Chapter 5

Strategies for Creating Low-Carbon Communities

A low-carbon community is one that has eliminated all or nearly all human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, such a community is usually addressing any residual emissions through carbon sequestration and carbon-offset initiatives. Those in the low-carbon community movement go by a number of names, such as zero-carbon, net-zero, carbon-free, carbon-neutral, and climate-friendly communities. These communities also seek not just to reduce emissions but to enhance overall sustainability and livability. A number of cities around the world have made bold announcements (also see figure 5.1):

Figure 5-1 Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNCA) long-term and interim GHG reduction targets of member cities

Source: Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, Framework for Long-Term Deep Carbon Reduction Planning (2017), https://carbonneutralcities.org.

To become a low-carbon or carbon-neutral community requires following a path to what has come to be called “deep decarbonization.” Deep decarbonization has three pillars:

For communities, these have a number of implications. Energy efficiency and conservation suggests less driving and greater use of transit, bicycling, and walking; green buildings through better codes, incentives, and retrofit programs; and public education about the merits and benefits of conservation. Low-carbon electricity suggests solar rooftops and other renewable energy strategies; municipal or community-based utilities with the ability to develop or purchase carbon-free electricity; and support of state and national efforts to move utilities to renewable energy. Fuel-switching suggests electric vehicles and the supporting infrastructure, especially charging stations; all or mostly electric homes and businesses; and switching from propane and natural gas tools, appliances, and systems to electricity (in careful coordination with the other two pillars). These are not merely technical challenges; they will require changes in behavior and culture around how we build, manage, and live in our communities.

Deep decarbonization requires the adoption of low-carbon strategies (a.k.a. GHG emissions reduction or mitigation strategies) that eliminate or reduce the emissions of GHGs and sequester or offset remaining emissions. The development of these strategies is an iterative process that should balance the GHG reduction potential, up-front and ongoing costs, and social and political feasibility. Most reduction strategies have benefits beyond emissions reduction; these are called “co-benefits.” For example, reducing GHG emissions can also lower ground-level ozone concentrations in a community, which will yield public health benefits, especially for those who suffer from asthma or other respiratory conditions. The development of reduction strategies should be seen not only as an opportunity to address climate change but as a chance to position a community to become more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable.

Because GHG emissions result from a range of urban processes, operations, and behaviors, successful reduction of GHG emissions relies not only on governmental action but also on the commitment of community members and collaboration with business, industry, and community organizations. Many members of a community, including business and industry, have embraced green or sustainability principles and seek to be involved in efforts that show their commitment to a better environment. They bring resources, audiences, and ideas that local governments may not.

GHG emissions reduction is an increasingly common area of policy development. As a result, there are many resources that provide examples of successful reduction strategies. The challenge for communities is identifying those strategies that best meet local needs. This chapter provides guidance for developing such reduction strategies. It does not provide a comprehensive list of emissions reduction best practices; these continually evolve and are available in other resources (see the “Additional Resources” section at the end of the book). Instead, it identifies the key issues and decisions that must be addressed during reduction strategy development. Reduction strategy development builds on data collected through the emissions inventory, policy audit, and public participation process.

Developing Low-Carbon Strategies

One of the first tasks in developing reduction strategies is to organize the community partners and the public to establish a participation process as discussed in chapters 2 and 3. Regardless of how this is done, those teams that will brainstorm, develop, and finalize the reduction strategies must work through the following considerations:

  1. 1. What are the key sectors of the community to target for the most effective and efficient reduction of GHG emissions?
  2. 2. How will the strategies be specified to ensure effectiveness?
  3. 3. What level of analysis will be conducted to estimate the GHG emissions reductions of the proposed strategies, if any?
  4. 4. How will the strategies be evaluated?
  5. 5. What should a strategy include?

Targeting Key Sectors

One of the first steps in low-carbon strategy development is careful evaluation of the GHG emissions inventory (see chapter 4), policy audit (see chapter 2), and community characteristics. These provide data necessary to identify areas of focus for the development of reduction strategies that will best meet the needs and capabilities of the community.

The sectors shown in the GHG emissions inventory to contribute most to local emissions should be targeted in the reduction strategies. For example, in a community where a large percentage of GHG emissions come from a coal plant that produces electricity used in local buildings, a strategy should be to reduce electricity use and perhaps explore renewable energy sources.

The local policy audit, introduced in chapter 2, should be conducted around the time of the emissions inventory. The audit identifies community policies already in place that may support or be in conflict with reduction goals. For example, many communities already have programs to improve energy or water efficiency that also reduce local GHG emissions. Policies such as developing cooling centers or planned low-density development have the potential to conflict with emissions reduction goals. Current and pending national, state, and regional policy should also be included in the policy audit to evaluate changes outside of local control that may influence local emissions. These policies can include federal fuel-efficiency standards for passenger automobiles or requirements for the percentage of renewable energy supplied by energy providers (i.e., renewable energy portfolio standards).

