Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2011 WCCMA Summer Conference
Semiahmoo Resort, Blaine Washington
Jeremy Eckert- Foster Pepper PLLC Dwight Miller PE- Parametrix Mary Smith- Snohomish County PUD David Webster- City of Bellingham Paul Ellis- City of Arlington
Jeremy Eckert 206.447.6284 | [email protected]
Sustainability After (during?) the Great Recession Washington City/County Management Association August 18, 2011
WHY YOU CARE
Tools exist to reduce or eliminate SEPA-based appeals for sustainable urban development.
When enacted, the tools reduce project costs and increase certainty for sustainable urban developers (and they also encourage economic development).
Some tools are available at limited (or no) cost to counties / cities.
Overview
1. Legal framework: GMA / SEPA 2. Case study demonstrating GMA / SEPA integration issues 3. GMA / SEPA integration tools: Categorical exemptions Upfront SEPA
Planned actions, infill exemption, transit infill review
Functional equivalence
4. Grant funding
Start with the law
SEPA in one bullet:
Protect the environment by evaluating project impacts before they occur
GMA in two bullets:
Put people in urban areas where infrastructure exists
See above (to keep farms and forests)
SEPA / GMA CASE STUDY
World’s Greenest Building Challenged Using the State’s Fundamental Environmental Law
Now is the time to encourage economic development and sustainable communities
How many times will project opponents use SEPA to challenge or block sustainable urban development?
The SEPA toolkit to encourage economic development and sustainable communities
1. Categorical exemptions
2. Three forms of upfront SEPA
3. Functional equivalence
1. Categorical Exemptions
Table 1: SEPA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS (WAC 197-11-800(1)(c))
Project Exemption Level
Residential Development 20 units
Multi-family Development 20 units
Commercial Development 12,000 square feet
2. Upfront SEPA : General Concept
12
2. Upfront SEPA : General Concept
12
2. Upfront SEPA : General Concept
12
2. Upfront SEPA : General Concept
12
2. Upfront SEPA Tools
Planned Actions
Infill Exemptions
Transit-infill Review
2. Upfront SEPA - Summary Table 2: “UPFRONT SEPA”
Planned Actions (RCW 43.21C.031)
Infill Exemption (RCW 43.21C.229)
Transit-Infill Review (RCW 43.21C.420)
Non-project EIS required?
Yes Yes Yes
City’s EIS cost recovery authorized?
No No Yes
Projects that may rely on non-project EIS
All projects in the specified subarea except essential public facilities
Only projects that are “mixed use” or residential
All projects in the specified subarea
“Shelf-life” of the non-project EIS
Not specified Not specified 10 years after the FEIS is issued
EIS notice provisions As provided in WAC 197-11-510
As provided in WAC 197-11-510
Extensive notice provisions
Project appeals? Subject to appeal under WAC 197-11-172(2)(b)
Subject to appeal under WAC 197-11-305
Not subject to administrative or judicial appeals if the project vests within ten years of the EIS’s issuance
3. Functional Equivalence
Local Government Eligibility: County, City, or Town planning under the GMA Requirements: Local government determines that a proposed project’s specific impacts are adequately
addressed by development regulations or other applicable requirements The project is consistent with established levels of service designated by the local government Pros: Reduces scope of SEPA appeal Local government does not incur any EIS cost Cons: Does not eliminate SEPA-based appeals Regulations authorize project opponents to identify “environmental impacts resulting from
changed conditions, impacts indicated by new information, [or] impacts not reasonably foreseeable in the GMA planning process.”
Legal: RCW 43.21C.240; WAC 197-11-158
EPA Grant Funding
Total Available Funding: $5.4 million
Purpose: To protect and restore watershed processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget Sound
Protecting and restoring watersheds
Managing land use
Eligible applicants: Local governments, tribes, non-profits
Pre-proposals due: September 19, 2011
Grant proposal ideas: Sub area planning, upfront SEPA, TDR program development, etc.
Summary
Tools exist to reduce or eliminate SEPA-based appeals at the project level
Reducing SEPA appeals encourages economic development and sustainable communities
Grant funding is available to enact sustainability initiatives at the local level
Triple Bottom-Line Benefits of Sustainability in Public Works
Dwight Miller, PE
Triple Bottom Line
Balancing Sustainability: • Societal (people) • Environmental (planet) • Economic (profits)
Question: How do you measure?
