of buildings will be efficient and environmentally sustainability. The law applies to the construction and rehabilitation of municipal friendly. The United States Green Building buildings (including schools, hospitals and city agency offices) and other Council (USGBC) sets national standards for construction projects that receive $10 million or more of city funds. It will green buildings through its Leadership in Energy affect approximately $12 billion in construction over the City’s ten-year capital plan, including $5 billion in school construction. By significantly improving the and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. performance of major new and renovated public capital construction projects, the The most commonly accepted and widely used bill ensures that energy costs for these projects will decrease at least 20–25 green building standard, LEED awards credits percent and the waste and pollution generated by buildings will be reduced. to structures in six categories: sustainable For more information siting, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, • Joanne Derwin, Program Director materials and resources, indoor environmental • NYC Apollo Alliance air quality, and innovation in design. Each • Joanne_derwin@qc.edu structure achieves a LEED certification level (‘certified,’ ‘silver,’ ‘gold,’ or ‘platinum’) based Seattle, Washington requires all city-funded projects over 5,000 square feet to on how many points it scores in each of these meet LEED Silver standards. To do so, the city operates an interdepartmental group categories. of city employees, the Green Building Team, which acts as resident experts on elements of green building. Using this comprehensive approach, green Seattle’s City Hall and Justice Center are two new high-rise downtown buildings building creates environmentally sustainable, that were built to LEED Silver standards under Project Labor Agreements with the healthy, and economical buildings. Green Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council. The Justice Center was building techniques can reduce building energy equipped with special mechanical features including variable flow chillers in its cooling system, energy-conserving devices built into the HVAC systems, and airflow handling costs by 20–50 percent8 and water usage by on a floor-by-floor basis. The Justice Center’s design elements cut energy costs by at least 50 percent outdoors and 30 percent 32 percent. This was a complex Ironworker/Glazier installation. indoors, resulting in substantial savings for For more information cities and taxpayers.9 At the same time, studies • Richard Gelb show that the additional cost of building green • Office of Sustainability and Environment is only $4 per square foot, or about two • richard.gelb@seattle.gov percent of building costs, yet net savings over • http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/dpd/Sustainable_Building/index.asp a twenty year period are between $48.87 and In 2003 Dallas, Texas implemented a Green Building Program to incorporate $67.31 per square foot.10 sustainable building design and construction practices into new municipal building projects. All projects over 10,000 square feet will be LEED Silver Certified. In Green building also requires a skilled labor addition, LEED certified projects will receive expedited building permit and code review. Currently approximately 38 projects throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth area force, and union apprenticeship and journeyman are seeking LEED Certification. Thirteen are city of Dallas Projects. programs are well-suited to train workers in For more information the modern construction techniques associated • Jill Jordan with green building projects. Adopting green • Assistant City Manager building standards that are coupled with • 214.670.5299 public-private partnerships with labor can lead to the creation of high-quality jobs for Trade unionists such as Sheetmetal Workers, Electrical Workers, Glaziers, and Plumbers and Pipefitters.11 16, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 3 Green Building Standards for Public Buildings cont... In 2000, the Chicago, Illinois Department of Environment initiated the City Hall Rooftop Garden Pilot Project as part of the EPA’s Urban Heat Island Initiative. During the garden’s first summer, the roof surface temperature dropped by 70 degrees, and the surrounding air temperature dropped by 15 degrees. Since the City Hall project, about 150 public and private buildings have installed green roofs, including a downtown McDonald’s restaurant and an Apple computer store. These projects were spurred in part by the city’s green building policies, which apply to new public buildings and publicly-subsidized private developments and require that a certain percentage of roof space be allocated to green roofs. Chicago is supplementing this program by awarding twenty $5,000 grants to help the owners of small commercial properties and residential buildings install green roofs. For more information • Sadhu Johnston, Commissioner • City of Chicago Department of Environment • 312.744.7606 • sjohnston@cityofchicago.org Policy link • Chicago’s Green Building Agenda: http://tinyurl.com/rr4zq 4 Green Building Incentives for the Private Sector A ll the same arguments for greening public buildings apply to private buildings—and there are far, far more private buildings What Cities and Counties are Doing Now The Alameda County, California StopWaste.Org agency (comprised of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and the Alameda County Source than city-owned structures. Cities may not Reduction and Recycling Board) provides green building technical assistance and have direct power over private residential, support to the West Oakland Apollo Alliance, which also includes community members and business and labor representatives. One of the Alliance’s most commercial, or industrial properties, but innovative projects is a green building demonstration project known as Red Star they do have some ability to regulate these Homes, which is built on the site of the old Red Star Yeast factory—formerly the structures and to provide incentives for source of major toxic air contamination in the community. West Oakland Apollo is building owners to embrace green building working to get the proposed 119-unit condominium development built to green building design and construction standards, and to ensure the project employs standards. Examples of government-backed both union contractors and local low-income residents who have completed a green building incentives include property community-based green construction skills training program. tax incentives, grant programs and rebates, For more information modifications to the city’s zoning regulations • Carla Din, Western Regional Field Director and/or expedited permit review for qualified • Apollo Alliance green building projects. • din@apolloalliance.org Arlington County, Virginia established a green building incentive program in 1999 to encourage the construction of more environmentally friendly office buildings. The program rewards developers and companies that construct LEED certified buildings with permission to add extra density or height to their buildings, beyond what is typically allowed under the county’s zoning standards. For more information • Randy Bartlett, Director of Infrastructure and Operations • 703.228.3711 • rbartlett@arlingtonva.us • www.co.arlington.va.us New Energy for Cities, 17

Create High-Performance Buildings 4 Green Building Incentives for the Private Sector cont... Aspen, Colorado instituted an Efficient Building Program in 2002, designed to educate the building trades and general public about ways to use resources more efficiently. All building permit applications submitted for review must include a completed EB Checklist. If the project includes a remodel and/or demolition/ deconstruction, then a Deconstruction Plan form must be filled out in addition to the Checklist. Applicants must accumulate a number of points for each project, based on their inclusion of certain efficiency measures, such as reduced construction waste, use of recycled and renewable resources, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, renewable energy use, and water conservation, as well as efficient building techniques. The city requires different numbers of points depending on the size and type of the project. For more information • City of Aspen Community Development • 970.920.5090 • http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/41/bldg_efficient.cfm Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Program was designed to increase sustainability in all new buildings without putting excessive burdens on builders or developers. Many of the measures have some associated initial cost, though others can actually reduce first costs and operating costs, and all of them increase the overall value of the building. Most of the city’s green building requirements apply to commercial construction, major renovation projects, and multi-family residential projects with more than three units. The Green Building Program provides specific “green” design and construction strategies in the following topic areas: Building Site and Form, Landscaping, Transportation, Building Envelope and Space Planning, Building Materials, Water Systems, Electrical Systems, HVAC Systems, Control Systems, Construction Management, and Commissioning. For more information • Greg Reitz • Environmental Programs Division • 310.458.2213 • greg.reitz@smgov.net • http://smgreen.org/ Oakland, California offers inspections and auditing services and financial support to the Alameda County Green Business Program to promote Green Business certification in Oakland. So far, over 180 Alameda County businesses and public agencies have formed partnerships with the San Francisco Bay Area Green Business Program. For more information • Pam Evans, County Coordinator • 510.567.6770 • pamela.evans@acgov.org • http://www.greenbiz.ca.gov/AboutUsAC.html 18, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 5 Green and Efficient Purchasing I n addition to owning and regulating large amounts of real estate, buildings, and transportation infrastructure, city What Cities are Doing Now In 2004, the Dallas, Texas City Council enacted an Environmental Procurement Policy directing the City, along with all its consultants and contractors, to purchase governments also purchase an immense and use recycled materials and other environmentally preferred products whenever feasible. The policy also directed city agencies to implement a training program for all number of products—everything from paper staff making purchasing decisions. to paint, motor oil to HVAC systems. These For more information goods all require energy and resources to • Leah Register produce, package, transport, use, and/or • Business Development & Procurement Services dispose. Through their daily purchases, local • 214.670.3329 governments exert substantial power over the market. Choosing products with minimal In June 2001, Chicago, Illinois partnered with the Chicago Transit Authority, the life-cycle impacts can save energy, reduce Park District, and 48 surrounding municipalities to purchase green power, beginning with three percent in the first year and climbing to 20 percent over the next five emissions, increase the market for high years. The awarded bidder was Commonwealth Edison with the Environmental performance products and even save money. Resource Trust (ERT); the utility will sell ‘green tickets’ that are certified by ERT. (Note: while environmentally preferable Profits from the initial sale will be used to form a trust fund that will finance the purchasing policies can encompass a wide development of more renewables capacity. Phase 1 of the project cut greenhouse gas emissions by 45,530 tons and saved 116,644,000 kWh. range of products—from recycled paper to less toxic cleaning materials to locally grown For more information food—we focus here on purchasing decisions • Steven Walter, Assistant Commissioner • Energy Management and Policy most closely related to energy.) • 312.744.4106 • swalter@cityofchicago.org One simple adjustment to a city’s purchasing policy is to require Energy Star-rated Mayor Will Wynn and the Austin, Texas City Council have adopted a resolution that appliances and office equipment. These commits Austin to developing a greener transportation system. Part of this plan is to replace existing city fleet vehicles with plug-in hybrids. Mayor Wynn has been a leader products, which carry the EPA’s visible Energy in advocating that cities across the United States purchase Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles Star label, use 25–50 percent less energy (PHVs) for city fleets. PHVs have drive trains similar to traditional hybrid vehicles, without compromising quality or performance.12 utilizing power from two sources: a battery pack and internal combustion engine. The According to one study, replacing 100 primary difference between PHVs and hybrids currently available to consumers is that the battery pack in a PHV is expanded and modified to allow the input of electrical inefficient computers with EnergyStar energy from standard 110/220V outlets. The larger battery capacity allows PHVs to computers and monitors can save $10,000 in be driven 20–80 miles on electrical charge alone, and then seamlessly transition to energy costs in five years.13 traditional hybrid operation when the charge in the battery is depleted. Thus, PHVs allow for clean, emission-free driving on short trips, but have a travel range equal to any traditional car (300–400 mi). In 2005, Mayor Wynn introduced a resolution to the Austin City Council to adopt an incentive-based PHEV program. The hybrids will be powered using wind turbines owned by West Texas Wind. Mayor Wynn is pushing for the 50 largest cities in the United States to join Austin in this initiative, which includes a commitment to purchase the vehicles when they become available. For more information • Lisa Braithwaite • Austin Energy • 512.322.6511 • pluginaustin@austinenergy.com New Energy for Cities, 19

Create High-Performance Buildings 6 Building Operations & Maintenance Chigh-performance onstructing buildings in a sustainable manner is just one component to building a Information Technology city. Building operations— how a building is run day-to-day—have a large O ne of the major hidden costs of new technology is increased energy consumption. A typical personal computer left in continuous operation costs about $120 per year. However, when systems power down during impact on energy use and the environment. evening and weekend hours, the operating cost drops to $20 annually.15 Heating and cooling systems, for example, Cities can do several things to reduce the energy footprint of their are critical to the comfort of occupants, but technology. They can purchase efficient, Energy Star computers, printers, and operating these systems inefficiently can other equipment; they can make sure that all units power down, or “sleep,” cause massive energy waste and high energy when not in use; and they can encourage energy-saving behavior in computer costs—as an example, the University of Buffalo users. estimates that each degree of overheating or overcooling costs them $100,000 per year in Conservation unnecessary energy use.14 Cities should pursue implementation of a O ne of the most cost-effective ways cities can reduce energy use is through basic conservation and efficiency, such as turning off the lights when no one is in an office or building. Many cities have come up with public performance standard such as the United awareness programs to encourage efficient behavior among employees. Cities States Green Building Council’s existing building can also establish friendly competitions between departments or buildings standard, or LEED–EB, for all city-owned and to encourage energy conservation. Another inventive for conservation is to leased buildings. These sustainable building- allow some or all of the energy savings to be paid back to the participating departments. operations guidelines capture both a building’s physical systems (equipment, design, land use, What Cities are Doing Now etc.) and the ways the building is occupied and operated by its managers (waste management, In 2001, San Diego, California launched a year-round Energy Conservation Action Plan, in which the city asked its employees to reduce the number of appliances they temperature monitoring, commuting programs, use, and turn off or unplug appliances and other electronic devices when not in use. etc.). In fiscal year 2001–02, the City’s overall energy costs were reduced by 13 percent. The city also had VendingMiser devices installed on 183 Pepsi vending machines at various city facilities. This energy efficient measure is projected to provide the city with approximately $55,000 annually in energy savings. For more information • Energy Conservation & Management Division • Environmental Services Department • 858.694.7000 • energy@sandiego.gov • http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/esd/index.jsp When Atlanta, Georgia first examined its energy use in 2002, it found a few surprises. For example, City Hall used as much energy in the middle of the night as it did in the middle of the afternoon. After the audit, the city created an Energy Stars Employee Conservation Program to encourage employees to turn off lights, computers and other equipment when not in use. The program relies on energy coordinators in each city department, who take responsibility for conservation in that department. Thanks to the hard work and conservation efforts of these employee energy coordinators, the city exceeded savings expectations by $22,000 in 2003. For more information • Ben Taube, Environmental Manager • 404.330.6752 • btaube@atlantaga.gov 20, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities O ne key way that cities can promote energy efficiency and renewable energy is by Demand Side Management developing innovative approaches to utility regulation and management. Cities that actually D emand Side Management (DSM) is the umbrella term for any utility- administered program aimed at reducing or modifying consumer energy demand. DSM programs take many forms. For instance, a utility might own their own utilities are clearly in the best position to affect utility practices; however, provide cash rebates for consumers who buy energy efficient appliances or efficient lighting, or might perform free energy audits to highlight even cities that contract with utilities may be improvement opportunities in residential and commercial properties. able to pass local policy that makes renewable Additionally, some utilities save energy and improve reliability by shifting the energy and efficiency projects easier within city inessential portion of a customer’s power consumption from peak hours to limits. off peak hours. This has a smoothing effect on the peaks and troughs in daily energy patterns, and offsets the need for inefficient “peaker” plants which Many of the policies listed here make sense run only during periods of extremely high demand. only for cities that own and control their own utilities. Creating a municipal utility allows What Utilities are Doing Now cities to directly manage electricity and Each winter, Pacific Gas and Electric offers a 20 percent rebate to customers who reduce their cumulative natural gas consumption by ten percent between natural gas services, to offer programs that January and March. A report in March 20, 2006 showed that 53 percent of PG&E encourage energy efficiency and renewable customers reduced their gas use during January and February in order to take energy production and use, and to set aside a advantage of the rebate. PG&E’s rebate program encourages consumers to develop portion of ratepayer funds for innovative energy an instinct for conservation through simple habits such as lowering the thermostat, projects. and reduces utility costs and emissions at the same time. For more information • PG&E Energy Savings Programs An example of a municipal utility that is • 800.933.9555 working hard to provide efficient, clean energy • http://www.pge.com/news/latest_topics/wintersavings/ solutions to city residents is Austin Energy in Austin, Texas. Austin Energy is a department To manage intense cooling demand during the desert summer, Nevada Power offers of the city of Austin. The utility’s projects a portfolio of end use efficiency programs. For instance, the utility provides cash range from emissions reduction programs at rebates for Energy Star appliances and efficient (SEER 13) air conditioners. It also hosts the Cool Credit Program, in which the utility installs a receiver on residential its power plants to solar rebate, solar loan, air conditioner units that allows them to be turned off during summer peaks. This and green building incentive programs for option makes sense for the many consumers who are not home during prime cooling its customers. Austin Energy also tries to hours. In return, customers receive up to $60 per month in credit toward their reduce its employee’s commute times—and utility bills. their impact on the environment—by allowing For more information workers flexible work schedules, such as • Nevada Power allowing them to work from home one day a • Conservation Programs • 702.367.5000 week, or to compress their work weeks to four • http://www.nevadapower.com/conservation/residential/programs/ 10-hour days. The utility also leads the way in its support of plug-in hybrid vehicles.16 New Energy for Cities, 21