Finally, a set of basic community characteristics is important to complement these resources, including data such as the distribution of housing stock (age of structures and structure type); recent permit and building activity; typical commute length; demographic and economic data such as age, income distribution, and housing affordability; and environmental data such as topography, temperature profile, wind patterns, and solar exposure. Some of this can be found in the U.S. Census American Community Survey data; some may be available from state or regional agencies, if not available locally. These data provide a strong basis for local strategy development and prioritization. The assumptions used for the business-as-usual forecast in the emissions inventory, such as population, housing, jobs, and transportation growth rates, serve a similar role in the formulation of reduction strategies. For example, slow-growth communities (~ < 1% per year) or communities where the building stock consists primarily of older structures will need to focus more specifically on retrofitting existing buildings to achieve energy efficiency improvements than a rapidly growing region that can more easily achieve efficiency improvements by imposing standards on new construction. Community data can provide additional understanding of the inventory data. For example, a community that has a large incoming daily commute due to housing affordability can address two sources of emissions by focusing on building green, affordable housing. This reduces transportation emissions by reducing commute length and reduces residential energy use through construction of energy-efficient housing.

In summary, a community should answer questions such as the following when beginning development of reduction strategies. These questions can be adjusted and/or supplemented depending on local conditions.

Specifying Effective and Appropriate Reduction Strategies

Strategies that serve to reduce GHG emissions take three forms: mandates, incentives or disincentives, and voluntary actions. The choice of strategy type must be made with careful consideration of the local context. The policy audit can be helpful here, since much can be learned from existing community strategies that have proven successful. This helps clarify the full range of policy options, which is important for the process of balancing necessary reduction areas against other community needs.

Mandates may have higher costs or face greater political resistance, but more confidence can be placed in the emissions reductions being realized. For example, a strategy that requires an energy efficiency building retrofit at the point of sale or major renovation is likely to be far more effective in reducing emissions than an incentive program that offers a small rebate to community members willing to voluntarily update household appliances to improve energy efficiency. But requiring such an upgrade may meet some resistance. Mandates should also be evaluated with consideration given to which members of a community are most likely impacted (e.g., bearing the bulk of the cost or excluded due to increased costs). Social justice considerations should be paramount in ensuring that the most vulnerable in a community do not bear a disproportionate or unfair burden.

Incentives and disincentives can take many forms. They may be monetary, such as paying a fee or penalty for an action that increases GHG emissions or a rebate or other incentive payment for an action that decreases them. A common set of examples are rebate programs to incentivize the purchase of LED lightbulbs, energy-efficient appliances, electric vehicles, and other energy-saving actions, though these are usually federal, state, or utility programs. Incentives and disincentives can be nonmonetary as well: for example, a local government could offer expedited permitting for energy efficiency upgrades or solar panel installation, or they could restrict parking or increase parking fees to discourage people from driving to a dense urban core (encouraging them to take other modes of transportation instead).

Voluntary actions can be very attractive politically, but they require more diligence to ensure effectiveness. In general, voluntary measures should be accompanied by strong outreach and education strategies that ensure that those in the community know about the measure and also understand why they should take voluntary action.

Strategy types should also be combined, particularly for strategies that are politically challenging. Successful phasing in of new mandates in the face of political opposition can begin with outreach and education to build community support for the strategy, followed by an incentive program to encourage voluntary compliance, and only then should the proposed changes be required. Many emissions-reducing strategies rely, in part, on voluntary behavior change. As a result, combining incentives and education with strategies such as the provision of new infrastructure bolsters long-term effectiveness.

Evaluating Reduction Strategies

A community may identify many reduction strategies, but only some of them will be appropriate. Therefore, there should be a process to evaluate and prioritize each reduction strategy to ensure that it meets a community’s needs and constraints. Identification of local needs and constraints and the establishment of the process necessary for this assessment begin with the formation of the climate action team (CAT; chapter 2) and community outreach (chapter 3). Climate action planning should include disclosure of the analysis of elements that contribute to the selection and prioritization of strategies. This information allows for greater transparency in the planning process and more clearly sets a path for implementation. The questions listed here should be addressed through the work of the CAT and through a public participation process for each reduction strategy considered. Others can be added based on local need. These questions are interrelated. For example, the need for funding may delay strategy implementation, which will subsequently adjust the emissions reduction estimates.

What Is the Potential Emissions Reduction That Will Result from the Strategy’s Implementation?

The amount of GHG emissions reduction possible from each strategy should be compared to assess the relative value of each. Chapter 4 includes details on the methods for doing quantification. It isn’t necessarily the case that strategies with the highest amount of GHG emissions reduction should be prioritized; they may be difficult to implement, expensive, or not widely supported. The emissions reduction is only one factor among many. Once all strategies are identified, the GHG emissions quantification then plays an additional role of allowing those in a community to see what their total reductions will be if all strategies are implemented. This should be an iterative process that gets the community to its overall GHG reduction target.

How Long Will It Take to Begin Implementation of the Strategy?

In some cases, a strategy can be universally hailed by staff, the community, and advisory bodies but still require a series of actions to be completed prior to the start of implementation. This can be as simple as the time it takes to update or amend the comprehensive plan or drafting a new ordinance. In other cases, this may involve securing funding through grants or a local fee system to initiate a program. The choice of who will be implementing the strategy will also affect timing, since priorities and capacities will vary. Each measure should be evaluated for how soon it can realistically be implemented.

How Long Will It Take for the Strategy to Be Fully Implemented?

Full implementation refers to the time it will take to achieve the estimated emissions reduction. For example, a new ordinance can be adopted in the short term. This implements the strategy; however, the experience of the subsequent emissions reductions will be distributed through time. In some cases, a strategy will identify a change that will take many years to fully achieve. For example, a green building ordinance aimed at new residences in a slow-growing community will likely produce benefits at a much slower rate than a strategy aimed at retrofitting existing residences.

What Are the Costs (Initial and Ongoing) of Implementing the Strategy?

