Free Exhibits - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

Page 1 of 14

EXHIBIT G

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

Page 2 of 14

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 3 of 14

From the Mayor
Climate change presents serious threats to the quality of Ilk in San Francisco. The impacts of rising sea levels could be potentially devastating. Low lying areas such as San Francisco International Airport, Treasure Island, Mission Baç SBC and Candlestick Parks, wads, railroad tracks, sewage treatment plants, and our marina and harbor facilities could be threatened. We must act now to significantiy reduce greenhouse gas emissions or we will quickly reach a point at which global warming cannot be reversed. That is why San Francisco holds itself accountable for its contributions to global warming, and is committed to dramatically reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2012. The ClimareAction Plan, prepared by San Francisco's Department of Environment and Public Utilities Conunission staff, quantifies the emission s we are responsible for and identifies actions required to achieve emissions rollbacks. The good news is that we can reduce the pollution that causes global warming by using currently available technologies that also enhance economic develo pment. We can promote energy efficiencç renewable energy, alternatives to automobile transporta tion, and recycling to help save money and create jobs that strengthen the local economy, and increase the livability of ow neighborhoods. Our actions can be an example to others. As cities across the nation make similar commitments we can work in concert to make an environmental u-turn. It is up to municipal governments to take ownershi p of this critical issue when there is scant leadership coming from Washington, D.C. We need to act now if we are going to keep San Francisco and the Bay Area a viable place to live for future generations. It is our responsibility as citizens of the world.

Gavin Newsom

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 4 of 14

Acknowledgements
The Climate Action Plan is the result of the hard work and persistence of many people. These include staff at San Francisco Department of Environment (SF Environment), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), International Council for Local Envirotunental Initiatives (ICLEI), consultants and reviewers. They spent many hours researching, writing, crunching numbers, and reviewing the Plan. In particular, Randa Gahin, Kevin Drew, Cal Broomhead and Elizabeth Siubblefield of SF Environment were major contributors. Abby Young, director of ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection campaign, and the rest of the ICLEI staff gave invaluable input, advice and technical support throughout the process. Special thanks to Shawn Rosenmoss for contributing her shaip editing skills and to Ashley Frey Rosemire for the fine design and layout Thank you to Jared Blunienfel4 Director, SF Environment and to Ed Smeloff, Assistant General Manager for Power Polic3ç Planning, and Resource Development, SFPUC. for their leadership and support Finally, thanks to John Deakin, former director of San Francisco's Bureau of Energy Conservation, for his vision in initiating this project

Danielle Down, Project Manager SF Environment staff: Clark Aganon Ca] Broomhead Kevin t)rew Randa Gahin Alena Giichrist Ann Kelly Jack Macy Kate Meny Peter O'Donnell Ashley Frey Rosemire Shawn Rosenmoss Rick Ruvolo Tha Shlez Volunteers: L auiz Elizabeth Snibblefield ICLEI staff: Ryan Bell Bill Drumheller Man Nichols Susan Ode Allison Quaid Melissa Royael Nancy Skinner Abby Young SFPUC staff: Pam Husing Doug Johnson Oliver Kesting Angie Lee Gary Oto Roger Picklum Fred Schwartz Reviewers: Kevin Finney, Union of Concerned Scientists Guido Franco, Caflfornia Energy Commission Charles Rivasplata, San Francisco Planning Department Ed Vine, Lawrence Ber*eley National Laboi'utory Abby Young, International Councilfor Local Environmental Initiatives Consultants: Ann Guy, Brown, Vence & Associates Leslie Kiamer, Brown, Vence & Associates

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 5 of 14

Table of Contents
Executive Summary Chapter 1
.