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities cont... Green Pricing Programs “renewable Green pricing” programs allow utility customers to voluntarily choose energy as part of their energy mix. Customers opting into these programs pay a premium rate on their utility bills to account for the higher cost of renewable energy. This price premium is based on the difference between fossil fuel costs and renewable energy costs. In some regions the rate disparity has declined significantly due to rising fossil fuel prices. At this time more than 600 utilities offer green pricing programs. Since 2004, customer participation in green pricing programs nationwide has grown by 20 percent to 430,000 customers. In the same time period utilities have increased their green energy production by 36 percent to 2.7 billion kWh. Green pricing programs give consumers the ability to directly buy renewable energy without producing the energy themselves. These programs also allow utilities to invest in clean energy at times when it is not as cost-effective as fossil fuel energy. In the long term, green pricing helps utilities build crucial renewable energy infrastructure. What Utilities are Doing Now Measured by renewable energy output, Austin Energy—a municipal utility run by Austin, Texas—has the nation’s leading green pricing program, generating over 435 million kWh of renewable energy annually. The GreenChoice program applies varying renewable energy rates based on the year a customer subscribes. For customers who subscribed in 2000, the rate is $.017 per kilowatt hour; for customers who subscribed in 2005, the rate is $.035 per kilowatt hour. This approach is unusual because it provides long term fixed rates for renewable energy while the utility’s fossil fuel rates remain variable. This has become a strategic advantage to manufacturers. In 2001, IBM subscribed to the program and anticipated spending $30,000 on the rate premium. Later that year, however, natural gas prices spiked. As a result, IBM saved $20,000. Since then, fossil prices have continued to rise. In 2004, IBM anticipated that GreenChoice would save the company $60,000.17 For more information • Ed Clark • Austin Energy Green Choice Program • 512.322.6514 • green.choice@austinenergy.com • http://www.austinenergy.com/ Measured by customer enrollment, Xcel Energy offers the most successful green pricing program, with 49,354 participants. High enrollment can be partially attributed to the favorable green pricing rate, as Xcel offers the nation’s cheapest renewable energy program. As of December 2005, renewable energy was actually 67 cents/kWh below fossil fuel rates. The program is also impressive in its generation rates, with over 147 million kWh of annual production. For more information • Xcel Energy • Product Sales and Information • 800.824.1688 • http://www.xcelenergy.com/ 22, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities cont... Public Benefits Funds B etter known as a state strategy, Public Benefits Funds (PBF) can also be implemented by cities through their municipal utilities. PBFs are funds generated by levying a small surcharge on consumer electricity usage. The surcharge is typically based on energy consumption, though some states (e.g. Pennsylvania) charge a flat monthly fee. The money collected in a these funds typically supports a range of energy programs, including weatherization efforts, rebate programs, renewable energy research and development, retrofit incentive programs and energy bill assistance for low- income consumers. Studies indicate PBFs have positive effects on a state’s economy—each $1 spent from the fund leverages roughly $3 in related business and consumer investment.18 What Utilities are Doing Now In Sacramento, California the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) offers customers the opportunity to add a monthly tax-deductible contribution to their utility bills each month. The contributions are aggregated into a fund used to provide low-income customers with financial assistance in paying overdue bills. Since 1996, SMUD customers contributed nearly $500,000 to the fund. SMUD also puts aside a percent of ratepayer dollars for its Energy Assistance Program Rate (EAPR), which allows low-income customers to save up to 30 percent on their bills, and for its Residential Weatherization Program, which allows qualified low-income customers to have their homes weatherized at no cost. For more information • Sacramento Municipal Utility District • 888.742.7683 • http://www.smud.org/ New Energy for Cities, 23

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities cont... Decoupling U nder current pricing schemes, utility companies generate more profit when they sell more units of energy, and thus they have little incentive to promote efficiency or the use of renewable energy systems. Realizing this, several states have severed the link between utility profits and sales quantity. This regulatory approach, called “decoupling,” indexes retail rates to sales volume. If volume drops because of energy conservation, rates are adjusted upwards. If volume increases and that increase was preventable, rates are adjusted downward. By holding utility profits constant irrespective of sales, volume becomes irrelevant. While this approach neutralizes the disincentive towards energy efficiency, it does not by itself create an incentive; for this reason, municipally-owned utilities should consider adopting positive energy efficiency measures (such as DSM programs) as well. What Cities are Doing Now In Alachua County, Florida, the Alachua County Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (EPAC) recently presented a report to the Alachua County Commission, recommending among other things that the city of Gainesville, Florida decouple its consumer-owned utility profits from sales to maximize energy efficiency. EPAC recommended the following steps be taken to accomplish decoupling at the local level: Here are the essential steps [when implementing decoupling policy at the local level]: 1. At regular intervals, the city decides how much income it should receive from the utility. The utility also decides how much income it needs to cover its fixed costs, including additions to reserves for emergencies, loan repayments, and contributions to various utility contingency funds it maintains. 2. Rates are set in the usual way, using forecast of sales of different kinds together with the total revenue needs decided in step 1 above to determine the total income and the per unit rates to be charged to each kind of customer. 3. Periodically, income from sales is reviewed to see whether the utility has collected more than it needs, or less. If it has collected more, rates are reduced and the extra income is returned to ratepayers. If it has collected less than it needs, rates are increased slightly to make up the needed difference. This process is called a “true-up”, and it is routinely performed by electric cooperatives, which collect no profits from their ratepayers. The report also notes that extra income could be used in whole or in part to fund energy efficiency and DSM programs. For more information • Rob Brinkman, Chair • EPAC • 352.264.6800 Policy link • SEPAC’s report, “Review of the Gainesville Regional Utilities’ Proposal for a New Coal-Fired Power Plant,” is available at: http://environment.alachua- county.org/Natural_Resources/EPAC/EPAC_Review_of_Coal_Power_Plant.pdf 24, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities cont... What States are Doing Now In 1998, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission adopted a performance-based ratemaking tariff for PacifiCorp’s electricity distribution functions. The plan applies a “revenue cap” to each customer class (industrial, commercial, residential, etc.). If actual sales revenues exceed the predetermined cap in any of the classes, the extra is set aside in a balancing account. The following year, the balancing account funds are given back to the utility if sales were lower than projected, and given back to customers if utility sales were higher than projected. In this way, the utility’s revenues are disconnected from the amount of electricity it distributes, eliminating any reason to discourage customer generation or energy conservation efforts. Recently, the Oregon PUC adopted a similar structure to decouple revenues from volumetric sales for Northwest Natural Gas Company. For more information • Administrative Hearings Division • Oregon Public Utility Commission • 503.378.6678 • http://www.oregon.gov/PUC/ Policy links • OR PUC order 98–191 (PacificCorp): http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/1998ords/98-191.pdf • OR PUC order 02–634 (Northwest Natural Gas): http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2002ords/02-634.pdf New Energy for Cities, 25

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities cont... RPS/Feed-In Tariffs R enewable Portfolio Standards and Feed-In Tariffs are tools cities can use to require utilities operating within city limits to increase their use of renewable energy sources over time, thus creating a stable market for renewable energy in the region. In addition to reducing pollution, these laws decrease cities’ dependence on potentially unreliable sources of fossil fuels and can create good jobs in renewable energy system installation, operating and maintenance, and in laying utility lines to these new systems. An RPS works by setting the minimum amount of renewable energy that must be developed by retail electricity vendors each year. The amount increases over time, steadily decreasing a state’s dependence on traditional energy sources while simultaneously building a renewable energy infrastructure. This system creates a guaranteed market for renewable energy in a particular location. Feed-In Tariffs, used more commonly in Europe, are small tariffs levied on conventional power producers in a particular region. Funds from these tariffs are then used to pay above-market rates to renewable power producers in the same region. This system provides a stable price point for renewable energy generators, and lowers their risk to entering the energy market. What Cities are Doing Now (RPS) In 2004, with 78 percent of the vote, the citizens of Columbia, Missouri overwhelmingly approved a “Renewable Energy Standard” for the city. The measure requires that the city’s municipal utility obtain two percent of its power from renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, by 2007; the percent ramps up to 15 percent by 2022. For more information • Columbia Water & Light Authority • 573.874.7325 Policy link • Columbia’s Renewable Energy Standard, Columbia Code of Ordinances §27–106: http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/MO04R.htm. What Cities are Doing Now (Feed-In Tariff) Feed-In Tariffs have not yet found favor in the United States; however, several foreign countries have embraced this policy as the best way to bring smaller renewable energy producers into the energy market. Most recently, the Province of Ontario, Canada announced in March 2006 that the provincial government will set a standard price for renewable power from small producers: 11 cents CDN/kWh for wind, biomass, and small hydro power, and 42 cents CDN/kWh for solar. The program is expected to enable farmers, communities, and native Canadian populations to produce renewable energy competitively with large developers, and to dramatically expand renewable energy production throughout the province. For more information • Ontario Sustainable Energy Association • 416.977.4441 • info@ontario-sea.org • http://www.ontario-sea.org/ARTs/ARTsList.html 26, New Energy for Cities

Create High-Performance Buildings 7 Innovative Approaches to Utilities cont... Community Choice Aggregation Cin negotiations ommunity Choice Aggregation (CCA) allows city governments—or regional entities acting for multiple cities—to act on behalf of all their residents with utilities. In this system, cities act as intermediaries between ratepayers and utilities, negotiating bulk power rates for entire cities instead of allowing utilities to set individual rates for each customer. To improve participation rates, some areas have experimented with opt-out CCA programs, giving customers have a window of opportunity to decide not to enroll in the program; if no action is taken, they are automatically enrolled. Opt-out programs have the advantage of lower marketing costs. CCA vests the community with greater control over generating resources. The city, acting as aggregator, can leverage its bargaining power to pursue a cleaner portfolio mix including renewable energy and efficiency programs. What Cities are Doing Now The San Diego Apollo Alliance has been working hard to implement CCA in Chula Vista, California. Chula Vista is one of two cities in the state that has passed an ordinance to implement CCA. Residents of San Diego County are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the nation and the highest in California. With CCA, Chula Vista can use the combined buying power of its residents to negotiate for more affordable power, to create a critical market for clean power and to retain local control of their energy supply. In order to implement CCA, Chula Vista must now negotiate a binding agreement with San Diego Gas and Electric, the city’s current energy provider. For more information • Jennifer Badgely • San Diego Apollo Alliance • info@sdapollo.org The Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council is the aggregator for Ohio’s multi-city CCA program. NOPEC represents 94 communities spanning eight counties and 400,000 customers. NOPEC, after an open bid process, selected clean energy leader Green Mountain Energy as its utility provider. Their contract calls for two percent of the area’s energy supply to come from qualified renewable resources; the other 98 percent must come from natural gas or a fuel with an equal or lesser emissions profile. In addition, the agreement calls for ten MW of new wind and 100 kW of new solar within Ohio. The contract is expected to save $10 million over its duration. For more information • NOPEC • 866.579.9487 • www.nopecinfo.org New Energy for Cities, 27

Drive toward Energy Independence Cglobalities that are serious about energy independence and ending global warming must take a hard look at transportation fuels and vehicles. The United States has only three percent of the world’s oil reserves, but accounts for over 25 percent of demand for oil—and demand keeps growing. Luckily, cities are in a good position to stem this tide through serious 19 changes in fuel consumption and vehicle use. Many cities have direct control over city fleet vehicles, city buses, school buses, and many other transit vehicles. Even where cities do not own their transit systems, they have bargaining power through the lucrative, sought-after contracts with the companies that do own these systems. And cities can offer incentives to private vehicle owners to encourage them to drive smarter and more efficiently. Besides moving cities away from complete dependence on imported oil, switching to renewable fuels and high-technology vehicles is a good regional economic development strategy. The rural areas surrounding cities can often be the direct source for fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Community- or cooperatively-owned production facilities can bring dollars into those rural areas; at the same time, existing vehicle manufacturing facilities—often located in or near cities—can be upgraded and retooled to produce new generation cars and trucks that run on renewable fuel or renewable energy. In addition, cities can leverage the fuel needs of their fleets to encourage fueling stations to provide biofuels and biofuel blends. These strategies create jobs, improve air and water quality, and make cities healthier and more independent. 1 Clean and Efficient City Fleets C ities and counties own large numbers of vehicles for use by public employees. Historically, efficiency and environmental What Cities are Doing Now In 2005, Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, Massachusetts traded in his SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle and announced that all new vehicles purchased by the city will be alternative fuel source vehicles. The city will also convert its entire diesel fleet impact have not been large considerations to run on biodiesel. in these vehicles’ purchase; however, some governments have begun taking steps to ensure For more information • Bryan Glascock that these vehicles operate more efficiently • Environment Department and cleanly. There are several options to make • 617.635.3850 city fleets more efficient and environmentally • Environment@cityofboston.gov friendly, the easiest of which is simply altering • www.cityofboston.gov/environment purchasing guidelines to favor the most fuel efficient vehicles available. Other options The New York City, New York Alternative Fuels Program is working to replace New York City’s public fleets with alternative fuel vehicles in order to promote and expand include: usage of alternative fuels. This effort began in 1993 with the conversion of 385 New York City municipal fleet vehicles to compressed natural gas (the New York City Fire Department prohibits use of any other type of natural gas in the city). Since that • Purchasing alternative fuel vehicles time, the Alternative Fuels Program has expanded significantly: there are now over like regular and plug-in hybrids, and 6,000 alternative fuel vehicles on New York City streets. The vehicles are a mixture vehicles that run on ethanol, biodiesel or of natural gas, hybrid, E85 (ethanol), and electric. New York City operates one of compressed natural gas. the largest municipal electric vehicle (EV) fleets (over 70 EVs) and one of the largest hybrid fleets (452 Toyota Priuses). As a result of this program, the city has reduced • Running vehicles on alternative fuels its fuel consumption by close to 283,906 litres a year and avoided emissions of an wherever possible. Existing diesel estimated 1,112 tons carbon dioxide, 1,581 kg nitrogen oxides, 2,930 kg carbon vehicles—including many school buses and monoxide, and 550 kg volatile organic compounds per year. trucks—can easily be converted to run For more information on biodiesel, and some fleets may already • Office of Environmental Coordination include flex-fuel vehicles that can run on • 212.788.9956 up to 85 percent ethanol. • http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/alternativefuel.html 28, New Energy for Cities