The high up-front cost is one of the biggest limitations of climate-friendly strategies such as building retrofits for energy efficiency, renewable energy, or vehicle upgrades. This is a critical factor for evaluating and planning for strategy implementation. If a funding mechanism is not identified for a strategy, time to raise necessary funds must be planned into the phasing of strategies. The initial costs of a strategy can be a critical consideration when prioritizing it for immediate implementation. Given the limited budgets of local governments, funds must be carefully allocated.

In addition to initial costs, many projects carry ongoing costs of implementation, including materials, maintenance, and administration. Accurate estimation of these costs and a way to budget these funds are both vital to reduction measure formulation. Often these costs can be covered through adjustments in fee structures such as more aggressive tiered pricing for water or the establishment of a fund to hold impact fees from new development. However, adjustments in fees must also be accompanied by an evaluation of which populations or community members will be most impacted. This addresses the issue of who bears the costs and who receives the benefits. This can be difficult politically and raises issues of fairness and social justice. Communities should ensure that the costs of strategy implementation are not unfairly borne by a narrow sector of the community, especially those least well-off.

Cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit analysis, refers to a comparison of the costs and benefits (and possibly co-benefits) of a strategy. Communities can evaluate emissions reduction strategies based on their dollar cost per ton of GHG emissions reduced. They can also compare the cost of the strategy to the monetary return or savings to the local government or to the public. For example, Santa Barbara County, California, estimated the costs and savings of several energy efficiency programs for homeowners, showing how the investments were cost effective.2 Comparing strategies on cost-effectiveness can allow communities to identify how to get the biggest bang for their buck.

What Is the Political and Social Feasibility of the Strategy?

Awareness of potential political challenges is important during strategy formulation. These difficulties can be addressed in a variety of ways, such as direct engagement with concerned stakeholders to devise a more palatable approach, including outreach and education as part of implementation, and careful choice of wording to avoid pitfalls. Strategies to identify community priorities and concerns are discussed in chapter 3.

There should also be consideration given to how responsive the “target” will be to the strategy. For example, an ad campaign to get people to drive less may be fairly simple to create, but it may be a difficult way to successfully realize the emissions reduction, since it requires people to change ingrained behaviors. On the other hand, having a city council raise parking meter rates will assuredly result in a change in parking usage and revenues, although this may meet political opposition. Some communities refer to this issue as “ease of implementation.”

Communities are unique. Some climate strategies will fit right in with the current ethos of a community; others might be seen as radical. For example, new bicycle initiatives or public spending on bicycle infrastructure is likely to be easily welcomed in Boulder, Colorado, a city that takes pride in its bike culture. A strategy aimed at creating green jobs is likely to be similarly welcomed in communities with high unemployment rates.

Are There Co-benefits to the Strategy’s Implementation?

Climate action planning is just one aspect of community planning and can be viewed as an opportunity to meet a variety of local goals. Strategies that carry benefits beyond mitigating climate change are most easily promoted to the public as well as decision-makers. Categories of co-benefits include the following:

Of these, cost savings and energy conservation are the most common desired co-benefits. Some communities organize their climate action planning around these as their primary benefits and treat GHG emissions reductions as the co-benefits.

Prioritizing the Strategies

Once the evaluation is complete, there are several methods for using the results to rank the strategies. The most straightforward is to pick a single criterion, then choose the strategies that perform best on that criterion. For example, some communities prioritize cost-effectiveness—they are looking for the greatest emissions reduction for the least cost—whereas others have identified co-benefits as the most important criterion. The challenge arises when multiple criteria are used to rank strategies. In this case, each strategy can be scored on each criterion, then the scores can be added up and strategies ranked based on the best overall scores. The scores can be weighted by adding bonus points or multipliers to the most important criteria.

Contents of a Reduction Strategy

An emissions reduction strategy should contain enough detail that it can be implemented; it should be written as more than a goal. For example, a desired outcome may be “increase transit ridership by 5%.” This is a good goal, but it is not a strategy because it does not contain enough information or describe how the goal will be met. Instead, there should be a specific set of actions that, if taken, would result in increasing ridership by 5%, such as a marketing campaign, fare reductions, or routing changes.

The strategy may be relatively brief for inclusion in a planning document if detailed implementation information is provided elsewhere or developed in a follow-up implementation phase. It can also be a fully developed program, ordinance, code, or project. Regardless, best practice suggests that reduction strategies should include five pieces of information: an estimate of GHG reductions, a funding source, a phasing plan (how soon can it be implemented and how long it will take), an entity or department responsible for implementation, and the identification of an indicator that will allow for effectiveness to be monitored. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 8.

Emissions-Reduction Strategy Sectors

Reduction strategies are usually organized in sectors similar to those in the GHG emissions inventory: transportation and land use, energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon sequestration, agriculture, industry, waste, green living, and offsets. When local governments develop strategies, they should develop both community-wide strategies and local government operations (a.k.a. municipal operations) strategies. Community-wide strategies are those that apply to the broader community, including industry, businesses, residents, visitors, and the public in general. Local government operations strategies are those that directly affect how a local government operates itself, such as facilities construction and management, energy use, vehicle fleets, procurement, and employee commuting and work travel.

Communities often choose to lead by example. This can take the form of adopting more aggressive targets for local government operations or more aggressive implementation plans for reduction strategies that specifically target local government operations and employees. Many communities choose to do this because these are the aspects of the community over which local officials have the most control. A local government can simply transition to more fuel-efficient fleet vehicles as part of standard turnover, which is much easier than devising policy that would result in a community-wide move to improved fuel efficiency. Despite the differences in ease of implementation, the emissions sectors in which strategies can be devised are consistent with those for community-wide reduction strategies. For this reason, the discussion of sectors does not distinctly break out local government operations.