.ES-1

Climate Change: Causes and Impacts 1.1 Causes of Climate Change 1.2 Local Impacts of Climate Change 1.3 Policy and Legislation
--

1--1

1-6
1-17

Chapter 2 San Francisco's Greenhouse Gas Emission s: Inventory & Reduction Target 2.! Methodology
--

2.2 Emissions Invernoiy Transportation Emissions Energy Emissions Solid Waste Emissions
2.3 Reduction Target Chapter 3--Actions to Reduce San Francisco's Gree nhouse Gas Emissions 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Transportation Actions 3.3 Energy Efficiency Actions.. 3.4 Renewable Energy Actions 3.5 Solid Waste Actions Chapter 4 An Implementation Strategy for the Near Term 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Next Steps Transportation Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Solid Waste
--

2-1 2-1 2-2 2-9 2-13 2-17

3-1 3-1 3-17 3-27 3-35

4-1
4-2 4-2 4-8 4-12 4-16

Graphics Credits Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C
-

-

-

2 CO Reduction Estimates Assumptions U.S. Mayors Statement on Global Warming San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolutio

n

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

·

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 6 of 14

Executive Summary
Global Warming is reaL The world's leading climate scientists agree that human behavior is acoelerating globa) warming, and that the earth is already suffering the impact s of the resulting climate change. Climate change will affect Sin Francisco. It is a global proble m with local impacts. Rising temperatures, rising sea level, and more frequent El Niño storms could seriously threaten the City's infrastructure, economy, health, and ecosystems with impacts such as: · Flooded roads, threats to the sewage system and Airport infrasf lcture · Jncreased asthma and respiratory illness due to higher ozone levels

· Threatened Bay wetlands and marine lifr · Fishing and tourism industry impacts, high insurance and mitiga tion costs
We haves responsibilky to act. San Francisco is responsible for about 9.7 million tons of CO 2 emissions per year. In 2002, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

also states that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors actively support the Kyoto Protocol, and calls upon national leaders to do so as well. Federal inaction makes state and local action all the more important. The development of this Climate Action Plan, called for in the resolution, describes what San Francisco can do in order to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goal. with over 500 cities around the world to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign, sponsored by the hnernational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives San Francisco has joined

passed the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution, committing the City and County of San Francisco to a greenhouse gas emissions reductions goal of 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. The resolution

(ICLEI). As part of the campaign, member cities have committed to: inventory their emissions of greenhouse gases: set reduction targets; develop comprehensive strategies to meet these targets; implement these emissions reduction actions; and measure the results. The criteria set by the CCP campaign have been used to define the scope and presentation of this Plan.

`The Climate Action Plan
· Provides background information on the causes of climate change and projections of its impacts on California and San Francisco from recent scientific reports; · Presents estimates of San Francisco's baseline greenhouse gas emissi ons inventory and reduction target; · Describes recommended emissions reduction actions in the key target sectors transportation, energy efficienc3c renewable energy, and solid waste management to meet our 2012 goal; and · Presents next steps required over the near term to implement the Plan.
--

Climate Action P'an

ES.1

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 7 of 14

Climate Change: Causes and Impacts
Climate change is both a global and local phenomenon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change (TPCC), reports that temperatures and sea level are rising at the fastest rate in history, and are projected to continue rising (2-10 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise, 4-36 inches sea-level rise over the next 100 years). This trend, sometimes referred to as "global warming," is seriously impacting water resourc es, ecosystems, human health, and the economy.

Human and Cultural Causes of Climate Change
Human bebavi& is accelerating climate change. The release into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide (CC),) from the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, buildings and vehicles, the loss of carbon "sinks" due to deforestation, and methane emitting from landfills are the chief human causes of climate change . These emissions are referred to collectively as "greenhouse gases" (ghgs). The United States has the highest per capita emissions of ghgs in the world--22 tons of CO per 2 person per year (see figure ES.1). With only five percent of the world% population, the United States is responsible for 24 percent of the world's CO emissions. 2 California, despite its strong environmental regulations, is the second largest greenhouse-gas polluti ng state in the nation, and emits 2% of global human-generated emissions. Its largest contribution of CO is 2 from vehicle emissions. Clearly, more needs to be done. California has much to lose if climate change is not abated.