Drive toward Energy Independence 1 Clean and Efficient City Fleets cont... Seattle, Washington’s city fleet of 3,250 vehicles uses 2.4 million gallons of gasoline and diesel each year. In 1992, the city changed its fleet purchase priorities to cut down on air pollution and improve fuel efficiency. The fleet now contains over 200 hybrid, electric and compressed natural gas vehicles, and at least half the compact cars purchased each year either run on alternative fuels or get at least 45 mpg. In 2001, the entire diesel fleet was converted to ultra-low sulfur diesel, and all heavy diesel trucks were retrofitted with pollution control devices. The new diesel fleet also uses a 20 percent biodiesel blend known as B20. The city has also downsized its fleet by at least 200 vehicles, in some cases replacing them with personal mobility vehicles (Segways™) for jobs like water meter reading. Segways™ have zero emissions, cost $3/year to recharge and, in some cases, replace the use of a car. Seattle is going even farther: on Earth Day 2003, the Mayor and City Council set a long term goal of having a 100 percent clean and green fleet. This year, the Office of Sustainability and Environment will complete a life cycle benefit cost analysis to determine the best mix of fuels and vehicles and the appropriate timeline for meeting the goal. At the same time, the city is launching an employee education campaign to encourage reduced vehicle idling and remind employees to consider alternatives to single driver travel, such as like teleconferencing and car pooling to meetings. For more information • Office of Sustainability & Environment • 206.615.0817 • ose@seattle.gov • http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/environment/clean_air.htm The Medford, Massachusetts climate action plan, adopted in October, 2001 states: Whereas the City of Medford is committed to reducing its emissions of greenhouse gases and reducing air pollution, the City should require that all new vehicles purchased by the City for municipal use, be the most fuel-efficient vehicle in the class required for the job. Additionally, current vehicles in every department shall be evaluated to determine if the size and the fuel type of the vehicles are appropriate based on the frequency and the type of usage. Where feasible, the City of Medford should purchase smaller vehicles for each department. For more information • Energy and Environment Office • 781.393.2137 New Energy for Cities, 29

Drive toward Energy Independence 2 Clean and Efficient Private Fleets C ities can also encourage private companies to green their own fleets through grants, rebates, and other incentives. What Cities are Doing Now The New York City, New York Private Fleet Alternative Fuel/Electric Vehicle Program, administered by New York State’s public benefits program (NYSERDA) in cooperation with New York City Clean Cities, helps New York City’s private companies acquire Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AVFs). Participants in the program receive funds up to 50 percent of the incremental cost of purchasing new light-duty vehicles that operate on natural gas or electricity, and up to 80 percent of the incremental cost of purchasing new (or converting to) medium and heavy-duty compressed natural gas (CNG), electric, or hybrid electric vehicles. Eligible projects may also include installation costs for the infrastructure needed to fuel the vehicles. For more information • Lou Calcagno, Clean Cities Coordinator • New York City Clean Cities Coalition • 212.487.6820 • lcalcagno@dot.nyc.gov • http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/transportation/AFV/NYCPrivateFleet.asp New York City is also greening its cabs. A program run through NYSERDA, the Clean Fuel Taxi Program, provides up to $8,500 towards the purchase of new (or conversion to) compressed natural gas (CNG) taxis. About 300 CNG cabs are now in operation because of this program. Natural gas is available at a number of fueling stations across the city. At the same time, the New York City Council recently passed legislation requiring the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission to approve at least one model of hybrid car for use as a New York taxicab (seven models have now been approved). Because each New York cab is estimated to drive 100,000 miles per year, drivers are expected to recoup the extra cost of the hybrid models within the first year of operation. For more information • Joseph Littmann, Jr., Manager • Todd Sigaty • NYC Regional Office • Coalition Advocating for Smart • NYSERDA Transportation (CAST) • 212.971.5342 ext. 3003 • 917.621.7167 • http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/ • http://www.smarttransportation. transportation/AFV/NYCFuelTaxi.asp org/ Policy link • New York City “Clean Air Taxis Act” (NYC Administrative Code Chapter 19–533) can be found at: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi 30, New Energy for Cities

Drive toward Energy Independence 3 Incentives for Efficient Car Use P rivate automobiles are a vital part of the American economy. At the same time, there is no question that reducing our dependence What Cities are Doing Now Berkeley, California contracted with a car sharing company to replace 15 of its older fleet vehicles with five hybrid carshare cars. City employees have exclusive access to those five cars during business hours, but during the evenings and on foreign oil requires us to reduce the amount weekend any member of the car sharing organization may reserve one of the cars of gasoline we use in our cars. Though city for their own use. The innovative partnership saves Berkeley taxpayers hundreds governments have direct control only over of thousands of dollars and provides access to an alternative to car ownership for their own fleets, they can play a big role Berkeley residents. in encouraging residents to make efficient For more information car purchases and use their vehicles more • Office of the Mayor sustainably. The federal government and some • 510.981.7100 state governments are now offering tax breaks Austin, Texas offers $100 in free parking for residents who drive hybrids that meet or other incentives for consumers who choose the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide. The city issues pre-paid credit cards for any of the efficient, hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles. City city’s 3700 parking meters to drivers who register their clean hybrids with the city. strategies include exemption from sales taxes, For more information discounts on toll roads and parking, and access • Matt Curtis, Aide to Mayor Will Wynn to HOV lanes. • 512.680.2509 There are many ways cities can provide Madison, Wisconsin’s Employee Bikes at Work Program was created to provide city of Madison employees with bicycles for use as part of the transportation fleet during transportation options and choices to their working hours. The city presently has five bicycles, which are available on a first employees, including mass transit, shuttle come, first serve basis. Helmets, locks, and keys are also provided. buses, carpooling and vanpooling systems, For more information bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and • Arthur D. Ross, Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator incentives related to all of the above. Programs • 608.266.6225 that make it easier and safer to walk, bike and • aross@cityofmadison.com use mass transit include land use planning that sites housing near workplaces; adequate In 1992, the California Assembly enacted a Parking Cash-Out law. The law applies to employers of 50 or more located within a non-attainment area who do not own lighting; dedicated bike paths; adequate bike parking space, but subsidize the cost of their employee parking. These employers racks; and free or low cost transit passes. must offer employees the opportunity to “cash out”, or receive the cash value of the Programs that promote less car use include subsidy, instead of the parking space. Santa Monica, California is located within preferential parking for carpools and for an ozone non-attainment area and enforces this law through its Transportation Management Plan ordinance. Currently, nearly 33 percent of all Santa Monica efficient vehicles and carsharing services. employers with 100 or more employees, and ten percent of employers with 50–99, Cities can and should also provide incentives operate a Parking Cash-Out program. to use alternative transportation, including For more information financial incentives (such as discounts on bike • Jacquilyne Brooks de Camarillo, Transportation Management Specialist maintenance or coupons to local eateries), • 310.458.8956 choice based programs (such as allowing employees to choose a parking permit or a free bus pass, but not both), and preferential treatment (such as premium parking spots for carpools). New Energy for Cities, 31

Drive toward Energy Independence 4 Improving Mass Transit M ass transit is at the heart of any smart growth policy, because it allows people to get from home to work in the most efficient, What Cities are Doing Now The regional transit authority for Cleveland, Ohio is constructing exclusive bus lanes that connect the city’s center to the residential east side. The 5.2 mile line runs through a formerly grand Cleveland neighborhood that has slipped into decline; least environmentally-harmful way possible. planners anticipate the bus system acting as an economic catalyst for this area. Mass transit in the form of buses or rail can save energy, reduce pollution, reduce the need For more information • Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for parking, alleviate congestion, and provide • Euclid Corridor Transportation Project economical transportation alternatives. In many • 216.771.4144 congested inner cities using mass transit is also • www.euclidtransit.org/home.asp faster than driving a car. Cities can invest in mass transit by diverting federal transportation In 2000, Cincinnati, Ohio switched 288 buses to a 20 percent biodiesel blend. In doing so, the city improved air quality and reduced dependence on foreign oil. In dollars to buses, light rail systems, and—on a 2005, the city upped the blend to 50 percent April through October. This increase more regional scale—inter-city rail. One public will make the Cincinnati Metro one of the largest biodiesel users in the nation, transit system, bus rapid transit, has proven to consuming about 1.3 million gallons a year. Budget is the primary reason for this be both cost efficient and popular with riders. aggressive use of the alternative fuel—Metro’s 390 buses use about 3.6 million In these systems, buses run on a dedicated gallons of fuel per year. The biodiesel is manufactured locally from Ohio soybeans and the city saves about $1 for every gallon of biodiesel purchased through an lane separated from traffic, with its own timed arrangement with its local fuel supplier. traffic signals. Allowing buses to bypass car For more information traffic congestion dramatically speeds up bus • Sallie Hilvers travel, and makes buses highly competitive with • Cincinnati Metro private cars for commuters. • 513.632.7681 Cities can also run buses, the predominant form of mass transit in the United States, on biodiesel. Local governments might even consider starting a citywide waste vegetable oil collection service to run the buses. 32, New Energy for Cities

Drive toward Energy Independence 5 Upgrading Traffic Signals and Street Lights T here are literally billions of traffic signals owned and operated by local governments in the United States These run twenty- What Cities are Doing Now Denver, Colorado was a pioneer in the use of LED traffic signals and continues to have the largest LED traffic signal inventory in the United States, saving nearly $800,000 annually in energy, materials and labor costs. In terms of emissions four hours a day and consume a significant reduction and public health, this program reduces pollutants by an amount equivalent amount of energy. Historically these signals to the effects of planting more than 777 acres of trees or the permanent removal of have used incandescent bulbs, but recently 371 automobiles from local roads. states and cities have taken the initiative For more information and begun replacing incandescent signals • Beth Conover, Advisor to the Mayor with more efficient light-emitting diode (LED) • 720.865.9090 signals, which use 90 percent less power, last • beth.conover@ci.denver.co.us ten times longer, and appear brighter than Passaic, New Jersey partnered with a private company call Public Energy Systems traditional incandescent bulbs. to replace the incandescent traffic signals at 40 city intersections. By installing LED signals at these locations, Passaic will save over $65,000 annually in energy and maintenance costs. For more information • Robert Lesch • Public Energy Solutions • 866.818.1900 ext. 102 • www.publicenergysolutions.com Saint Paul, Minnesota, was the first local government in the state to install LED traffic signals in all colors—red, green, yellow and white. By using state joint power purchasing agreements, St. Paul kept project costs very low. For more information • John Maczko • Department of Public Works • 651.487.7206 New Energy for Cities, 33

Drive toward Energy Independence 6 Green Infrastructure O ne of the best way cities can help improve their air quality and dependence on foreign oil is to begin building the infrastructure that What Cities Counties are Doing Now The office of Salt Lake City, Utah Mayor Ross C. Anderson provides salary and operation funds for Utah Clean Cities Coalition in conjunction with the Utah Energy Office. The Utah Clean Cities Coalition competes for federal funds to support local supports privately-owned biofueled vehicles. clean fuel projects, including the construction of alternative fuel infrastructure. A city’s residents are unlikely to seek out and purchase alternative-fueled vehicles if they are For more information • Beverly J. Miller, Director unsure where they’ll be able to fill them up. • Utah Clean Cities • 801.535.7736 Cities can help owners of fueling stations • beverly.miller@slcgov.com access state and federal funding to help them convert existing pumps to dispense E85, Mayor James Brainard helped secure construction of the first E85 pump in Carmel, Indiana.21 Faced with declining air quality and EPA non-attainment status that or build new E85 pumps. In addition, cities restricts federal highway funds, Mayor Brainard issued an executive order requiring are exploring the idea of becoming biodiesel that all newly purchased city vehicles be alternative fuel-compatible, and met with producers, with innovating partnerships that local fuel station owners to encourage them to add E85 pumps. collect waste vegetable oil and process it into For more information biodiesel.20 • Office of Mayor Jim Brainard • 317.571.2401 • jbrainard@carmel.in.gov Hamilton County and the city of Cincinnati, Ohio are working together to plan a pilot project that would collect waste vegetable oil from local businesses and convert it to biodiesel for use in city and county vehicles. While the project is still in development, it could provide a low-cost, environmentally-friendly fuel for the city and county, while reducing waste.22 For more information • Deborah Holston, Assistant City • Todd Portune, Hamilton County Manager Commissioner • 513.352.5335 • 513.946.4401 • deborah.holston@cincinnati-oh.gov • todd.portune@hamilton-co.org Policy link • Minutes from Hamilton Solid Waste Management District Policy Committee Meeting: http://www.hcdoes.org/sw/Policy/november%2010/090105Minutes.pdf 34, New Energy for Cities

Build High-Performance Cities A s more and more Americans move to cities and suburbs, local governments are faced with the challenge of managing future growth in a way that is environmentally and economically smart. Many of the activities associated with urban growth—new construction, road-building, expansion into former agricultural land—rely on enormous amounts of electricity and fuel. Cities are stuck with the utility bills of many of these buildings and roads for years into the future. City and town governments that are forward-thinking about future growth can ensure that their ecological footprint is smaller, and their utility bills lower, than if they simply sat back to watch urbanization happen around them. They can also provide their residents with thousands of jobs as they construct smarter urban spaces and transit systems. To this end, many cities have incorporated “smart growth” policies that rely on redeveloping and retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure, giving incentives for residents to live near transit and jobs, and preserving open space. These policies are truly energy-saving, in they ensure that residents live closer to jobs and transit hubs, and that rural areas are protected from overdevelopment. What Cities are Doing Now The best overall model for Smart Growth planning at the local level is Portland, Oregon. Portland’s elected regional government entity, Metro, has passed a comprehensive long-term plan (the 2040 Growth Concept) that calls for efficient land use, farm and forest land protection, a balanced transportation system, a healthy economy, and diverse housing options for the region. Metro also manages the city’s existing urban growth boundary, and has instituted a plan to develop a series of interconnected parks and open spaces within the city. Recently, Metro proposed a $227 million bond package designed to preserve natural areas and protect water resources at the regional, local, and neighborhood level. The bond would be financed by a small property tax assessment of $30 per household per year. For more information • Metro Land-Use Planning • 503.797.1939 • 2040@metro-region.org • www.metro-region.org Another city that has emerged as a leader on large-scale commitments to smarter growth and better energy planning is Seattle, Washington. In early 2005, Seattle Mayor Nickels started a campaign to get cities across the country to commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Since then, over 230 mayors—plus the U.S. Conference of Mayors—have signed onto the campaign, known as the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. At the same time he launched this campaign, Mayor Nickels appointed a Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection to develop local policies to help reach the 7 percent goal. The Commission’s report, released in March 2006, identifies a comprehensive suite of key policies for the city, including investments in public transit and bicycle options, channeling development dollars toward high-density, transit- friendly projects, and increasing fuel and energy efficiency throughout the city. For more information • Steve Nicholas, Director • Office of Sustainability & Environment • 206.615.0829 • steve.nicholas@seattle.gov Policy Links • Home page for the U.S. Climate Protection Agreement: http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/ • Report and Recommendations from the Green Ribbon Commission: http://www9.seattle.gov/climate/PDF/SeattleaClimateReport.pdf New Energy for Cities, 35