Transportation and Land Use

In the United States, transportation accounts for about 28% of all GHG emissions.3 These emissions are from the combustion of fossil fuels, including gasoline in personal vehicles, diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles, and jet fuel in aircraft. The Moving Cooler report prepared by the Urban Land Institute identifies four basic approaches to the reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector: vehicle technology, fuel technology, vehicle and system operations, and travel activity.4 The first of these two areas largely falls outside of the influence of communities, since they are tied to state and federal policy and funding and the evolution of technology, so the focus is on the latter two. The necessary reductions in transportation emissions will require a variety of approaches. Moving Cooler states the following:

The United States cannot reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels—a commonly accepted target for climate stabilization—unless the transportation sector contributes, and the transportation sector cannot do its fair share through vehicle and fuel technology alone. The increase in vehicular travel across the nation’s sprawling urban areas needs to be dramatically reduced, reversing trends that go back decades.5

To address the issue of vehicular travel—usually measured as the total or average number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in a community—the Moving Cooler report recommends developing reduction strategies in nine areas:

These strategies to reduce transportation emissions are aimed at affecting three variables: transportation mode (e.g., the type of vehicle or conveyance), travel distance, and efficiency (see box 5.1 for examples). Changing transportation mode is usually described as “alternative transportation” and involves strategies encouraging community members to change their mode of travel by shifting to walking, bicycling, micromobility options (e.g., electric scooters), or transit instead of private vehicles. Changing travel distance often falls under the concept of smart growth, which recognizes that the distribution of land uses influences travel behavior. Long-term land use planning can aim to shorten the distance between residential areas and common destinations. This reduces the number of miles traveled by vehicle and makes alternative transportation more feasible. Changing efficiency includes a move to more fuel-efficient vehicles, alternative fuels, or hybrid or electric vehicles or an increase in the average number of passengers in a vehicle (carpooling). The various ways to address transportation emissions can be taken together to guide urban design principles for accessible services and streets that accommodate all forms of transportation and all members of society, referred to as “complete streets.”7

Many strategies that reduce transportation-related emissions also provide the co-benefits of improvements to air quality and human health and safety. Many lower the costs of transportation, since transit, bicycling, micromobility options (scooters, skateboards, etc.), and walking are less expensive than driving. In addition, strategies that improve the safety of pedestrian travel, such as vegetated medians, also promote carbon sequestration, improve stormwater management, and enhance overall aesthetics. Land use strategies that place residents and services (school, employment, grocery, etc.) in close proximity have the potential to promote community cohesion and quality of life.

Shifting to Alternative Transportation Modes

Because the choice to replace a vehicular trip with walking, biking, micromobility, or public transit is voluntary, education, outreach, and other programs to encourage behavior change are often critical to emissions reduction. In parallel with improving the availability of travel options, many cities conduct extensive outreach and incentive programs. These strategies can include bicycle safety education programs, the provision of bicycle and transit maps, and discount transit passes. Another way to influence travel mode is by working with employers to develop incentives for employees who choose to commute using an alternative to a private vehicle.

Encouraging a shift to alternative travel modes requires that walking, bicycling, public transit, or other travel options are convenient and accessible to all community members. Evaluating the opportunity for and constraints of alternative travel modes as well as the factors that influence community willingness to utilize them contributes to the development of effective policies.

Alternative transportation strategies yield emissions reductions only when they replace a trip that would have yielded higher emissions. Therefore, the types of trips that can be replaced dictate which types of alternative transportation options to emphasize. Walking, biking, and micromobility strategies are most effective for reducing VMT from the portion of vehicular trips that begin and end within the community, especially at the neighborhood or downtown scale. Walking and bicycling reduction strategies may include an expansion or improvement of infrastructure (bike routes and sidewalks) to ensure that walking and biking can be safely enjoyed by all community members. Micromobility is relatively new, and most communities are still working out how to best plan for and manage this option.

The emissions associated with trips that originate or end outside the community are best addressed through public transit or ride-sharing programs in the short term and by land use that reduces the need for longer trips in the long term. The choice of where to focus efforts can be made through careful evaluation of existing alternative transportation networks and by soliciting community input regarding needed improvements and identified barriers (e.g., perceptions of danger, convenience, and weather patterns). Bus or train travel can be encouraged through expanded routes, hours of operation, or stops.

In some cases, it may be necessary to combine strategies because emissions reductions cannot be separated. For example, if a community increases the number of bike paths, improves lighting, and adds bicycle storage, it is difficult to assign particular reductions to any one of these strategies individually. In this case, an overall increase in bicycle mode share could be assumed. However, assumptions about eventual shifts in the mode share of bicycling must be supported through demonstration that the community may be able to achieve this level of ridership. A more detailed manner of quantifying transportation shifts can be made by assuming that a portion of the community will increase their reliance on alternative travel options (this can be done separately for walking, biking, and public transit). The next question is to decide what portion of the population will change their travel behavior and what portion of their vehicle trips will be replaced. For example, improved bicycle infrastructure with accompanying education and incentive programs may result in 5% more community members riding their bikes. Of these 5%, it could be assumed that they reduce their average daily VMT by 50%. In addition, an average fuel efficiency must be identified that provides a GHG per VMT constant. A GHG reduction would then be calculated via the following equation:

Estimated GHG reduction = [community population × 5%] × [average daily VMT per capita × 50%] × GHG per VMT

Growing Smarter to Reduce Travel Distance

Reduced distance between residential areas, employment centers, and services such as grocery stores not only shortens the distance traveled by car but also makes alternative travel modes more convenient. Specific populations and those with the longest commutes should be targeted. Low-income residents may be forced to commute longer distances due to the availability of less-expensive housing in outlying areas. An inclusive housing policy in areas closer to jobs and amenities (often referred to as jobs–housing balance) may help reduce daily miles traveled. Reduced travel distances can be encouraged by altering land use policy to encourage smart growth and by providing incentives to developers for infill or mixed-use development (see box 5.2).