I I

Figure ES.1

-

Per Capita CO Emissions 2001 2

I

India

China

Japan

UK

Germany

Russia

Canada

US

Wafld
Average

Sources: Energy Information Administration: rId Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels. 1992-2001. U.S. Census Bureau: Countries Ranked by Population: 2001

ES.2

Climate Action Plan

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 8 of 14

Impacts on San Francisco
San Francisco, as a coastal city surrounded on three sides by water, is extremely vulnerable to climate change. It is timber at risk because the City depends on the Sierra snow pack for its water supply and for hydroelecthc power. According to ajoint study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America, some of the possible effects of climate change on San Francisco are: · Sea-level rise may threaten coastal wetlands, infiastructure, and property. · Increased storm activity together with sea-level rise could increase beach erosion and cliff undercutting. · Warmer temperatures and more frequent storms due to El Nio will bring more rain instead of snow to the Sierras, reducing supply of water for summer needs. · Decreased summer runoff and warming ocean temperatures will affect salinity, water circulation, and nutrients in the Bay, possibly leading to complex changes in marine life. Such dramatic changes to San Francisco's physical landscape and ecosystem will be accompanied by financial and social impacts. Tourism would suffer, as would San Francisco's fishing industry and the regional agricultural industry, which is expected to be greatly disrupted by a warmer climate. Food costs would rise, property damage would be more prevalent, and insurance rates would increase accordingly.

The City's wads, pipelines, transportation, underground cables and sewage systems could be severely
stressed or overwhelmed if rare instances of flooding or storm damage become common occurrences. Low lying areas such as San Francisco International Ain?ort, built on a wetland, would be at high risk in the face of a rising sea level. The environment plays a large role in some diseases carried by insects. Warming could make tick-borne Lyme disease more prevalent and could expand the range of mosquito-borne diseases such as West Nile virus. Another threat to the health of San Francisco residents is air pollution caused by higher temperatures and increased ozone levels. Neighborhoods in the Southeast of the City, where asthma and respiratory illness are already at high levels, would be especially at risk.

Existing Mandates to Curb Climate Change
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) process is comprised of 150 participating countries. As of June 2003, 110 counthes had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, agreeing to targets and tirnelines for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The United States signed, in has not ratified the protocol. California has set specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Senate Bill 1078 (Sher, 2002) set a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which requires electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources.

Climate Action Plan

£5.3

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

..

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 9 of 14

· Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley, 2002) requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations mandating vehicle tailpipe CO emissions reductions. 2 · Semie Bill 1771 (Sher, 2000) established the California Climate Action Registry to set-vt as a ceriifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their greenhouse gas emissions for possible future trading systems.

San Francisco's Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Inventory and Reduction Target
San Francisto's greenhouse gas emissions come principally from the CO produced from 2 the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, in buildings, and in power plants. Methane, another major greenh ouse gas, is released from the landfill used by the City for solid waste disposal.

Inventory
The first step in developing the Climate Action Plan was to conduct a baseline invent ory of greenhouse gas enii ssions. The emissions inventory identifies and categorizes the major sources and quantities of ghg emissions being produced by City residents, businesses, and municipal operati ons. In 1990, San Francisco's total ghg emissions were approximately 9.1 million tons 2 eCO (equivalent carbon dioxide). Figure ES.2 shows the breakdown of these emissions from all 1 sources for the 1990 baseline year. "Building Energy" includes the impacts of the electricity and natural gas used in both private and public sector buildings and facilities. "Transportation" includes emissi ons from in-City and intraregional personal and commercial vehicles, Muni, BART, and other transit as well as the City's municipaJ fleet.