Achieving Sustainable Performance: Three Dimensions of Response
X. Project Life Cycle
Y. Range of Sustainable Performance
Z. Stakeholder Collaboration
Affected stakeholders
Regulatory institutions Partner organizations
Source: ISI
Measuring Sustainability
Rating Programs and Tools • Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) • Green Streets (LID Center) • Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) • Many others…
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI)
Founded in 2010 Partnership of APWA, ASCE, and ACEC Goal to develop a public works sustainability rating
system envision – proprietary tool “The philosophy of the ISI rating system approach
supports the recognition that infrastructure and industrial projects built and operated in the natural environment are not only consumers of natural resources capital but also human and economic capital resources.”
envision – Provide higher level of infrastructure:
Reliability Resilience Efficiency Organizational adaptability Overall project performance
Example
CIP Development Project identification in CIP Facility planning Facility design Construction Commissioning Operation
Benefits to the City/County Manager
• Meet Council/Commission mandates for sustainability
• Holistic approach to program/project planning through a life-cycle approach
• Meet system-wide sustainability goals, not just for buildings
• Meet community desire for “greening” of public infrastructure
• Build for 2050!
Environmental Sustainability after the Great Recession:
Exploring Opportunities to Leverage Utility Funding for Energy Efficiency and
Renewables
2011 Washington City/County Management Association
Summer Conference August 18, 2011
Electric Utility Service Areas Across the State
32
Snohomish PUD Quick Facts
Distribution Utility with elected Commission
12th Largest US Public Utility
319,000 Customers 13,000 C&I
958 employees 2010 Revenues $586M sales of 8,428,000 MWH
2,200 square miles
2009 Power Sources
Bonneville Power Admin 84%
Small-Scale Hydro 5%
Cogeneration 4%
Wind/Renewables 7% 33
General Manager’s Observation
“PUD’s strategic emphasis on Conservation & Renewables is not a passing fad and represents societal values, political and economic realities as well as regulatory and legal requirements.”
34
Steve Klein General Manager, Snohomish PUD
Snohomish PUD’s Resource Strategy
35
1. Pursue all cost-effective conservation energy efficiency measures
2. Pursue renewable resources Wind Pursue geothermal, tidal and solar resources Preference for resources in our county
3. Preserve flexibility
State Legislation I-937
• Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
Conservation is #1 Resource Lowest cost, lowest risk
resource for meeting future demand
Reduces need for new generating resources over next 20 years
Aligns with state, regional and federal requirements
Makes energy more affordable for residents; improves competitiveness of local businesses 36
Impact of Conservation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
aMW
Base Case Load with Existing Resources
Jackson Hydro Small Hydro Wind CoGen, LFG, BiomassBPA Base Case Load Target Conservation
Target Conservation of 126 aMW
Residential Program Highlights Efficient Appliance Rebates
Clothes Washers ($50 or $100)
Weatherization Incentives and Loans For electrically heated homes
Heat Pumps, Incentives and Loans Geothermal, air source and ductless
Efficient Lighting Buy-downs and Rebates At participating retailers and showrooms
Build with ENERGY STAR For builders & developers
Multi-Family Buildings For property owners and management
companies
Community Power!
38
Incentives for Comprehensive Efficiency Improvements in Existing Buildings & New Construction Lighting HVAC Production Efficiency and Process
Improvements
Rebates Lighting Commercial Kitchen
Equipment EnergySmart Grocers PC Power Management
Business Customer Programs
City of Mukilteo
Snohomish County Administration Building
Brightwater WWTP
Customer Solar Renewables Solar Express
72 Systems installed; 485 kW 8 Commercial projects: Two large installations for Snohomish School District
Demo Project at South County with technology comparison Customer Education Sessions
Planet Power Demo Projects 5 projects selected in 2010
Trinity Lutheran College Northwest Stream Center Skyview Junior High School The Clearwater School Brightwater Treatment Plant
41
Comprehensive program designed to work with local governments and community groups to provide service to customers that have been hard-to-reach with existing programs Tenant-occupied housing Small businesses Mid-income households
Achievements 2400 Multi-family Homes 100 Small Businesses 460 Residential Audits
Community Power! Pilot with ARRA $
42
Greensview Apartment Homes
144 Apartments
direct install Energy Star light fixtures, CFLs, faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads, smart powerstrips
upgrade of windows and common area lighting
ARRA Funds to Public Partners Federal / State grants have spurred interest in energy
efficiency projects - funding was granted to:
Funding from a mix of ARRA grants – approx. $6.8M total
• Snohomish County • City of Arlington • City of Marysville • City of Mountlake Terrace • Cities of Mill Creek /
Snohomish / Monroe
• City of Granite Falls • City of Edmonds • City of Everett • Tulalip Tribes • Stillaguamish Tribe • Sauk-Suiattle Tribe
43