The emissions consequences from mixed-use and infill development are difficult to quantify. These changes in land use patterns alter VMT and improve the feasibility of alternative transportation options. Quantifying these changes can be completed as a rough estimate through a reduction in per-capita VMT from the business-as-usual forecast in the emissions inventory.

Increasing Travel Efficiency

Encouraging community members to carpool or utilize higher-efficiency vehicles such as hybrids, electric vehicles, or high-fuel-efficiency vehicles can be achieved by making these options more convenient than the alternative. Designated lanes or parking for carpool, hybrid, and electric vehicles provide incentives for use, and increased parking or driving fees (such as congestion pricing) are disincentives for driving. Providing electric vehicle charging at workplaces and retail destinations is an increasingly common incentive.

There are several emerging vehicle technologies that are raising considerable uncertainties regarding future travel behavior, especially VMT. These are transportation network companies (TNCs, also called “ride-sharing”) such as Uber and Lyft, micromobility options such as electric scooter services from Lime and Bird, and autonomous vehicles, most notably from Waymo (Google), Uber, and Tesla. These technologies have been touted for their potential to reduce VMT and GHG emissions, especially when they are powered by electricity. But early evidence suggests that they may mostly be replacing trips that were previously taken by foot, bike, or transit8 and that they may be increasing VMT.9 It is still too early to know for certain how these technologies will affect our communities, so it is best to exercise caution when considering these technologies in climate action planning.

Energy Efficiency

GHG emissions are produced in the generation of electricity using fossil fuels and through the direct use of other fuels, such as natural gas or propane. These energy sources are used primarily in buildings for lighting, appliances and devices, heating, and cooling. Measures that improve energy efficiency reduce GHG emissions. Greater efficiency can be achieved in a variety of ways, from energy-efficient appliances and fixtures and building materials such as insulation or high-efficiency windows to solar orientation and use of trees for shade (see box 5.3). There is a well-established knowledge base for improved energy efficiency in buildings broadly referred to as “green building.” Energy efficiency, which includes reduced heating, cooling, and water demand, can be achieved through a variety of complementary strategies. There are many resources from which to draw strategies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Green Building Council, and Build It Green.

In addition to building design, energy use in buildings is associated with the behaviors of occupants. The choice of indoor temperature and the act of turning off lights and other energy-using appliances, including computers when they are not in use, are examples of how occupant behavior influences energy demand. Community members may not be aware of the energy demand resulting from various choices. The first step in changing energy use choices is increasing awareness through extensive outreach and education. Altering the pricing structure of energy can also yield changes in behavior, but the effectiveness of this measure will likely be higher when paired with outreach. Increasingly, builders and homeowners are choosing “smart” lighting and thermostats that make conservation easier. Programs that support the purchasing and use of these devices should be supported.

Programs that target behavior change are often implemented in combination with other strategies such as incentive programs or pricing adjustments. If a program that seeks to alter user behavior is used to support another strategy, there should not be a separate estimate of emissions reduction. Instead, the outreach should be viewed as part of the implementation plan for the strategy it supports.

The other area in which energy efficiency can be improved is in governmental services and infrastructure, such as the treatment and conveyance of water and the regulation of streets. The energy required to treat and deliver water throughout a community can be reduced in two ways: (1) improve the energy efficiency of pumps and treatment plant operations and (2) reduce demand for water, which lowers the volume of water requiring treatment and delivery. Streetlights and traffic signals require a considerable amount of energy in dense urban settings. Many communities are now switching to LED lighting and using smart systems to control the lighting.

Energy efficiency strategies have many co-benefits. Retrofitting existing buildings and constructing new energy-efficient buildings contribute to a community’s resilience in the face of climate impacts. For example, green roofs have the potential to sequester carbon, reduce energy use, and provide protection to inhabitants facing heat-related climate impacts. In addition, a local requirement for energy-efficient construction creates a demand for specific construction expertise that has the potential to promote an area of economic growth. Finally, reduced energy demand lowers the monthly costs for residents, making housing more affordable.

Three areas in which to target energy efficiency strategies—existing buildings, new structures, and water treatment and delivery—are discussed in the following sections.

Existing Buildings

Community-wide improvement in energy efficiency must address the structures already in place. In many cases, considerable energy savings can be achieved through retrofitting existing buildings, particularly those that predate modern building codes. The efficiency of these structures can be upgraded in a variety of ways. Buyers of existing buildings or homes can be required to upgrade fixtures such as lightbulbs or appliances at the point of sale. Rebate or microloan programs are also commonly used to offset the up-front cost for more expensive building retrofits such as insulation or windows.