Reduction Target San Francisco's reduction target is 20% below 1990 levels by 2012. This is about 2.5 million tons below 2000 levels. Figure ES.3 shows estimated emissions levels for the baseline year (1990) , 2000 levels, forecast leveLs (2012), and San Francisco's 2012 target compared to the Kyoto Protoc ol and IPCC targets.
With "business as usual," greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to rise to 10.8 million tons per year in 2012. The 20% reduction target would reduce San Francisco's overall ghg emissions to 7.2 million tons per year by 2012.

Alt of the contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. electricity in kilowa tt-hours x an electricity coefficient nalw-a) gas in thei-nis, vrhicle navel in gallons of fuel, solid waste in tons material coeffic ients) are combined and expressed here in the common unit of tons of "equivalent carbon dioxide" (eCO,) released into the atmosphere in a given year.

£54

Climate Action Plan

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 10 of 14

Figure

ES.2

-

San Francisco Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eCO 1990 ), 2

Building Energy
Municipal Industrial Muni Buses and Rail 1% io

Transportation

4%
Commercial 16%

San Francisco Road Vehicle.

24%

Residential 15% Rail (BART.Caltraln) and Fany 2% Inirareglonal Road Vehicle. 23%

1990 Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Total - 9.1 million tons eCO, per tar Source: PG&E, Hetch Hetchy Water and Pow, CA. Dept. of Transponation. MTC. Muni, BART

ES.3 Figure

-

San Francisco Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecast and Targets

12

Reduction Target 24 MillIon Tons

iO.8 Forecast
10 9.1 0.7 2000 Level

e

S

8.4 72

Kyoto Protocol San Francisco Target

j

6

4

3.6 Climate Change (IPCC)

lntergovemental Panel on

2

;990

2000

2012

Year

Climate Action Plan

ES-5

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

·

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 11 of 14

Taking Action to Reduce Emissions
While San Francisco has been actively pursuing cleaner energy, transportation, and solid waste policies, it is clear that we need to do more to reduce the rate of ghg emissions. In order to meet our reduction goal, this Plan sets forth a comprehensive set of actions that should be set in motion immediately. The actions are organized into four categories--Transportation. Energy Efficiency Renewable Energ3ç and Solid Waste. The estimated annual 2012 emissions reduction levels are listed for each set of actions below.

I

Transportation

The major ways to reduce transportation sector ghg emissions are by reducing vehicle trips and by traveling in vehicles with lower emissions. Reducing trips can be done by encouraging a shift from driving to alternative modes such as public transit, ridesharing, bicycling and walking. This would be accomplished through improved services and financial incentives. Vehicle emissions can be reduced by switching to more fuel-efficient or cleaner-fueled vehicles,, and by downsizing fleets.

A. Increase the Use of Public Transit as an Alternative to Driving B. Increase the Use of Ridesharing as an Alternative to Single Occupancy Driving C. Increase Bicycling and Walking as an Alternative to Driving D. Support Trip Reduction Through Employer-Based Programs E. Discourage Driving 2 F. Increase the Use of Clean Air Vehicles and Improve Fleet Efficiency Total

87,000 42,000 10,000 28,000 155,000 641,000 963,000

2 555.0(X) tons of this reduction would be a result ofa5 miles per gallon incftase in Federal CAFE (Corporate Avenge Fuel Efficiency) standards.

ES-6

Climate Action Plan

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 12 of 14

I

Energy Efficiency

Reducing energy use reduces ghg emissions from fossil fuels burned in power plants and in buildings. Offering incentives on select products van encourage consumers to invest inefficient appliances or in home improvements that lower energy use. Other methods to increase energy efficiency include providing technical assistance and energy management services such as energy audits and design assistance for residential, commercial and municipal buildings. Education and outreach programs need to broaden general public awareness and to train particular groups (such as designers and building contractors) on energy efficiency practices.
The City has the pO%atO strengthen energy codes and standards for both existing buildings and new coastnxtion that would bring both immediate and long-tear benefits in terms of financial savings to businesses and residenta