Build High-Performance Cities 1 Rehab Building Codes O ne of the most important ways that cities What Cities are Doing Now can lower pollution levels and energy bills In 2001, Wichita, Kansas passed the Wichita Existing Buildings Rehabilitation and is to invest in rehabilitation and retrofitting Change of Use Code, which provides a consistent set of regulations for rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing buildings. Before the code was enacted, rehab projects existing neighborhoods rather than abandoning were regulated at the discretion of the city’s building inspection department, making these areas and moving outward. Cities can the permitting process lengthy, costly, and confusing for developers. An example of help make it cost-effective for developers a project built under the code is the Harvester Lofts in downtown Wichita, built in to invest in rehab projects by implementing a vacant 1914 warehouse. The project is successful from both an energy-efficiency and an equity perspective: thirty of the 48 total units are affordable to Wichita progressive building codes that set different residents making less than 60 percent of Area Median Income. Altogether, in the standards for rehabilitation projects than for two years after the code went into effect, the city saw 182 downtown renovation costly new construction. Over the past ten and construction projects, accounting for over $38 million in economic activity in years, a number of cities have added such Wichita’s center city. “rehab codes” to their building codes, resulting For more information in significant inner-city redevelopment. • Wichita Office of Central Inspection • Gary Hassenflu, President • 316.268.4460 • Garrison Development Company (Developer of Harvester Lofts The Apollo Alliance supports rehab codes that project) lower the bar to inner-city renovation projects, • 913.362.9816 and that also provide incentives (such as Policy links shortened permit schedules) for projects that • IBEC (ICC’s International Existing Building Code): adhere to IECC standards for energy efficiency, http://www.iccsafe.org/e/prodshow.html?prodid=3551CD03 (available for or LEED standards for green building. (See purchase). “Create High-Performance Buildings” section.) • Excel spreadsheet of IBEC adoption by state and/or local governments: http://www.iccsafe.org/government/state-local.html Seattle, Washington just passed an amendment to its Land Use Code that allows a developer to build at a higher density than is normally allowed under the code, so long as the developer can certify that the building will be rated LEED Silver or its equivalent. The amendment applies only to buildings in downtown commercial districts. For more information • Rebecca Herzfeld, Council Central Staff • Seattle, WA • 206.684.8888 • rebecca.herzfeld@seattle.gov Policy link • Amendment to Seattle Municipal Code 23.49.01, as approved by the Seattle City Council on April 3, 2006: http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2006cb115524.pdf • For more information on rehab codes around the country, see Phil Mattera, Breaking the Codes: How State and Local Governments are Reforming Building Codes to Encourage Rehabilitation of Existing Structures (Good Jobs First, 2006), available at www.goodjobsfirst.org. 36, New Energy for Cities

Build High-Performance Cities 2 Brownfield Redevelopment B esides investing in existing buildings, cities can expand more efficiently by building on small pockets of open space in center cities. What Cities are Doing Now: In 1996, Cadillac, Michigan created the first Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (BRA) in the state. The BRA uses tax increment financing (TIF) revenues generated from specific brownfields to fund environmental clean-up, as well as site Some of the last remaining open space within preparation and public infrastructure improvements on these sites. There are now city boundaries is “brownfield” land—land BRAs throughout Michigan; these tax incentives are generally used to redevelop that once housed industrial or commercial decommissioned service stations into office buildings, commercial properties, and facilities, and is often contaminated with toxins. parks. Developers have begun to see the benefits For more information of investing in brownfield land, now that • Peter Stalker, City Manager remediation technology has become relatively • 231.775.0181 ext. 119 inexpensive. Buildings erected on these sites Policy link can be financially lucrative, due to their easy • General information about Brownfield Redevelopment Plans in Michigan, including supporting statutes: access to public transportation; proximity to http://www.michigan.org/medc/services/general/cat/guide/index.asp shopping, restaurants and other amenities; available, existing infrastructure and services, and lower property taxes. 3 Location Efficient Mortgages O ne complaint about housing near transit hubs is that it is often priced too high for the middle- and lower-income people who most benefit What Cities are Doing Now In Chicago, Illinois, where the LEM concept originated as a project of the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), the city’s Department of Housing incorporated the LEM concept into its broader CityMortgage initiative, which offers a low interest from the proximity to mass transit. A good way rate, low down payment, and flexible mortgage terms to Chicago homebuyers. In for cities to promote affordable housing near 2001, the Chicago Department of Environment offered a voucher worth $900 transit is to work with local mortgage brokers and toward the purchase of an EnergyStar refrigerator or washer/dryer set to the first affordable housing agencies to implement location- 100 LEM borrowers under the CityMortgage program. efficient mortgage, or LEM, programs. LEMs allow For more information homebuyers to capitalize on the savings that result • Dave Chandler • Fannie Mae Consumer Resource from living near transit service (e.g., savings from • Center for Neighborhood Technology Center not owning and operating a car—approximately • 773.278.4800, ext. 123 • 800.732.6643 • david@cnt.org $6500 per car per year for the average American household), by calculating these savings into the purchasing power of the homeowner. The result is increased borrowing power of $30K-$50K in dense communities that are well-served by transit. LEMs are currently offered in Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Madison, Wisconsin. Some of these cities combine the LEM program with a free or discounted bus or transit pass. For more information on Location Efficient Mortgages, see the LEM website at http://www.locationefficiency.com New Energy for Cities, 37

Build High-Performance Cities 4 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) R evitalizing central cities, so that construction takes advantage of existing infrastructure and utility networks, is one What Cities are Doing Now Construction is due to start in 2006 on a TOD project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. When two freeway ramps were torn down on the northern side of downtown Milwaukee, city activists and unions formed a coalition to ensure that any new way to decrease a city’s fossil fuel use. development incorporate transit access, good jobs, and environmental benefits. The Another is to help urban residents spend less Good Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods Coalition and the city of Milwaukee ultimately time in their cars, by encouraging housing signed a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) that conditions the sale of city land near mass transit hubs such as bus, subway freed up by the freeway demolition on a number of community benefits. Important and light rail stations. More and more, features of this CBA include access to mass transit, along with: cities are encouraging this “transit-oriented Prevailing wage for construction-phase jobs, 25 percent of construction-phase jobs in minority- or women-owned firms, development,” or TOD, through tax incentives 25 percent of construction employees to be minorities or women, and strategic mortgage policies. Cities can also Living wage or market wage (whichever is higher), plus benefits, for post- encourage TOD by allowing developers to build construction jobs, fewer on-site parking spaces in housing near Local hire and training provisions, including first-source hiring, transit, which dramatically lowers the cost of Green space and green design incorporated into all proposals, Community involvement in proposal review and acceptance. development. For more information • Bob Dennik, Director The best TOD policies link tax incentives for • Milwaukee County Economic Development Division new development not only to transit-friendly • 414.278.4083 locations, but also to good jobs. A model • RDennik@milwcnty.com Apollo Alliance TOD program would include a Policy link requirement that any developer receiving TOD • Information on the Park East CBA, including the final legislative language, can be found on the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future website: funding or incentives would have to include http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/workingfamilies/econdev/index.htm. local hire and/or apprenticeship policies in their • For more information on the links between TODs and jobs, see Sarah Grady development plans. and Greg LeRoy, Making the Connection: Transit Oriented Development and Jobs (Good Jobs First, 2006), available at http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/ makingtheconnection.pdf. 38, New Energy for Cities

Build High-Performance Cities 5 Stop Subsidizing Sprawl A s cities encourage downtown, transit- friendly development, they should also Fees and Charges for Infrastructure Development try to limit aggressive suburban sprawl. Limiting sprawl helps cities conserve energy O ne way that cities and, perhaps more important, counties and metro regions can curb sprawl is to actually assess the costs of new development on suburban developers and residents. In most cities, the full and resources by decreasing commute times cost of building the infrastructure for a new suburban community—building and thus improving air quality and community new schools, extending utility and sewer lines, and building roads—is health. It also helps maintain open space such incorporated into the city’s existing budget rather than charged to suburban as agricultural and forest land, which allows developers. As a result, the cost of suburban development is artificially low more groundwater absorption and limits for these developers, while city taxpayers pick up the bill. A way to combat flooding. Finally, managing sprawl helps to keep this is to charge new developers impact fees or infrastructure fees for central city residents closer to regional labor development. This policy does not stop sprawl, but it does make central city development more competitive with suburban development. markets, which has overall benefits to the urban economy. What Cities are Doing Now Lancaster, California has one of the most comprehensive “distance-based” One simple way that cities and regions can act impact fees—fees based not on provision of particular services such as roads, to curb suburban sprawl is to stop subsidizing but on the actual distance of the new development from the central city. In 1992, Lancaster modified its original impact fee schedule to include a distance multiplier. this kind of development. Policies to accomplish The city identified a core urban area with a five mile radius. Beyond that core, the this goal include: city imposes impact fees on developers which increase with each mile outside the core. Fees are used to offset infrastructure costs including: street improvements, traffic signals, drainage/flood control, water and sewage lines, and park/open space development. For more information • Planning and Development Services Division • 661.723.6000 • http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/dpt.comdev.pds.php Policy link • Lancaster City Code §15.64: http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/lancaster/ DuPage County, Illinois assesses transportation impact fees based on the type of property (e.g. residential, commercial-industrial, commercial- retail, etc.) being proposed for development. The county then assigns each property a fee based on potential traffic generation, trip length associated with the land use, and the percentage of DuPage County road miles in the impact fee service area. Developers can mitigate or offset their impact fees in a variety of ways, for instance by providing roadway system improvements as part of the development. In an effort to encourage rehabilitation of existing structures, the county also allows impact fee offsets for projects that use all or a portion of an existing building in the new development. For more information • DuPage County Division of Transportation • 630.407.6900 Policy link • DuPage County Department of Transportation, Transportation Impact Fee Procedures Document: http://www.dupageco.org/emplibrary/ACF26C9.pdf New Energy for Cities, 39

Build High-Performance Cities 5 Stop Subsidizing Sprawl cont... TIF Reform Ta municipality ax incremental financing (TIF) is an extremely popular development tool available to local communities in 48 states. TIF works as follows: designates a specific geographic region where it wants to promote development. At this time, the city determines a base value for all property within the region. As the municipality invests money in the district, the tax revenue on any property value growth above this base value—known as the “increment”—is used to pay off the costs of those improvements This type of financing was originally intended to help struggling urban areas attract new development. However, it is increasingly used for greenfield, sprawling developments. Because open farmland’s initial property value is so low, TIF projects that include open land generate a great amount of increment, paying themselves off quicker than redevelopment TIF districts. Cities can reform TIF laws to focus the subsidy on infill and redevelopment projects, rather than on projects that eat up productive farmland. What Cities and States are Doing Now Wood River, Illinois established a TIF policy which limits the use of TIF funds for greenfield development. The policy requires that if a TIF proposal contains vacant land, it must conform to the City’s plans and programs and serve as a catalyst for further, high quality development or redevelopment. This policy ensures that all TIF- financed development proposals meet the surrounding community’s goals for orderly and paced development. For more information • Nancy Schneider, Finance Director • 618.251.3131 The State of Missouri recently passed 2006 Senate Bill 832, which prohibits the use of TIF funds for any greenfield residential development. While the legislation still allows for TIF-subsidized retail, commercial, and industrial greenfield development, it does provide a model for actions to contain sprawling development. Because TIF is a locally administered program, cities can establish their own TIF policies that prevent any TIF funds going to greenfield development. For more information • Senator John Greishiemer • Missouri State Senate • 573.751.3678 Policy link • Bill Summary and Links for Missouri 2006 Senate Bill 832: http://www.senate. mo.gov/06info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=21450 40, New Energy for Cities

Build High-Performance Cities 6 Smart Grid Expansion W hen it comes to smarter and cheaper energy use, upgrading the utility grid is probably the most important infrastructure What Cities are Doing Now The cities of Yakima, Washington and Gresham, Oregon are currently participating in a pilot smart grid project with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Whirlpool, and IBM. Three hundred households are investment cities can make. “Smart grids,” involved in the project, which includes real-time monitoring of consumption and a relatively new concept for U.S. cities, use pricing, web-based energy use controls that consumers can access, and “smart existing digital technology to react in real appliances” able to respond to price spikes and grid problems. The project also time to power grid problems or price spikes includes a distributed generation system of small wind turbines. by sending signals to customer homes and For more information appliances telling them to reduce energy use • Rob Pratt, GridWise Program Manager during these times. Even more advanced grids • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory • 509.375.3648 incorporate distributed generation, meaning • http://www.pnl.gov/ that the grid has a variety of power sources feeding into it (e.g. traditional power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, small hydropower) and can moderate the amount of power coming in from each source based on the availability and cost of that power. For example, if one power plant goes offline in a city (because of natural causes or an outside attack), a smart grid with distributed generation would know to switch gears and become more dependent on other, more reliable sources. Smart grids are key to energy efficiency and cost savings because they direct energy where it is most needed at the time it is most needed, instead of keeping all systems on full power all the time. These systems also provide extensive usage and pricing information to consumers, allowing them to better monitor their own energy use. Finally, in this time of energy instability, smart grids with distributed generation can provide some degree of comfort that an attack on a city’s power systems might not completely shut that city down.23 New Energy for Cities, 41