Many of these strategies not only reduce energy needs but also remove GHGs from the atmosphere. For example, installing a green roof can improve insulation and natural shading as well as introduce plants that can sequester carbon. Similarly, planting street trees along the sides of buildings with the highest solar exposure reduces energy demand by regulating indoor air temperature, improves the quality of the streetscape, and sequesters carbon.

If a strategy supports or requires retrofitting a particular aspect of building operation, the required information for quantifying the strategy is best obtained from the manufacturer of the item (e.g., appliances or windows) or from the agency that regulates appliance efficiency (e.g., the Energy Star Program or the Department of Energy Home Energy Saver). The other necessary information is an estimate of existing energy use (from the emissions inventory) and participation rates.

New Structures

New building requirements are more easily implemented because energy-saving strategies can be included in the design and budgeting of a project and can be a requirement for permitting. The manner in which new development is regulated varies, meaning the opportunities for promoting or mandating green building are similarly varied. Specific green building policies can specify actions such as requiring energy efficiency as a condition of permit approval, which is often referred to as a green building ordinance. Such requirements can also be part of a larger green building program where minimum building standards are set and incentives such as expedited processing are provided for more advanced green building techniques.

Water Treatment and Delivery

Reducing the energy required to treat and convey water and wastewater can be achieved through upgrading the pumps and other equipment required for treatment and delivery or reducing community water demand. Decreasing water demand can be achieved by upgrading water fixtures (such as toilets, sinks, and showers). It can also be achieved through increased participation of households in rainwater capture or graywater systems or citywide water recycling. These strategies can be implemented to serve nonpotable uses such as irrigation of yards and landscaped areas.

Water use can also be limited through landscaping and yard vegetation choices. Outdoor water use is one of the largest consumers of potable water in the United States. Vegetation choices that require less water can result in substantial reductions in water use for residential yards and irrigated park areas. Communities can promote these changes through educational materials such as planting guides, incentives such as cash-for-grass programs that compensate for the removal of residential lawns, or mandates such as vegetation and irrigation requirements on building permits. Quantification of these measures draws heavily on data in the emissions inventory, including a conversion factor of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per gallon of treated water and the average water use per household. Using these constants, the estimated gallons of water saved can be converted to CO2e based on the anticipated effectiveness of and participation in a program. Energy use by existing pumps can be directly measured, and new pumps are rated, so assessing the efficiency of water conveyance pumps and lifts is relatively straightforward.

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy—such as solar, wind, or biomass—provides electricity and heat without the same level of GHG emissions associated with traditional energy sources. The addition of local renewable energy generation lowers GHG intensity (GHG per unit energy). The largest deterrent for renewable energy is the initial cost of installation. The most appropriate type of renewable energy varies regionally based on factors such as solar exposure, available surface or land area, wind speed, biomass sources, coastal conditions, geothermal resources, and social acceptance of the proposed technology. Once a renewable energy technology or suite of technologies has been selected, implementation requires a series of actions, including a funding mechanism, the choice between distributed and centralized generation, and the phasing of implementation. Funding renewable energy has been an area of considerable innovation and creativity (see box 5.4). Traditional funding mechanisms include allocation of local funds, external investment by the private sector, or grant dollars procured from an outside entity. In addition to these funding sources, there are increasingly creative means of funding renewable energy, including providing investment opportunities for local residents, developing a microgrant or loan program, and funding renewable energy through impact fees for environmentally damaging actions.

Quantifying reductions in GHG emissions from renewable energy requires that assumptions be made about the efficiency of energy technology (e.g., wind and solar energy capture rates), the local availability of these sources, and the potential locations for installation. National maps of solar and wind potential are now available, and in many regions, maps have been generated that have higher resolution. Implementing renewable energy strategies has the potential to complicate the quantification of energy efficiency measures. Because renewable energy changes the energy intensity (GHG per kWh), it also influences the reductions experienced as part of improved efficiency. As the percentage of the electricity supplied from renewable sources increases, the GHG reduction from efficiency measures decreases. It can also influence phasing of energy strategies where efficiency makes the most sense as a short-term goal.

One of the important co-benefits of renewable energy programs is that they foster local economic growth by employing the workforce needed to install the systems and, if materials are manufactured locally, the employees of the manufacturer. In addition, renewable energy increases human and ecosystem health due to removal of air pollution associated with energy generation from fossil fuels.

Carbon Sequestration

In addition to trying to reduce emissions, climate strategies may take the approach of capturing some of the carbon and sequestering it in terrestrial vegetation (e.g., trees) and soil. Terrestrial vegetation, such as forests, sequesters carbon through increasing the volume of woody mass. Trees can be used as a shade crop in agricultural practices, as street trees in cities, and for larger-scale reforestation projects. Particularly in urban areas, trees provide shade for structures, which improves energy efficiency and the pedestrian environment, making alternative transportation more appealing. The type of vegetation should be considered carefully to ensure consistency with the local climate and soil conditions, as well as the intended role of the vegetation in addition to carbon capture.