PUD 10% Energy Challenge Energy Challenge encourages customers to reduce
consumption by 10% 3,500 residential participants 150 business locations
New participants: Everett and Edmonds Community Colleges, Snohomish County, Edmonds and Lake Stevens School District
If everyone meets their goal: Reduce our collective use by nearly 24.5 million kWh Save enough energy to power 1,950 homes Reduce CO2 emissions by 3,500 tons
44
Utility Energy Resource Needs Remain Energy Efficiency utility partnerships as part of your
Sustainability Initiatives • Utilities require cost-effectiveness and verified energy savings • Explore new avenues together to reach citizens with energy efficiency • CEEP recipients are working toward sustaining their business model
Fully participate in Utility programs for reduced costs and upfront incentives • Work with utilities, electric and gas to develop plan and identify projects • Seek out matching funds through grants • Facilities: Retrofit Lighting, HVAC , New construction • Non-Building projects: Waste-water, Traffic signals
Assist utilities with promoting utility programs to local business and citizens • Economic Development • Engage citizen groups involved with sustainability • Partner with new entities and/or enterprises where it makes sense
Thank you… Mary E. Smith, Senior Manager Energy Efficiency Snohomish County PUD
[email protected] 425.783.8778
46
47
Case Study: Bellingham’s Sustainability Momentum Despite Tough Times
August 18, 2011 WCCMA Summer Conference
48
Agenda
• Overview of Sustainability Framework • Structural Consistency • Select Initiatives and Funding
49
Sustainability Framework
2009
2009
Sustainability Overview
50
Community & Municipal Level Measurements of Program Success
2-7 Community Measures for each Legacy Project Team Identifies Example: “Decreased per capita residential electricity and natural gas use”
3-7 City Performance Measures for each Legacy Example: “Total electricity and natural gas use for municipal operations in core facilities”
2010-2011
2010-2011
Sustainability Overview
51
Public Accountability Metrics • Live on City’s web site in Q4 of 2011 • 95 visible metrics supporting the 9
Council Legacies • Linkages to Departmental Annual
Budgets and Workplans
52
53
54
Green Team Organization
Green Team Steering Committee
Government Green Team
Smart Growth Green Team
Sustainable Strategies
Council (community-wide)
Sustainability Overview
55
Green Team Steering Committee • Department Directors, Managers, Green
Team Chairs – Mission: Implement actions to achieve
sustainability goals o Align and allocate staff resources o Budget allocation authority for appropriate projects o Encourage new ideas Project Charter system Review and approve annual GT work programs Report progress to policy makers annually
Sustainability Overview
56
Policy & Program Areas
Municipal Operations
57
Green Team Projects
Recycling Bin Signs
CFL Bulb Recycling Workplace CSAs
Green Event Kits
“Landfill” Labels
Good On One Side (GOOS) Notepads
Municipal Operations
58
Case Study:
• Initiatives Amidst Recession • Funding Mechanisms
59
Community Energy Challenge
Making energy efficiency, accessible, affordable and attractive by creating a One Stop Shop for Energy
Efficiency in Whatcom County, Washington
60
Pioneering Partnerships Utility Companies
Non-profits & Educational Institutions
Financial Institutions
Local Governments
61
Energy Assessment Energy Advisor Assistance with utility rebates,
incentives and tax credits Attractive financing Vetted contractors 100% quality assurance
One Stop Energy Shop
Tackling Multiple Barriers
62
As of July 2011
Community Energy Challenge Results
• Program launched fully in July 2010 • More than 90 businesses participating • Saving an average of ~$500/year each
• ~500 Home energy assessments
completed • >200 projects completed; ~90 in
progress • 23% average energy cost reduction
• The equivalent of 15 full-time jobs
created • More than 60 positions being
supported
63
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations & Code Update
• Incentivize green infrastructure to achieve community goals
• Level 3 Community Charging Station; Level 2 for City operations fleet
• Alignment with State objectives & resources
Community Measures
64
Community Solar Project
• Potential for 75 -115 kW solar array on two facilities
• Public/Private Partnership • Maximize use of State &
Federal incentives • Sites = Sportsplex & Museum’s
Lightcatcher Building
Community Measures
65
Construction Waste Recycling & Innovative Engineering
• Construction waste recycling pilot • $70/ton recycle vs. $80/ton to dump • BHA efficiency & conservation
improvements
• Northshore Dr., Fraser St., Flynn St.
Community Measures
66
• Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant - federal stimulus $170K
• Performance Contracting Project $6.5 million • Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds • Upgrades to 22 city facilities
Resource Conservation Management Program
Municipal Operations
67
• Utilization of existing infrastructure • Formulation of Energy Utility • Sustainable revenue stream • High renewable energy development • Multiple environmental benefits
Potential Hydro-Electric Project
Municipal Operations
68
Presented by: David Webster Chief Administrative Officer/Sustainability Coordinator [email protected] (360) 778-8100 Contact: [email protected]
Questions?