Financing the Clean Energy Future Toptions he policies discussed in this report will nearly all save cities money in the long run. But some of these projects take significant start-up capital—capital cities and their residents do not always have on hand. Cities do have a range of for ways to raise capital for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, however. Cities can leverage their bond ratings to get good financing for these projects, and to lower the risk for outside investors. They can invest a small percent of their city employees’ pension funds in efficiency and renewable projects with good returns—often better returns than these funds would get from the stock market. And they can dedicate their savings from earlier clean energy projects for investment new programs, as new technology is developed. 1 Clean Energy Funds O ne way to develop funding streams for renewable and efficient energy projects is to leverage public and private money to create What Cities are Doing Now Duluth, Minnesota maintains a revolving fund to finance local energy-efficiency improvements. Fifty percent of savings from each project is available for future energy-efficiency improvements. The mechanism supports continuous efficiency a dedicated lending institution for clean energy improvements without having to compete for funding in the annual budget-setting projects. Because energy efficiency upgrades process. are typically able to pay for themselves over For more information time, setting aside a revolving fund dedicated • Sandy Sweeney, Energy Manager to efficiency investments makes good sense. • 218.730.5182 Setting aside a dedicated pool of capital for • ssweeney@ci.duluth.mn.us renewable/efficiency projects ensures these important project will benefit from low- or no- Escanaba, Michigan partnered with a local technical college and energy efficiency business to apply for state money to form a revolving efficiency fund. The State of interest loans and won’t have to compete for Michigan awarded $2 million for a set of improvements to Delta County government funding in the annual budget process. buildings. One of the first projects was a set of retrofits to Delta County’s courthouse, its jail, and a county office building in 2003. Annual cost savings are Loan funds differ in two ways—which types estimated at $8,000, and the repayment of the loan—expected within seven years—is coming from the energy cost savings. of projects they fund (public or private), and their source of capital (public or private). For more information • Douglas Russell Some cities have set aside public money for the • Bay de Noc Community College specific purpose of funding continual efficiency • 906.786.5802 ext.1210 upgrades on their building stock. Others have pursued a mix of public and private money to Milwaukee, Wisconsin is working with Wall Street Without Walls to establish a fund fund efficiency and renewable projects on public that collateralizes unused city assets for dedicated loan funds that will be accessible and privately-owned property. by minority-owned businesses. Mayor Tom Barrett has pledged to take a leading role in assembling unused city assets and soliciting asset contributions from local companies for the fund. While this is not specifically an energy strategy, it is one that A final way to increase funding for renewable improves the quality of life for Apollo’s community partners in Milwaukee. and efficiency projects is to pledge a city’s For more information unused assets as collateral for a dedicated • Greg Stanton, Co-Director renewable/efficiency loan fund. A city’s unused • Wall Street without Walls • New York City, NY assets can include the value of property in • 212.712.2759 parks, foreclosed homes, and vacant lot held by • greg.stanton@wallstreetwithoutwalls.com the city. By pledging these assets as collateral, cities can significantly increase the number and dollar size of community and economic development investments, without additional public funding. 42, New Energy for Cities

Financing the Clean Energy Future 2 Bonding Initiatives I n 2004, local and state governmental bodies financed nearly 9,000 individual projects with about $230 billion in municipal bonds.24 Public bonds take What Cities are Doing Now The cities of Hibbing and Virginia, Minnesota used $84 million in revenue bonds as the primary financing mechanism to repower two older coal-fired power plants many forms, but the most common are revenue with locally-sourced biomass material. The Laurentian Energy Authority, a joint venture of the two cities’ public utilities, seeks to capitalize on the market created bonds and general obligation bonds. These bonds by Minnesota’s renewable energy requirements. The repowered plants will produce are sold to individuals, investors, pension funds and 35 MW of renewable power from biomass, preserve 70 existing jobs and create corporations who provide up-front investment money 60–100 new jobs in the communities. The project will use biomass grown and in exchange for a guaranteed rate of return on that harvested by local loggers, stored at a separate wood yard between the two cities. These bonds will be repaid by monies generated by the project. investment. Issuing bonds allows governments to fund large-scale renewable and efficient energy For more information projects without raising taxes, or can loan out money • Terry Leoni, General Manager • Jim Kochevar, General Manager • Virginia Department of Public • Hibbing Department of Public to businesses to install renewable energy systems Utilities Utilities or retrofit their facilities with energy efficient • Virginia, MN • Hibbing, MN infrastructure. • 218.748.7564 • 216.262.7728 • leonit@vpuc.com • jimk@hpuc.com Revenue bonds are public bonds that incorporate a Lamar, Colorado’s public utility, Lamar Light and Power, is partnering with the specific payback mechanism into their design. Often Arkansas River Power Authority to build a 6 MW wind farm southeast of the city. they are paid off through fees or income generated The site will consist of four 1.5 MW wind turbines, three of which will be owned through the project funded. Energy efficiency projects by the city of Lamar. The project is being funded by the sale of $6,000,000 of revenue bonds by the Lamar Utilities Board. The bonded indebtedness is for 20 years fit this bonding scheme particularly well because the with annual payments in excess of $400,000. The generated cost of the power revenue needed to repay the bonds can be recouped is estimated to be between $.04 and $.045 per kilowatt-hour, which compares in long-term energy cost savings. So long as the favorably with other Light and Power resources; this cost may be reduced if Lamar money saved from lower energy bills is funneled Light and Power qualifies for Renewable Energy Credits provided by the Department of Energy and/or the sale of environmentally friendly “green tags.” back into the bond payback program, revenue bond financing of energy efficiency projects allows states For more information or municipalities to reduce energy usage without any • Department of Light and Power • 719.336.4376 actual outlay of city funds. • http://www.ci.lamar.co.us/lightpower/index.html General obligation bonds are bonds without a specific payback mechanism. These bonds leverage a city’s credit rating to secure low-interest financing for public projects and are paid off over time through tax revenues. Because general obligation bonds finance much of the development in cities, some communities are using the bonding process to ensure environmentally-friendly development patterns. An emerging approach in this area is climate neutral bonding. Climate neutral bonding policies require that bond-funded development cause no net increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the bond issuing agency’s geographical jurisdiction after the project becomes operational.25 Such policies ensure that we consider the environmental effects of development and develop markets for green power purchases, as cities seeks new ways to offset increases in GHG emissions from development. New Energy for Cities, 43

Financing the Clean Energy Future 3 Pension Fund Investments C ity governments control a remarkable amount of resources in the form of their employees’ monthly contributions to pension What Cities are Doing Now The Los Angeles Apollo Alliance has proposed creating a $100 million SustainLA fund to finance green building projects, job training and job creation. The fund funds. These funds are administered by city would be established by diverting 0.5 percent of the city’s investment portfolios staff or outside fund administrators, who are and pension funds into large public works projects that could help shape the charged with investing this money to achieve regional economy and provide training and employment for thousands of city residents. Since the rate of return on energy efficiency investments is often asset growth. One emerging approach is higher than that of the stock market, such a fund would benefit the city financially to invest this pension money into energy as well. efficiency and renewable energy programs for For more information government-owned infrastructure. Energy • SCOPE/Los Angeles Apollo Alliance savings resulting from these infrastructure • 323.789.7920 upgrades are then used to repay the capital costs of the programs, plus an investment fee to the pension funds. Once the program has What States are Doing Now been paid off, the state receives revenue in the The only existing pension fund investment in clean energy is at the state level: form of decreased energy costs. California’s Green Wave program. The program directs California’s two largest pension funds, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to invest roughly $1.5 billion The Apollo Alliance recommends that city into the clean energy industry, including $200 million in investments for Real Estate treasurers invest a portion of their pension audits and energy efficiency retrofitting. These investments should save an estimated $40 million dollars annually in the aggregate, equating to an Internal Rate of Return fund into a comprehensive retrofit of all city- (IRR) of 14.16% over ten years, with a 5-year payback period. owned buildings. Any excess funds should be directed into private equity investments for For more information • Office of Treasurer Phil Angelides environmental technologies. Technologies can • Sacramento, CA include renewable energy, fuel cells, water • 916.653.2995 purification, recycling technologies and waste • http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/greenwave reuse technologies. 44, New Energy for Cities

Financing the Clean Energy Future 4 Energy Savings Performance Contracts E nergy Savings Performance Contracts enable governments, industrial firms and property managers to contract with companies What Cities are Doing Now Redlands, California contracted with a private company, Honeywell, to conduct upgrades on city’s HVAC equipment, wastewater pumps, lighting systems, irrigation systems, and sensors. In all, the company conducted specializing in energy efficiency, called Energy upgrades on twelve buildings that save the city over $450,000 per year in Service Companies (ESCO). ESCOs provide energy costs. Honeywell fronted the capital investment for these upgrades customers with detailed assessments of and was repaid through the energy savings over a seven year period. guaranteed energy savings. ESCOs then For more information perform the efficiency retrofits requiring no • Ron Mutter up-front costs and assuming all risks; they • Department of Public Works recoup these costs through energy savings. • 909.798.7655 If energy savings goals fall short, the ESCO Little Rock, Arkansas administers a performance contract between the will provide the customer with a check for city and a private contractor to perform energy efficient retrofits funded the difference, although savings typically by energy savings. The current program guarantees an annual savings of exceed projected amounts within two to ten $320,316 from efficiency retrofits such as installation of efficient lighting years.26 Departments should see additional systems, conversion of traffic signal lights from incandescent to LEDs computerized control of heating and cooling systems (HVAC), installation of savings beyond the amount needed to repay a geothermal HVAC system. the financing from utility rebates, lower oil surcharges, and reductions of utility demand For more information • Jessie Trigleth, Manager charges. • Building Services Division • 501.918.3664 ESCO projects have a long history of generating • jtrigleth@littlerock.org significant energy cost savings, much of which • www.littlerock.org/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/BuildingServices is realized through lighting and HVAC work. Retrofits of lighting alone typically achieve a median 47 percent savings over the existing lighting costs. Projects that target energy savings both in lighting and non-lighting improvements reduce total electric bills significantly, with a median savings of 23 percent.27 ESCOs are not just a cost-effective method of achieving energy savings; they are also a job creation tool. A 2002 analysis by the National Association of Energy Service Companies and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory suggest that ESCOs provide between $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion in energy efficiency services annually.28 Approximately one third of this money goes directly to labor costs.29 New Energy for Cities, 45

Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future M any of the financing mechanisms that we recommend involve some sort of government subsidy or tax break to private companies that produce, buy, sell or distribute energy efficient or clean energy products. Cities can and should attach job quality and job training standards to these types of subsidies to achieve greater public benefit. Essentially, these standards require that any business receiving a government subsidy or tax credit must provide employees decent, family- supporting wages and/or benefits. These standards ensure that new jobs created will be “high road” jobs: providing a decent income and health benefits, and helping residents avoid the “hidden taxpayer costs” that occur when working families rely on government subsidies like food stamps, Medicare, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. High-Priority Job Quality and Training Standards for Local Energy Projects • Prevailing wage or self-sufficiency wage plus adequate health benefits • County-wide local-hire commitment • Ties to state-approved apprenticeship programs • Job preparation training in coordination with community-based job training programs (pre-apprenticeship) prior to staffing • Commitment to compliance with state and federal labor laws • Commitment to safe and healthy work environments • Appropriate level of workers compensation 1 Job Training Standards A key component of the Apollo Alliance clean energy/good jobs strategy is developing Regional Energy Industry Partnerships a workforce that is trained to fill those jobs. Because many jobs associated with energy O ne way that cities can approach the workforce development challenge of the new energy future is to facilitate regional industry partnerships made up of the industries involved in the energy economy—manufacturers, efficiency and renewable energy are relatively installers, and operations specialists—along with representatives from new, communities may have to develop new local government, labor, and regional technical colleges or other training strategies and policies to help workers access institutions. These partnerships can work together to identify the energy these jobs—or at least they will have to industry’s major workforce needs, and can design a training curriculum integrate existing workforce development best suited to meet those needs. Involving labor representatives ensures and training opportunities more fully into the that training does not just happen for new employees, but also on the job emerging green economy. How communities throughout each worker’s time in the industry. approach workforce development for green jobs is crucial, as these programs can make What Cities are Doing Now the difference between a “high-road” economy with good, family-supporting jobs filled by In 2005, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mayor Tom Barrett brought together a “Green Team” made up of government, non-profit, utility, business and university local workers, and a “low-road” economy with representatives to recommend strategies for greening the city. The Green imported, low-wage labor. Team’s report included a specific recommendation to work with the Wisconsin Apollo Alliance to create an “energy technology cluster” for the city. This cluster would bring together Milwaukee’s many energy technology companies with local workforce development agencies to “ensure that Milwaukee has a well- trained workforce that can support the green economy” and help to “locate job opportunities in the communities in most need of expanded opportunities.” For more information • Bill Holland, Midwest Regional Field Director • Apollo Alliance • holland@apolloalliance.org 46, New Energy for Cities

Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future 1 Job Training Standards cont... Job Training and Weatherization Assistance Programs Tto hethrough federal government allocates millions of dollars each year its Weatherization Assistance Program. This money flows state agencies which then disburse the funds to local community action agencies, who actually perform the energy retrofits. This outlay of public money provides an opportunity to incorporate job training opportunities for community members. By doing so, cities can reap dual gains—both a more efficiency building stock and also helping community members access the construction industry. What Communities are Doing Now In 2001, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) Weatherization Program, which coordinates weatherization work on reservations in the state, gave a grant to the Cocopah Indian Tribe, based in Yuma County, Arizona, to provide weatherization services to Cocopah families. The ITCA provided on-site technical training to the Tribe, and helped send two tribal crew members to a DOE-sponsored National Weatherization Training Conference. Crew members then contacted a solar screen manufacturer in Yuma, Arizona, to teach the crew how to manufacture these screens on-site, to reduce cooling loads in the reservation’s very hot climate near the Sonoran Desert. The Cocopah Tribe ultimately developed the first self-sustaining tribal weatherization program in Arizona—a program that simultaneously reduces energy bills and creates good local jobs on the reservation. For more information • Cocopah Indian Tribe • 928.627.2102 • www.cocopah.com New Energy for Cities, 47

Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future 1 Job Training Standards cont... Apprenticeship Utilization Cworkers ities and states that are serious about energy efficiency and domestic production of clean energy must have a supply of who are well-trained in modern energy technologies. To ensure that this workforce is well-qualified and paid family-supporting wages, cities should add requirements or incentives for employing workers trained through state-approved apprenticeship programs to any energy legislation. To date, these requirements have been most successfully integrated into Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), or the agreements between units of government and contractors carrying out publicly funded projects. For example, PLAs can require contractors to use apprentices for a specified percentage of all hours worked. State-approved apprenticeship programs tie together economic and workforce development, and offer benefits directly to the community, existing workers and employers. Existing workers utilize the programs to update and broaden their skills in technologies necessary for new positions in expanding fields. For new workers coming from a variety of backgrounds, apprenticeship programs offer training for and placements into good, family-supporting jobs. Employers and emerging industries rely on apprenticeships programs to provide a reliable supply of workers skilled in the latest industry technologies. What Cities are Doing Now Located in Oakland, California, The Cypress Mandela Pre-Apprenticeship Training Program was initiated in 1993 to provide local residents with training and employment opportunities in repairing damaged freeways (resulting from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake). The Women in Skilled Trades (WIST) Program began in 1988 as a means of preparing women to enter the male-dominated construction industry. Today, the two programs work together to train men and women to enter the skilled trades and other occupations with employers across the San Francisco Bay Area. This free pre-apprenticeship program, endorsed by the Building and Construction Trades Council, offers classroom instruction and on-the-job experience in construction-related jobs including electrical work, hazardous materials training, and construction. The program works in conjunction with a number of public agencies, including the city of Oakland, the California Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Labor. Instructors from the Building Trades unions and local colleges ensure that curriculum and training is relevant to current industry needs. The Cypress Mandela/WIST program channels well-prepared graduates to jobs in Building Trades such as Carpenters, Ironworkers, Glaziers, Laborers, and Electricians. For more information • Art Shanks, Project Director • Cypress WIST • 510.768.4473 • artshanks@yahoo.com 48, New Energy for Cities

Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future 1 Job Training Standards cont... Solar energy plays a dual role at the IBEW-NECA Technical Institute in Alsip, Illinois. This vocational high school has introduced a photovoltaic system that will provide both electricity to the school and education for the students. The solar powered system will generate 5 kW of energy. Students will also benefit from the system by learning about the latest technology in photovoltaics. As a school that educates future electricians, solar energy is quickly coming to the forefront of their energy studies, where standard electrical training is being supplemented by the latest in solar advances. The project was partially funded by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, which chipped in $19,188, while the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 134 and the Electrical Contractors Association also contributed their services. For more information • IBEW-NECA Technical Institute • 708.389.1340 • info@in-techonline.org • http://www.in-techonline.org/home.cfm Policy link • The Center for Policy Alternatives model apprenticeship utilization requirement legislation: www.stateaction.org/issues/legislation.cfm?issue=HighRoad.xml New Energy for Cities, 49

Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future 2 Job Quality Standards J ob Quality Standards most commonly take two forms: wage standards and mandates for employer-provided healthcare. Other job What Cities are Doing Now The city of Eau Claire, Wisconsin has a prevailing wage ordinance to preserve local area wages and labor standards by requiring contractors engaged in publicly funded construction projects to pay construction workers wages that are at least quality issues that can be addressed include comparable to those earned for similar work in the same county. The ordinance requirements that new jobs created by the applies to all building or construction work that is financed in whole or in part with business be permanent and full-time jobs, that city financial assistance. new jobs offer opportunities for training and For more information career advancement, that workers be allowed • Mike Schatz, Director of City Development sick leave and/or paid vacation, and/or that a • 715.839.4914 percentage of the new jobs go to “local hire,” • mike.schatz@ci.eau-claire.wi.us. meaning that they given to local residents. • http://www.eauclairedevelopment.com/PrevailingWage.pdf Milwaukee, Wisconsin recently incorporated job quality standards into a downtown Under wage standards, employers must pay development deal. When two freeway ramps were torn down on the northern side of the going market rate to employees. The rate downtown Milwaukee, city activists and unions formed a coalition to ensure that any new development incorporate transit access, good jobs, and environmental benefits. can be tied to the state or regional median or The Good Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods Coalition and the city of Milwaukee average wage, or to the prevailing wage in a ultimately signed a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) that conditions the sale particular geographical area and industry. of city land freed up by the freeway demolition on a number of community benefits. Important job quality features of this CBA include: Prevailing wage for construction-phase jobs, Employer-provided benefit standards can 25 percent of construction-phase jobs in minority- or women-owned firms, require businesses to provide health benefits 25 percent of construction employees to be minorities or women, to employees, to pay for a specific percentage Living wage or market wage (whichever is higher), plus benefits, for post- (50–80 percent) of employees’ health care construction jobs, costs, or require that businesses either meet Local hire and training provisions, including first-source hiring, the wage standards discussed above, or For more information • Bob Dennik, Director provide health benefits • Milwaukee County Economic Development Division • 414.278.4083 Studies show public projects in states with • RDennik@milwcnty.com such laws save taxpayer dollars.31 In contrast, Policy link contractors in states with no prevailing wage • Information on the Park East CBA, including the final legislative language, can be found on the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future website: laws tend to hire inexperienced workers in an http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/workingfamilies/econdev/index.htm. attempt to keep down payroll costs. However, • For more information on the links between TODs and jobs, see Sarah Grady occupational injuries soar on these projects and and Greg LeRoy, Making the Connection: Transit Oriented Development and the use of low-wage workers routinely results Jobs (Good Jobs First, 2006), available at http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/ in increased supervision, maintenance and cost makingtheconnection.pdf. overruns. 50, New Energy for Cities

Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future 3 Best Value Contracting B est Value Contracting (BVC), also known as “negotiated contracting” and “competitive sealed proposal contracting,” is a procurement What Cities are Doing Now In 2002, the city of Portland, Oregon used an innovative RFP process to screen contractors for two major affordable housing projects. In the RFPs for these projects, the city assigned 25 points out of a possible 100 points to “Green Design.” method that provides an alternative to the The normally dominant categories of “Market Potential” and “Team Qualifications” traditional lowest-bid method of contracting. As were assigned only ten and 20 points, respectively. a competitive contracting process increasingly For more information used in the public sector, BVC requires contracts • Dan Saltzman, Commissioner to be awarded to the contractor offering the best • Office of Sustainable Development combination of price and qualifications, including • Green Building Division the use of skilled, high-quality workers, past • 503.823.7725 performance, and the ability to complete projects • http://www.green-rated.org/ in a safe, timely, and cost-effective manner. Policy link • RFP for 2002 “Innovations in Affordable Housing:” http://www.aia.org/ In addition to the potential benefits of BVC SiteObjects/files/RFP-Portland_OR_affordable_housing_grants.pdf for labor, including contractor participation in registered apprenticeship programs, on- job safety and health programs, and the sufficiency/reliability of craft labor supply sources and project staffing plans, BVC can also be used to promote environmentally sustainable development. To this end, environmental groups can push to have such criteria as past environmental performance of the bidder, plans for protection of flora/fauna and construction/ demolition of waste disposal, contractor certification in LEED construction, contractor/ subcontractor experience with green building design and construction, a work scheduling plan, including environmental impact on existing tenants, and the ability to host training programs on energy saving for facilities managers and janitors, included in the criteria for awarding contracts. New Energy for Cities, 51

About the Apollo Alliance The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs and Clean Energy The Apollo Alliance aims to improve America’s security, technological leadership, economic strength, and shared prosperity by achieving sustainable American energy independence through efforts at the national, state and local level. Named after President Kennedy’s challenge in the 1960s to land a man on the moon within a decade, our new Apollo Alliance has a bold strategy to direct $300 billion in targeted investments towards achieving sustainable energy independence within a decade. Our plan is supported by key national leaders in the labor, environmental, and business sectors, as well as by communities of color who are traditionally most harmed by existing energy policies. Some of Apollo’s most exciting work takes place at the state and local level, where we bring together labor, environmentalists, business, civil rights activists, elected officials and their constituents to implement high-performance policies. These state and local Apollo groups work on specific job- generating policies and projects to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy use, and build the transportation, utility, and other infrastructure needed to support sustainable efficient energy practice. Over the past two years, state and local Apollo Alliances have been built in cities from Los Angeles to New York and states from Hawaii to Massachusetts. These state and local alliances pursue specific legislative and administrative reforms to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewable power, and other clean energy strategies. Investment at all levels of our economy creates high quality jobs and increased income, as well as improving the environment and public health. It also more than pays for itself, offering fiscally strapped states, cities, and for-profit investors a better than competitive real rate of return (often as high as 15–20 percent annually).To learn more about how your city can start an Apollo project, and to find information on existing coalitions and projects, visit our State and Local Apollo Strategy Center at http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/ or contact one of the Apollo Alliance regional organizers. Apollo Alliance Policy Contacts Apollo Alliance Organizers Jeff Rickert Joanne Derwin Vice President/Chief of Staff NYC Apollo Project Director rickert@ourfuture.org joanne_derwin@qc.edu Dan Seligman Carla Din National Policy Director Western Regional Field Director Seligman@apolloalliance.org cdin@uswa.org Kate Gordon Richard Eidlin Apollo Strategy Center Business Outreach Specialist gordon@apolloalliance.org eidlin@apolloalliance.org Rich Feldman Washington Regional Organizer rfeldman@wc-kclc.org Jeremy Hays Western Regional Organizer hays@apolloalliance.org Bill Holland Midwest Regional Field Director holland@apolloalliance.org David Rothstein Ohio Apollo Alliance drothstein@policymattersohio.org 52, New Energy for Cities

Endnotes 1. David Owen, “Why New York is the Greenest City in the U.S.” New Yorker (October 18, 2004). 2. Combined Heat and Power Association. “How does CHPO work?” available at www.chpa. co.uk/aboutchp.htm (accessed September 22, 2005). 3. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Combined Heat and Power: Waste Heat Recycling: Onsite and National Energy Impact Analysis” available at www.nrel.gov/dtet/heat_power.html (last update July 8, 2005); see also United States Combined Heat and Power Association, “CHP BASICS,” available at uschpa.admgt.com/CHPbasics.htm (last access April 30, 2006). 4. “US DOE, 2004 Buildings Energy Databook,” available at buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ (last update Jan. 6, 2006). 5. “US DOE National Energy Policy Report” (May 2001), available at http://www.whitehouse. gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf. 6. For a discussion of potential jobs created through energy efficiency projects see: http:// www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance/benefits_of_apollo_s_plan/examples.cfm. 7. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, “The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities” (August 2003), available at www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/bcsddoc.pdf. 8. Id. 9. Greg Kats, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force” (Capital E: October 2003), available at www.cap-e.com/ ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf. 10. Id. 11. Apollo Alliance, “New Energy for America—The Apollo Jobs Report: Good Jobs and Energy Independence” (Jan. 2004), available at www.apolloalliance.org/jobs/index.cfm. 12. Energy Star’s purchasing and procurement policies are available on the Energy Star website, at www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing (last viewed April 30, 2006). 13. National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, “Environmentally Preferable Purchasing,” available at www.p2.org/workgroup/epp/ (last viewed April 30, 2006). 14. State University of New York at Buffalo—UB Green, “Campus Energy Policies,” available at wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/content/programs/energyconservation/energypolicies.html (last viewed April 30, 2006). 15. Green Home NYC, “Lessons from Green Universities” (March 16, 2005), available at www. greenhomenyc.org/page/forum0503. 16. Learn more about Austin Energy’s programs at www.austinenergy.com. 17. Andrew Aulisi and Craig Hanson, “Developing ‘Next Generation’ Green Power Products for Corporate Markets in North America” (World Resources Institute: Dec. 2004), available at http://www.thegreenpowergroup.org/pdf/Installment6.pdf. 18. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “A Federal System Benefits Fund: Assisting States to Establish Energy Efficiency and Other System Benefit Programs” available at: http://www.aceee.org/energy/pbf.htm (last viewed April 30, 2006). 19. Apollo Alliance, “Energy Independence: the Facts,” available at http://www.apolloalliance. org/strategy_center/reports_and_resources/independencefacts.cfm (last viewed May 20, 2006). 20. As plug-in hybrid vehicle technology matures, cities—possibly in partnership with local utilities—should also play a leading role in helping their residents build the electric infrastructure needed for these vehicles. 21. Lesley Rogers Barrett, “Metro Area gets Another E85 Pump,” Indianapolis Star (May 9, 2006). 22. Hamilton County Solid Waste County Management District. Minutes of ‘Policy Committee Meeting’, November 11th, 2005. Available at www.hcdoes.org/sw/Policy/01122006/ 111005minutes.pdf. New Energy for Cities, 53

Endnotes 23. Patrick Mazza, “Powering the Smart Grid: A Northwest Initiative for Job Creation, Energy Security and Clean, Affordable Electricity” (Climate Solutions: July 2005), available at http:// www.climatesolutions.org/pubs/pdfs/PoweringtheSmartGrid.pdf. 24. SustainableBusiness.com, “Climate Neutral Bonds: A Local Global Warming Solution” (Feb. 2006), available at http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/features/feature_template. cfm?ID=1305 (last viewed April 30, 2006). 25. John Bailey, “Climate Neutral Bonding: Building Global Warming Solutions at the State and Local Level” (February 2006), available at http://www.newrules.org/de/ climateneutralbonding.pdf. 26. Apollo Alliance, “Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) and Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs),” available at www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/model_financing_ strategies/espcs.cfm (last viewed April 30, 2006). 27. National Association of Energy Service Companies, “New Report Documents $2 Billion Annual Investment in Energy Efficiency by ESCOs” (May 2002), available at www.naesco. org/industry/press020530.htm. 28. Id. 29. National Association of Energy Service Companies, “What is an ESCO?” available at www. naesco.org/about/esco.htm (last viewed April 30, 2006). 31. For a very comprehensive paper on the range of job quality standards that exist in the US today, see Anna Purinton, “The Policy Shift to Good Jobs” (Good Jobs First: 2003), available at www.goodjobsfirst.org. 31. Dan Gardner, “The Truth about Prevailing Wage,” available at www.boli.state.or.us/BOLI/ WHD/PWR/docs/pwrtruth.pdf (last viewed April 30, 2006); see also Dale Belman and Paula B. Voos, “Prevailing Wage Laws in Construction: The Cost of Repeal to Wisconsin,” (UW- Milwaukee: Oct. 1995). 54, New Energy for Cities

COOL CA$H: HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE USING SMART ENERGY SOLUTIONS TO SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND CURB GLOBAL WARMING Communities all over America are responding to the threat of global warming with smart energy solutions. Over 330 mayors, representing 53 million Americans in 47 states have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging to reduce global warming pollution in their cities to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 (see www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate). These “Cool Cities” are working to meet this goal with practical and innovative energy solutions that reduce energy waste and pollution. As the examples in this fact sheet indicate, cities of every size and region in the country have discovered that smart energy solutions like cleaner cars, energy efficiency and renewable energy are paying big dividends by reducing energy costs. Through energy efficiency and clean renewable energy technologies, cities are saving millions of taxpayer dollars every year and curbing global warming emissions. These savings enable communities to turn around and invest more on schools, job creation, essential services and new infrastructure. COOL CITIES ACROSS AMERICA ARE SAVING MONEY AND PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT The Sierra Club's survey of city energy solutions only counted the energy cost savings reported by the cities themselves, research reports and news accounts. The 46 cities profiled in this report are currently saving over $140 million and reducing more than 500,000 tons of global warming pollution every year through energy efficiency, clean renewable power and cleaner automobiles. In addition, a report by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), found that the clean energy solutions adopted by the 159 U.S. cities in their Cities for Climate Protection (www.iclei.org/co2/) program have collectively realized annual cost savings of over $535 million in energy and fuel costs, while reducing global warming pollution by 23 million tons every year. The exciting news is that the energy savings documented below in this report represent just a small fraction of the “cool cash” that U.S. cities are earning through smart energy solutions. These successes highlight the great potential for all our cities to save money while leading the way toward a safer and more secure energy future.