Soil carbon sequestration refers to the organic content of soils such as leaf litter and other biomass. Strategies to increase soil carbon content directly address widespread soil degradation. To sequester carbon, the soil carbon must be stored long term and not released back into the atmosphere. Successful implementation of soil sequestration strategies also improves soil and agricultural productivity. A variety of methods can be used to increase soil carbon levels that should be chosen based on local conditions, including no-till or conservation tillage farming practices, use of cover crops, management of the nutrient input to soils, agroforestry, woodland regeneration, crop rotation, and improved grazing practices.10

Quantification of GHG reductions due to sequestration relies on improvements in vegetative uptake or change in conditions from the baseline established in the emissions inventory. Newly planted vegetation such as street trees or wind breaks and newly introduced soil management practices are quantified, whereas contributions from existing green spaces that predate the climate planning effort are not because they are assumed to be included in the baseline. The estimated sequestration possible for vegetation such as street trees varies by climate region, tree species, and age. Many state forestry departments and universities provide lists that estimate sequestration potential that is regionally accurate. Similarly, soil carbon content varies by climate, soil type, and land activity.

Agriculture Management

Agriculture, which accounts for 9% of U.S. GHG emissions,11 has been identified as an area with significant emissions reduction potential through carbon sequestration and alternative management practices. Thus far, climate planning has been largely focused on cities, but the more recent emergence of regional efforts and county plans has required agriculture to be addressed directly.

Including rural areas in climate planning will require the measurement of annual variability in emissions associated with agriculture. The fluctuations in agricultural emissions result from variations in climate, soil type, and agricultural practice. In addition, the longevity and permanence of sequestration efforts can vary. Carbon sequestration in agricultural lands is effective for a specific duration of time (e.g., 15–30 years). Shifts in management practices can reverse the benefits resulting from a reduction strategy. Many argue that this results in agriculture being best pursued in the short term, providing time for more expensive or time-intensive strategies such as large-scale renewable energy or land use change to be implemented.

Agricultural practice is vulnerable to potential shifts in temperature and precipitation that are projected to result from climate change. It is possible to devise reduction strategies that have the co-benefit of bolstering adaptive capacity, but not all strategies meet both reduction and adaptation goals. For example, increased food production intended to bolster local food security can be achieved through converting additional land to agriculture and/or increasing the application of fertilizers. Both of these actions have the potential to increase emissions. Conversely, some reduction strategies have the potential to reduce production, placing them in conflict with adaptation needs. As a result, agricultural emissions reduction strategies must be carefully identified and constructed to ensure the best balance among reduction, adaptation, and local needs such as food supply, ecosystem protection, and local employment. Reduction strategy development must be conducted in close collaboration with local agricultural communities to ensure feasibility and regionally appropriate strategies.

A wide variety of strategies can reduce agricultural GHG emissions (see box 5.5). The choice of action will depend on factors such as the local environmental condition, type of agriculture, current management practices, soil properties, local climate, economics, and local workforce. Reduction strategies can be broken down into a set of broad categories: carbon sequestration (discussed in the prior section), livestock management, and rice paddy and wetland strategies (not addressed in this book).

Livestock has climate and other environmental impacts associated with soil degradation, methane output, biodiversity loss, water usage, and land use change. The strategies discussed earlier as part of the sequestration section also apply to grazing lands. This section focuses on two sources of emissions associated directly with animals: ruminant digestion and manure management. Ruminants (cows, goats, sheep, llamas, etc.) release methane, which has 28 times the global warming potential of CO2, as part of the digestive process. Methane emissions are higher when an animal’s diet is poor.12 One way to curb these emissions is through improved nutrition. There are feedstuffs with increased digestibility that can take the form of feed additives. Another strategy is a move to more efficient animals that are monogastric, such as poultry.13 The expense of changing animal feed is partially offset by findings that animals grow larger and milk production increases with more easily digested feed. Other strategies that reduce methane production are herd health programs.

The other source of GHGs associated with livestock animals is derived from manure, which also results in methane production. Similar to the direct emissions, a shift in livestock feed can limit some of the methane production. A low carbon-to-nitrogen ratio results in increased emissions from manure. If the collected manure can be stored at a warmer temperature or outdoors in temperate climates, emissions will be lower. The manure can also be handled in a digester, a closed vessel with controlled conditions. Technology already exists not only to reduce the emissions but to generate energy from the biogas produced in the digester.14

Quantification of agricultural measures should be tied directly to assumptions in the emissions inventory. If the inventory includes agriculture, an emissions rate per head of livestock for manure disposal will have been established. Reductions based on changes in feed, land management, or manure handling should be calculated based on improvements from baseline. In the case where manure is used to generate methane, the production of energy can be gathered from the information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the digester.

Industrial Facilities and Operations

Industrial sector emissions present a special challenge for communities. Since most aspects of industrial operations are regulated at the regional, state, and federal levels, local governments have little ability to mandate industrial changes. The approach with the industrial sector should focus on outreach and partnership. Not only should awareness of climate change and reduction strategy development process be promoted, but the concerns and goals of the industrial sector should be solicited and considered in strategy development. Reduction strategies that focus specifically on this sector should be developed in a manner that seeks to ensure that long-term emissions reduction goals are compatible with long-term local economic viability.

Many GHG reductions in the industrial sector can be achieved through the energy efficiency strategies included in the building and renewable energy sections above. Industrial structures can be upgraded for efficiency, and the large roof surfaces of many industrial structures are ideal for installation of photovoltaic panels or a green roof. Emissions reductions can also be achieved through changes in operational procedures and in the relationship between industries in the same community. Operations can refer to a variety of factors, from the efficiency of machinery to the vehicles used on-site. Strategies regarding the relationship between industrial entities are captured in the principles that govern eco-industrial parks. An eco-industrial park is an industrial complex that seeks to collectively manage resource use, energy, and material flows for enhanced efficiency and improved environmental performance. For example, this would include pairing companies where the waste product from one industrial process can serve as the input for another.