♦ ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTIONS Energy efficiency—using less energy through better technology—is the most cost-effective and fastest way to meet our energy needs. Numerous cities are realizing impressive returns from their investment in high-tech interior and street lighting, energy-efficient building standards and retrofits, and modernizing heating, cooling and other systems. By replacing outmoded light bulbs in street traffic lights with highly-efficient LED (light emitting diode) bulbs, U.S. cities report over $10.4 million savings every year. This simple solution is working for big cities like Denver ($218,000/year savings), Kansas City ($95,000/year), and Salt Lake City ($50,000/year) as well as for smaller cities such as Keane, NH ($3,854/year). Passasic, NJ reduced their annual energy bill by $65,000 by changing the light bulbs at just 40 intersections. Installing efficient compact florescent light bulbs in interior lighting in 60 municipally-owned buildings is saving Palo Alto, CA $117,625 each year. The small town of Saco, ME has projected a $15,000 annual energy savings from a proposed lighting upgrade in all of their school and municipal buildings. Modernizing both old and new building with energy-efficient building designs and materials are delivering impressive energy cost savings. Dallas is saving $246,000/year at one police headquarters by meeting the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards (usgbc.org). Silver Fossil Ridge High School in Ft. Collins, CO reduced its energy costs by $70,000/year in this way. Large facilities such as Pittsburgh’s new David Lawrence Convention Center ($500,000 dollars saved annually) are significantly lowering their energy costs through energy efficient designs. Austin, TX is saving $480,000 per year by retrofitting 40 schools with energy efficient measures. The Twin Falls, ID school district upgraded its 11 schools with more efficient lighting and improvements to the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, which is expected to reduce energy costs by $3.5 million.1 When cities put together a comprehensive energy efficient plan, the savings are even more striking. Austin’s city-owned utility’s residential and commercial energy efficiency program is saving $28.9 million per year while reducing global warming pollution by 59,000 tons annually. Similar programs in Ft. Collins ($4.4 million/year), Portland, OR ($2.3 million/year), and St. Paul, MN ($7.9 million/year) reap impressive savings as well. E ENNEERRG GYYE EFFFFIICCIIEENNCCYY SSO OLLU UTTIIO ONNSS Greenhouse Gas Payback Cost Savings City Policy Adopted Reduction Time ($/Yr) (Tons eCO2/Yr) (Years) ARLINGTON, MA Energy efficient street lights installed.2 $96,000 0.5 ARLINGTON, MA Town library lighting replacement.3 $9,000 1 City utility savings through residential & commercial energy AUSTIN, TX efficiency programs4 $28,929,023 59,000 AUSTIN, TX Energy efficiency retrofits at 40 schools5 $480,000 6.9 BROOKLINE, MA LED traffic lights installed6 $58,941 7 2.8 8 BROOKLINE, MA Curbside Recycling $179,265 3.2 CAMBRIDGE, MA Energy efficiency projects in municipal and school buildings.9 $470,850 5.25 10 CHARLESTON, SC Energy-saving improvements $625,000 3,805 Green Bungalow Initiative - Energy Efficiency retrofits(4 CHICAGO, IL homes)11 $900/home 56 4.6-8.1 12 CHICAGO, IL LEED Platinum Chicago Center for Green Technology $29,000

Retrofitting all 105 fire stations with energy efficient lighting in CHICAGO, IL 200613 $250,000 3,515 CHULA VISTA, CA LED traffic lights installed14 $74,000 CLACKAMAS, OR LEED Silver Clackamas High School15 $69,000 DALLAS, TX LEED Silver Jack Evans Police Headquarters16 $246,000 DENVER, CO LED traffic lights installed17 $817,000 Webb Municipal Building certified by USEPA's Energy Star DENVER, CO Program18 $218,000 FORT COLLINS, CO LED traffic signals installed at more than 160 intersections19 $110,000 expected 3,000 3.4 20 FORT COLLINS, CO LEED Silver Fort Collins Utilities Vehicle Storage $9,000 FORT COLLINS, CO LEED Silver Fossil Ridge High School21 $70,000 Energy consumption reduction targets of the Electric Energy FORT COLLINS, CO Supply Policy22 Avg. $4,444,44423 Repaired heating control systems in the Public Safety Building FREEPORT, ME and the Public Library. 24 $320 1.85 FREEPORT, ME Energy-efficient lighting retrofit in Public Safety garage.25 $1,620 9.3 4 26 KANSAS CITY, MO 2,518 LED traffic lights installed $95,000 5.827 28 KANSAS CITY, MO Energy Efficient Retrofits of City Buildings $1,500,000 KEENE, NH Energy Efficient Equipment at Waste Water Treatment Plant29 $27,914 182 30 KEENE, NH LED traffic lights installed $3,854 1-231 32 33 KING COUNTY, WA LEED Gold King Street Center Avg. $50,000 NAPA, CA Lighting retrofits34 $69,630 projected 35 NAPA, CA 590 LED traffic lights installed $20,797 projected NAPA, CA Parking lot lighting retrofits36 $18,802 projected 35 energy efficiency projects in municipal & school district NEWTON, MA buildings.37 $50,000 341 2 NEW YORK, NY LED traffic lights installed at 11,600 intersections38 $6,000,000 4.739 PALO ALTO, CA LED traffic lights installed at 89 intersections40 $120,000 PALO ALTO, CA Retrofit of lighting systems in 60 city buildings41 $117,625 6.642 PALO ALTO, CA Computer energy savings43 $17,500 Customer energy efficiency savings through City services and PASADENA, CA incentives44 $2,173,000 45 PASSAIC, NJ LED traffic lights installed at 40 intersections $65,000 PITTSBURGH, PA LEED Gold David L. Lawrence Convention Center46 $500,000 PORTLAND, OR More than 13,300 LED traffic lights installed $500,00047 2300 348 PORTLAND, OR LEED Certified Oregon Convention Center49 $110,000 PORTLAND, OR City Energy Challenge - energy efficiency50 $2,300,000 City Buildings Lighting Retrofit Program - 600 bulbs changed POWAY, CA to fluorescent51 $9,640 REDONDO BEACH, CA Energy conservation measures52 $200,000 projected Proposed Energy Efficient Lighting in all school & municipal SACO, ME buildings53 $15,200 projected54 5 23 Energy retrofit projects such as energy-efficient lighting, SACRAMENTO, CA HVAC equipment, and LED traffic signals55 $440,000 SALEM, MA Municipal parking garage lighting retrofit.56 $21,887 2 Changed all lighting in city & county buildings to compact SALT LAKE CITY, UT fluorescent $33,00057 SALT LAKE CITY, UT LED traffic lights installed $50,00058 71659 Energy-efficiency retrofit of City Administration Building SAN DIEGO, CA Complex60 $500,000 61 SAN DIEGO, CA Upgraded 86% of traffic lights to LED $1,300,000 7,437 Energy efficiency upgrade of Operations Center Administration SAN DIEGO, CA Building62 $14,000 45 63 SAN DIEGO, CA The City's Energy Conservation and Management Program $3,500,000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA LED traffic lights installed64 $1,200,000 expected SEATTLE, WA Energy Conservation Efforts by Seattle City Light65 $63,000,000 420,000 66 SOMERVILLE, MA LED traffic lights installed. $62,700 expected 2 ST. PAUL, MN Comprehensive Energy Conservation Improvement Program67 $7,934,000 81,497 Energy efficiency retrofits - LED traffic lights, HVAC systems, VISALIA, CA city lighting68 $143,185

♦ GREEN VEHICLE SOLUTIONS Making our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas is the biggest single step we can take to saving money at the gas pump, cutting America’s dependence on oil, and curbing global warming. Many cities are cutting their global warming emissions by purchasing gas-electric hybrid cars and SUVs for their city vehicle fleet. By using less gasoline, hybrid vehicles release a fraction of the global warming and air pollution emitted by conventional vehicles while saving money at the gas pump. By “greening” its automobile fleets with 113 hybrid vehicles, Chicago spends $21,000 less per year in fuel and maintenance costs. Los Angeles’ 572 hybrids, combined with over 900 alternative fuel vehicles, save a whopping $9 million per year. Charlotte estimates that the fuel savings for its 21 hybrid cars ($16,800-$25,000/year) will offset the higher cost of hybrids in 2.5 to 5.5 years. When it comes to greening city fleets, cleaner cars aren’t the only way to earn “cool cash”. For example, by placing police units on bicycles instead of driving cars, both Brookline, MA and Keene, NH are slashing costs and cutting pollution. G GRREEEENN V VEEH HIIC CL ES LE SO OLLU UTTIIO ONNSS Greenhouse Gas Payback Cost Savings City Policy Adopted Reduction Time ($/Yr) (Tons eCO2/Yr) (Years) BROOKLINE, MA Police Units on Bicycles69 $7,229 4.870 0.1 BROOKLINE, MA Hybrids- 2 Toyota Prius71 $1,019 72 11.1 73 CHARLOTTE, NC 21 Honda, Toyota, and Ford Hybrids $16,800-$25,200 2.5-5.5 CHICAGO, IL 113 hybrid vehicles74 $21,000 DENVER, CO 55 hybrids (Prius) & use of biodiesel75 76 $40,000 10 to 15 KEENE, NH Police Units on Bicycles77 $805 6 572 hybrid-electric cars, over 900 alternative fuel LOS ANGELES, CA vehicles78 $9,000,000 MECKLENBURG CO., NC 6 Toyota and Ford Hybrids79 $4,800-$7,200 2.5-5.5 SALT LAKE CITY, UT Green Fleet80 $156,00081 32782

♦ RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS Cities around the country are investing in clean and renewable power like solar and wind energy to lower global warming emissions and create a reliable source of safe, homegrown electricity. Renewable power, combined with energy efficient buildings and appliances, is an essential and cost-effective solution for replacing electricity from dirty, fossil fuel power plants. In Iowa, two wind turbines at Spirit Lake Elementary School are saving $120,000 and reducing global warming pollution by over 2100 tons every year. The first wind turbine installed by the city of Hull, MA has been so successful—$128,000 cost savings/year—that the city has put up a second one. Solar panels plus efficiency measures are expected to lower energy costs at San Francisco’s Moscone Convention Center by $210,000/year, preventing the release of over 1,100 tons of global warming pollution each year. The 10 kilowatt (kW) solar thermal array at one fire house in Chicago is saving the city $1000 a year. Other renewable energy solutions such as geothermal and landfill methane recovery systems are also reducing city energy costs. A geothermal heat and cooling system at a municipal building in Park Hills, MO reduces energy costs by $4,800 annually and will pay for itself in less than 5 years. Great Bridge Middle School’s geothermal system in Chesapeake, VA saves $41,500/year with a 6-year payback time. Captured methane gas from a landfill helps to power Antioch Community High School in Illinois, reducing the school’s energy costs by $100,000/year, while keeping 4,409 tons of global warming pollution out of our atmosphere. In some cases, cities are also profiting by selling methane recovered from landfills. Upper Marlboro in Prince George’s County, MD makes an average of $720,000/year this way. R REENNEEW WAAB BL EE LE ENNEERRG GYYS SOOL LUUT TIIO ONNSS Greenhouse Gas Payback Cost Savings City Policy Adopted Reduction Time ($/Yr) (Tons eCO2/Yr) (Years) Eight photovoltaic systems installed throughout the ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA county totaling over 2.3 MW.83 $700,000 683 ANN-ARBOR, MI Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project84 $35,00085 71,907 Landfill Methane Recovery for power at Antioch ANTIOCH, IL Community High School86 $100,000 4,409 Geothermal Heating & Cooling System at Taylor ARLINGTON, VA Elementary School87 $20,800 5 BROOKLINE, MA Home Composting Program88 $11,616 13.589 0.1 CHICAGO, IL 10 kW Solar Thermal Array at 1 Fire House90 $1,000 Geothermal Heating & Cooling System at Great Bridge CHESAPEAKE, VA Middle School South91 $41,500 6 HULL, MA Wind turbine #192 $128,850 1,200 Wind turbine #2 $407,80093 3,00094 95 KEENE, NH Landfill gas-to-energy system $55,000 140 5 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District installed photovoltaic solar power systems on their maintenance LAKE ELSINORE, CA and administrative buildings and carports.96 $170,000 330 NAPA, CA Solar power system at Lake Hennessey Pump station.97 $100,000 expected 140 Geothermal Heating & Cooling System at Municipal PARK HILLS, MO Building98 $4,800 4.699 Landfill Methane Recovery for power at Pattonville PATTONVILLE, MO High School100 $40,000 2,000 Geothermal Heating & Cooling System at Schuyler QUEEN CITY, MO Elementary School101 $30,000 3102 103 104 SACO, ME Proposed Windmill Up to $800 10

Solar Panels and energy efficiency measures in SAN FRANCISCO, CA Moscone Center $210,000 expected105 Avg. 1167106 Southeast Water Treatment Plant installed 255 kW SAN FRANCISCO, CA solar roof system.107 $38,400 100 Sonoma County Water Agency installed 522 kW of SONOMA COUNTY, CA roof and parking system solar arrays.108 $117,000 207 SPIRIT LAKE, IA 2 Wind turbines at Spirit Lake Elementary School109 $120,000 2,102 110 111 TUCSON, AZ Methane capture for energy at Los Reales Landfill $500,000 21,103 Energy from Landfill Methane Recovery Sold by UPPER MARLBORO, MD Prince George's County112 Avg. $720,000113 5,842

SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND CURBING GLOBAL WARMING BY RE-ENERGIZING YOUR CITY Mayors and other local public officials have a responsibility to reduce costs and spend taxpayer dollars wisely. They also are charged with taking steps to protect our environment. The success stories in this fact sheet demonstrate that local officials are meeting these obligations and building cleaner and more affordable communities by investing in smart energy solutions. If every community in the United States took action with energy efficiency, renewable power and clean vehicle solutions, billions of dollars that are now literally being wasted could go to improving city services, bettering our schools, and re-building our aging infrastructure. By reducing the rising costs of energy, Cool Cities are reducing the cost of government while solving global warming, one city at a time. Now it’s your city’s turn. For more information, including the Sierra Club’s Guide to Local Global Warming Solutions, and to get involved in a Cool Cities campaign in your city, go to: www.coolcities.us. Acknowledgements Research: Sarah Smith Writing: Glen Brand, Brendan Bell, Sarah Smith

1 Shandwick, Weber. "Performance Contract Enables District to Accomplish Upgrades In Months Rather Than Years ." SchoolFacilities.com. 1 Aug. 2005. Honeywell. 16 Aug. 2006 http://newsite.schoolfacilities.com/cd_1695.aspx. 2 Breslow, Marc, and Janet McGarry. "Cutting Global Warming Pollution: Case Studies of Municipal Governments, School Districts, and Communities." Massachusetts Climate Action Network. Dec. 2004. 27 Sept. 2006 http://www.massclimateaction.org/MCANdocspdf/GHGCaseStudies.pdf 3 ibid 4 Austin Energy. “DSM Performance Measures FY 2005: Residential, Commercial & Green Building” June 28, 06. 5 Regelson, Ken. "Sustainable Cities: Best Practices for Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency." Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter. 5. 28 Oct. 2005. Five Start Consultants. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/energy/library/sustainablecities.pdf. 6 Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. Local Action Plan on Climate Change. 2002. 30. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/Conservation/PDFs/ClimateActionPlanTOB.pdf#page=5. 7 The street light conversion will result in the elimination of 364 tons of CO2 in 2010. 8 Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. Local Action Plan on Climate Change. 2002. 47-48. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/Conservation/PDFs/ClimateActionPlanTOB.pdf#page=5. 9 Breslow, Marc, and Janet McGarry. "Cutting Global Warming Pollution: Case Studies of Municipal Governments, School Districts, and Communities." Massachusetts Climate Action Network. Dec. 2004. 27 Sept. 2006 http://www.massclimateaction.org/MCANdocspdf/GHGCaseStudies.pdf. 10 Slade, David. "Charleston Makes Pledge to Cut Emissions." Post and Courier [Charleston, South Carolina] 23 Apr. 2006. 9 Aug. 2006. http://www.charleston.net/default.aspx. 11 ICLEI. Cities in Action. 9 Aug. 2006 www.iclei.org/documents/USA/documents/citiesinaction/Cities_in_Action.pdf. 12 "LEED Certified Project Case Study." U.S. Green Building Council. 9 Aug. 2006 http://leedcasestudies.usgbc.org/energy.cfm?ProjectID=97. 13 City of Chicago. Environmental Action Agenda: Building the Sustainable City. 2006. 5. 9 Aug. 2006 http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/ActionAgenda.pdf. 14 "Local Government Case Study: City of Chula Vista." Flex Your Power. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_ChulaVista.pdf. 15 "Case Studies: Clackamas High School." Cascadia Region Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building Council. 9 Aug. 2006 http://casestudies.cascadiagbc.org/finance.cfm?ProjectID=196. 16 City of Dallas. Jack Evans Police Headquarters: Green Building Design. 2. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.dallascityhall.com/pdf/ehs/JackEvansPoliceBldg.pdf. 17 City and County of Denver. Greenprint Denver. An Economic and Environmental Action Plan for Denver's Future. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.greenprintdenver.org/docs/greenprint_brochure.pdf. 18 City and County of Denver. Greenprint Denver. Greenprint Denver Plan. 11. 12 July 2006. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.greenprintdenver.org/docs/greenprint_report.pdf. 19 City of Fort Collins. Energy Management Team. Municipal Climate Protection Plan. 13. June 2001. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.fcgov.com/climateprotection/pdf/map.pdf. 20 City of Fort Collins. “The Power to Save: Preserve Our Environment and Make Some Changes”. 10 Aug. 2006 http://fcgov.com/utilities/pdf/cs-vsbldg.pdf. 21 "2005 Renewable Energy in Buildings Awards." Colorado Renewable Energy Society. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.cres-energy.org/newhtml/reba_2005_frhs.html#Low_Energy_Consumption. 22 Regelson, Ken. "Sustainable Cities: Best Practices for Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency." Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter. 17. 28 Oct. 2005. Five Start Consultants. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/energy/library/sustainablecities.pdf. 23 The savings for Fort Collins customers is expected to be over $40million between 2004 and 2012 which averages to $4,444,444/year. 24 Town of Freeport, Maine. Energy Conservation Update. November 13, 2006. 25 ibid 26 Missouri Department of Natural Resources. “Energy Revolving Fund: Low Interest Loans for Energy Efficiency Improvements”. 6 Aug. 2006. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/financial/loan.htm. 27 The project cost $554,000 which results in a simple payback of 5.8. 28 Murphy, Dennis. Kansas City Chief Environmental Officer. Personal interview. 12 July 2006. 29 City of Keene. Planning Department. "Municipal Opportunities." Climate Change Action Plan. 18. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/planning/municpal.pdf. 30 City of Keene. Planning Department. "Municipal Opportunities." Climate Change Action Plan. 15. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/planning/municpal.pdf. 31 The cost of converting traffic signals to LED was $19,000 after PSNH Rebate. Payback: 5 years (However, this does not include the projected savings that occurred as a result of growth in the traffic signal area. If this is taken into account, the payback period becomes 1-2 years.) 32 The Apollo Alliance, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. “High Performance Cities: A Guide to Energy Saving Policies for Urban Areas”. 1. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/apollo-final.pdf.

33 A savings of $100,000 is expected over the first two years. 34 "Local Government Case Study: City of Napa." Flex Your Power. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_Napa.pdf. 35 ibid 36 ibid 37 Breslow, Marc, and Janet McGarry. "Cutting Global Warming Pollution: Case Studies of Municipal Governments, School Districts, and Communities." Massachusetts Climate Action Network. Dec. 2004. 27 Sept. 2006 http://www.massclimateaction.org/MCANdocspdf/GHGCaseStudies.pdf. 38 DePalma, Anthony. "Never Sleeps, But It Douses The Lights." New York Times 11 Dec. 2005, Late ed., sec. 1: 55. 39 The project cost $2.8 million which results in a simple payback of 4.7 years. 40 City of Palo Alto. “First Year Results”. 11 Feb. 2003. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/fire/sustainability/firstyear.html. 41 ibid 42 The project cost $780,000 which results in a simple payback of 6.6 years. 43 ibid 44 “Local Government Case Study: City of Pasadena." Flex Your Power. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_Pasadena.pdf. 45 The Apollo Alliance, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. “High Performance Cities: A Guide to Energy Saving Policies for Urban Areas”. 7. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/apollo-final.pdf. 46 “Enhance the Light”. Green Building Alliance. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.gbapgh.org/DLLCC_Light.asp. 47 City of Portland and Multnomah County. Office of Sustainable Development. Global Warming Progress Report. 3 & 16 . June 2005. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=112118. 48 City of Portland. Office of Sustainable Development. “Energy Efficiency Success Story.” 14 Aug.2006 http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=111737 49 Libby, Brian. "Green Expansion for Oregon Convention Center." BetterBricks. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.betterbricks.com/default.aspx?pid=article&articleid=389&typeid=3&topicname=sustainabledesign&indextype=. 50 Regelson, Ken. "Sustainable Cities: Best Practices for Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency." Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter. 24. 28 Oct. 2005. Five Start Consultants. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/energy/library/sustainablecities.pdf. 51 “Local Government Case Study: City of Poway." Flex Your Power. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_Poway.pdf. 52 “Local Government Case Study: City of Redondo Beach." Flex Your Power. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_RedondoBeach.pdf. 53 Harkness, Seth. “Something New in the Wind for Saco”. Portland Press Herald 29 July 2006. 10 Aug. 2006 http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/york/060729windmill.shtml. 54 The project will cost $76,000 and pay for itself in 5 years. This works out to an average savings of $15,200/year. 55 “Local Government Case Study: City of Sacramento." Flex Your Power. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_Sacramento.pdf. 56 Breslow, Marc, and Janet McGarry. "Cutting Global Warming Pollution: Case Studies of Municipal Governments, School Districts, and Communities." Massachusetts Climate Action Network. Dec. 2004. 27 Sept. 2006 http://www.massclimateaction.org/MCANdocspdf/GHGCaseStudies.pdf. 57 "Energy Conservation." Salt Lake City and the Environment. Salt Lake City Green. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.slcgreen.com/pages/energy.htm. 58 "Energy Conservation." Salt Lake City and the Environment. Salt Lake City Green. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.slcgreen.com/pages/energy.htm. 59 "Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan." Salt Lake City and the Environment. Salt Lake City Green. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.slcgreen.com/pages/actionplan.htm. 60 “City Energy Accomplishments.” City of San Diego. Environmental Services Department. 10 Aug. 2006 http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/esd/sd_model.jsp. 61 ibid 62 “Energy Savings Projects.” City of San Diego. Environmental Services Department. 10 Aug. 2006 http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/esd/energy_projects.jsp. 63 “City Energy Accomplishments.” City of San Diego. Environmental Services Department. 10 Aug. 2006 http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/esd/sd_model.jsp. 64 "San Francisco - Municipal Government." The Climate Group. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=614. 65 Little, Michael. "Re: Seattle's GHG Reduction." E-mail to Sarah Smith. 27 July 2006. 66 Breslow, Marc, and Janet McGarry. "Cutting Global Warming Pollution: Case Studies of Municipal Governments, School Districts, and Communities." Massachusetts Climate Action Network. Dec. 2004. 27 Sept. 2006 http://www.massclimateaction.org/MCANdocspdf/GHGCaseStudies.pdf. 67 “Energy & Energy Conservation.” The City of Saint Paul. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.stpaul.gov/initiatives/sustainable/programs/energy.html. Conservation Improvement Program: The City of Saint Paul and Xcel Energy have been working together for 15 years to introduce CIPs to city, school district, county, state government, and private sector buildings Saint Paul CIPs include facilities energy conservation, retrofits, ENERGY STAR purchasing, street lighting, signal lamp conversion, pumping peak demand pricing, lime sludge dewatering, treatment chemical

reduction, and private sector energy conservation. 68 “Local Government Case Study: City of Visalia." Flex Your Power. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_LG_Visalia.pdf. 69 Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. Local Action Plan on Climate Change. 2002. 17. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/Conservation/PDFs/ClimateActionPlanTOB.pdf#page=5. 70 This measure will reduced 58 tons of CO2 in 2010. The bicycles were bought in 1999. This is a reduction of 4.8 tons of CO2/year. 71 Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. Local Action Plan on Climate Change. 2002. 18. 9 Aug. 2006 http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/Conservation/PDFs/ClimateActionPlanTOB.pdf#page=5. 72 8 tons of CO2 reduced in 2010. 73 City of Charlotte. The Green Sheet: The Case for Hybrids and David Friday, Charlotte Fleet Environmental Analyst. 74 City of Chicago. Environmental Action Agenda: Building the Sustainable City. 2006. 3. 9 Aug. 2006 http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/ActionAgenda.pdf. 75 “A Green Fleet For Denver.” Fleet Maintenance Division. City and County of Denver. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.denvergov.org/Fleet_Maintenance_Division/368news.asp#1805. 76 “Green Fleets”. Cities for Climate Protection. ICLEI. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.greenfleets.org/Denver.html. 77 City of Keene. Planning Department. "Municipal Opportunities." Climate Change Action Plan. 26. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/planning/municpal.pdf 78 City of Los Angeles. "Livable Neighborhoods." City of Los Angeles Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2005-06. 2005. 54. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget2005-06/Proposed_Budget_Summary_2005-06.pdf. 79 City of Charlotte. The Green Sheet: The Case for Hybrids and David Friday, Charlotte Fleet Environmental Analyst. 80 Minimization of the fleet. Got rid of many SUVs and bought hybrids and compacts. 81 Bennett, Vicki. Salt Lake City Environmental Programs Manager. Personal interview. 28 June 2006. Fleet use of diesel dropped 30,000 gallons last year. The airport fleet’s use of gas dropped 10,000 gallons last year and dropped by 12,000 gallons of diesel. Figured at $3.00/gal. 82 "Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan." Salt Lake City and the Environment. Salt Lake City Green. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.slcgreen.com/pages/actionplan.htm. 83 “Case Study: County of Alameda, California.” PowerLight. 15 Nov. 2006 http://www.powerlight.com/success/pdf/PowerLight_Case-Study_AlamedaCounty.pdf 84 "Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project." City of Ann Arbor Michigan. 27 July 2006. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/PublicServices/SystemsPlanning/Energy/LandfillEnergy.html. 85 $20,000/year is saved by the city and DTE Biomass pays the city $15,000/year 86 “Antioch Community High School.” Lanfill Methane Outreach Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 8 March 2006. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/prof/profile/antiochcommunityhighschoo.htm 87 “Taylor Elementary School: Arlington, Virginia." Geoexchange. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.geoexchange.org/pdf/cs-076.pdf. 88 Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. Local Action Plan on Climate Change. 2002. 46. Aug. 2006 http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/Conservation/PDFs/ClimateActionPlanTOB.pdf#page=5. 89 This measure will reduce 189 tons of CO2 in 2010. The program was started in 1997. This is a reduction of 13.5 tons/year. 90 “Chicago’s Solar Benefits.” The Chicago Solar Partnership. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.chicagosolarpartnership.com/index.php?submenu=About&src=gendocs&link=Benefits&category=About%20Us 91 The Apollo Alliance, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. “High Performance Cities: A Guide to Energy Saving Policies for Urban Areas”. 4. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/apollo-final.pdf. 92 “Hull Wind 6,000,000 kWhs of Clean Energy.” Hull Wind. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.hullwind.org/HullWind06.pdf 93 “Hull Wind II financial projections.” Sustainable South Shore. 28 Sept. 2006 http://www.sustainabless.org/gallery.php 94 “Hull Wind 1 Reaches 7 million kWhs!!” Hull Wind. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.hullwind.org 95 “Methane Recovery Pumps: Keene, NH” Clean Air, Cool Planet. 10 Oct. 2006 http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/methane.php 96 “Success Stories: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.” PowerLight. 15 Nov. 2006 http://www.powerlight.com/success/elsinore.php 97 “City of Napa Dedicates Solar Power System at Lake Hennessey Pump Station”. PowerLight. Renewable Energy Access. 18 Oct. 2006 http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/market/business/viewstory?id=46105. 98 “Municipal Building: Park Hills, Missouri." Geoexchange. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.geoexchange.org/pdf/cs-064.pdf 99 With contribution from Union Electric and EPRI payback was actually immediate. 100 “Pattonville High School Landfill Gas Recovery Project.” State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=12 101 “Schuyler Elementary School: Queen City, Missouri.” Geoexchange. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.geoexchange.org/pdf/cs-029.pdf 102 This is the payback time on the additional cost of $90,000 for the Geoexchange system. 103 Harkness, Seth. “Something New in the Wind for Saco”. Portland Press Herald 29 July 2006. 10 Aug. 2006 http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/york/060729windmill.shtml. 104 The project will cost up to $8,000 and pay for itself in 10 years. This works out to an average savings of $800/year. 105 Blum, Andrew. "Solar Power Goes Urban at SF’s Moscone Center." The Sustainable Metropolis. Metropolis Magazine. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.metropolismag.com/html/sustainable/case/MosconeCenterSolar.html

106 “Mayor Newsom Dedicates Historic Solar Installation.” San Francisco Convention & Visitor’s Bureau. 19 March 2004. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.sfcvb.org/travel_media/press.asp?rid=124&cid=4. Over the next 30 years the solar generated electricity and energy efficiency measures will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 35,000 tons. 107 “Success Stories: Southeast Water Treatment Plant.” PowerLight. 15 Nov. 2006 http://www.powerlight.com/success/sfwaste.php 108 “Success Stories: Sonoma County Water Agency.” PowerLight. 15 Nov. 2006 http://www.powerlight.com/success/middlesex.php 109 “Case Study: Spirit Lake, Iowa”. Green Power. ICLEI. 10 Aug. 2006 http:www.greenpowergovs.org/wind/Spirit%20Lake%20case%20study.html 110 “Global Warming Can Be Fought On the Local Level”. Arizona Star 20 July 2006. Opinion sec. 10 Aug. 2006 http:www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/138597 111 Tucson Electric Power pays this money to the city for the rights to the methane. 112 “Brown Station Road On-Site Electrical Generation Project.” Landfill Methane Outreach Program. US EPA. 8 March 2006. 10 Aug. 2006 http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/prof/profile/brownstationroadonsiteele.htm 113 This is revenue to the county. The revenue averages $60,000/month which is $720,000/year.