Quantification of industrial measures draws on those methods described for energy efficiency in buildings and renewable energy. In the case of eco-industrial parks, the reductions can be determined by calculating the reduced miles traveled by trucks hauling waste off-site and input materials on-site. The local values for GHG per heavy-duty-truck mile can be obtained from the emissions inventory. Additional reductions can be calculated on a case-by-case basis using the baseline assumptions defined in the inventory.

Waste

Waste deals with the treatment or disposal of postconsumer solid waste and waste resulting from the treatment of wastewater that generates methane during decomposition. Reducing emissions from waste treatment can be achieved in two ways: by reducing the amount of waste produced and by reducing the emissions associated with waste disposal. This twofold approach is necessary because waste disposed in a landfill will emit methane for decades following the initial disposal of the waste. As a result, reduction of waste will not lower landfill emissions in the near future, although some methods for assessing the emissions reduction from landfill diversion account for this by annualizing emissions. What will decrease immediately with reduced waste production are GHG emissions associated with the collection, delivery, and handling of waste.

Co-benefits of waste strategies include environmental benefits from reduced consumption of land for disposal and improved air quality that will result from reduced collection and delivery vehicle emissions. Consumption and disposal behaviors also contribute to overall community sustainability.

Waste Production

Reduced waste production can occur through both government action and community behavior change; long-term success will rely on both. Recycling programs are some of the most well-established means of solid waste reduction. A city can increase the local diversion rate (percentage of waste stream recycled) by increasing the number of products that can be recycled, increasing the convenience of recycling through provision of bins and pickup services, making recycling mandatory or providing incentives for it, and conducting outreach to increase the participation rate of the community. An emerging area of emphasis in recycling is disposal of e-waste such as computers. Programs can be developed to safely disassemble e-waste to recover resources. Waste reduction can also be achieved through strategies to reduce packaging and other materials that accompany products.

Organic waste from food or outdoor vegetation is another opportunity for waste diversion that directly addresses the organic matter that generates methane. Strategies for addressing organic matter include composting and converting vegetative material to mulch. These strategies can be implemented on a city scale or on an individual scale depending on housing type. A city-scale program will require a facility designed to accept the waste, a means for waste to reach the facility, and a program to encourage participation. The challenge of individual composting or yard waste programs is getting participation to a level that impacts GHG emissions. Some cities have begun residential curbside composting programs.

Waste Disposal

Landfills and wastewater sludge both generate methane that can be captured and converted to electricity. This requires that waste be covered and the landfill or collection point be retrofit for technology to allow methane capture. This produces an immediate reduction in methane generation associated with waste disposed of in the past.

Other disposal methods pose their own sets of challenges. Incineration or waste-to-energy plants primarily emit carbon dioxide instead of methane. While carbon dioxide is a less-powerful GHG than methane, waste-to-energy plants also emit a variety of other air pollutants that contribute to acid rain and may pose a threat to human health. The benefit of these plants is that they do not consume the land area of a landfill.

Green Living

Green living refers to reduction strategies aimed at daily behaviors in the home and workplace that may not be covered by other sectors. These may include strategies to motivate people to eat more locally and sustainably, grow their own food, or purchase more environmentally friendly products (see figure 5.2). These are usually implemented through public education and outreach campaigns. Some communities have implemented challenges or competition campaigns intended to increase the profile of green living activities and accelerate behavior change. Green living strategies are difficult to quantify and are usually favored more for their co-benefits than for their potential GHG emissions reductions.

Figure 5-2 City of Flagstaff Community Climate Action Guide for the public

Source: City of Flagstaff, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2018), https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/ClimatePlan.

Carbon Offsets

Offset (or carbon-offset) programs are designed to deal with difficult-to-reduce GHG emissions occurring in one sector or community by taking action to lower emissions elsewhere. For example, if a city cannot control GHG emissions from its electric utility provider, it may choose to offset those emissions by planting trees in a forest in the region (to act as a carbon sink). Offsets can be managed through compensatory or reciprocal strategies, or they can be structured financially through purchase arrangements. The purchase of offsets is accomplished by setting up a financial system where individuals, businesses, or communities that create GHG emissions offset those emissions by purchasing credits or paying into a fund. The credits or fund is then used to finance other emissions-reduction strategies. Offset programs are very popular at the international level, in states with cap-and-trade programs, and in colleges and universities (particularly for air travel). Many industrialized nations are participating in programs that offset some of their emissions by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in developing countries; thus the programs provide economic development and social justice benefits as well.

Several important issues must be addressed when considering offset programs. First, if the offset program works through purchases, then a mechanism must be in place to manage and track financial transactions. This could be done by the local government, a local nonprofit, or an established international program such as MyClimate or TerraPass. Second, the location of the offset project is important. Most communities have developed policies that require offset funds to be spent in the community. This promotes local investment and benefits but may limit the number or quality of opportunities. The last issue is a set of related questions about who pays, how much, for what strategies, and whether it is voluntary.

Local examples of offset programs are few. The City of San Francisco, California, set up the San Francisco Carbon Fund to invest in local sustainability projects.15 A nonprofit based in northeast Iowa—the Winneshiek Energy District—has created a local offset program called Oneota Tags that will subsidize home energy retrofits.16 Depending on the program, GHG reduction as a result of carbon offset can be quantified on a dollar basis (GHG per dollar) or directly if funds are used for projects such as reforestation where GHG reduction can be estimated based on setting, number, type, and age of trees planted.