A. Increase Incentives, Direct Installation and Technical Assistance Residential Buildings conunercial Buildings Municipal Buildings B. Expand Education and Outreach C. Strengthen Legislation. Codes and Standards Total

m,ooo
433,000 45,000 36,000 65,000 801,000

J

Renewable Energy

I

Renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and biomass are now available, reliable and often cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels for producing electricity. Emerging technologies such as fuel cells and tidal power should be researched and pilot projects dewloped Increasing the amount of renewable sources ("green power") in the City's electricity mix through local projects as well as through the Statfl electricity grid can have a great impact on greenhouse gas emissions and should be an ongoing action item.

Climate Action Plan

ES-i

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 13 of 14

A. Develop Renewable Energy Projects Solar Energy Wind Energy Biomass Energy B. Conduct Pilot Projects for Emerging Technologies 3 C. Support and Develop Green Power Purchasing Total 35,000 239,000 44
--

230,000
548,000

L

Solid Waste

I

Recycling reduces CO emissions by avoiding the energy used dining 2 the extraction and processing of virgin raw materials to manufacture new products. Also, reducing landfill reduces the amount of methane--a potent greenhouse gas--released into the atmosphere. Actions should include expanding recycling and composting programs, to include more sectors of the city; encouraging recycling of construction and demolition debris; and increasing recycling in City departments.

A. Increase Residential Recycling and Composting B. Increase Commercial Recycling and Composting C. Expand Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling 0. Support Alternate Collection Methods for Recyclable Materials
E. Promote Source Reduction, Reuse and Other Waste Reduction 4

70,000 109,000 57,000 66,000
--

5 F. Expand Municipal Programs
Total

--

302,000

`

esearch and Development projects. unknown materials breakdown. Savings not estimated. Included under B. lncree Commercial Recycling and Composting.

ES.8

J

Climate Action Plan

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __ __

Case 3:07-cv-04936-CRB

.

Document 42

Filed 03/03/2008

.

Page 14 of 14

Implementing the Plan
Our current level of activity will find us 20% above 1990 levels cr3.6 million tons short of our stated ghg emissions goal for 2012. If we are to reach our reduction target of approximately 2.5 million ions of CO 2 it is imperative that ova the next 1-3 years we act to:
per year by the year 2012 ,

Transportation Actions Energy Efficiency Actions Renewable Energy Actions Solid Waste Actions
Total

t r
963,000 801,000 548,000 302,000
2,614,000 tons/year

· Accelerate and expand existing programs in all areas--transportation, enemy efficienc renewable energy, and solid waste.

· Develop the infrastructure to support new programs. · Secure resources to implement actions. · Set up tracking mechanisms and indicators to meas

ure progress.

The City should set up a process to support City depa rtments and private entities to integ rate climate protection into their standard operating procedur es. To be successful, this process mus t include participation of stakeholder groups and implemen ting agencies. As the coordinating agen cy the Department of Environment (SF Environment) should: · Establish a City interdepartmental %orking grou p and an external advisory group to impl ement the Plan. · Establish and maintain a tracking system for quantiing CO emissions and reduction 2 s. · Collaborate with other cities through ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection program. · Increase outreach and education activities (such as publishing brochures on "simple things you can do" for climate protection). · Investigate emissions credit trading systems. · Seek grant funding from sources such as the US Department of Energyç US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and California Energy Commiss ion (CEC). · Document and report progress to decision mak ers and to the public.
While confronting global wanning may seem insurmountable, local action can mak e a difference. It is imperative that San Francisco, a city at higb risk from climate change impacts, takes action now to slow its effects. This can only be accomplished by a clear unde rstanding of why climate change is occu rring; conscious actions by City leaders and citizens to reduce local sources that are conffibuting factors; and conc erted efforts to increase awareness and encourage action locally and at the state, national, and international levels.

Cost-effective solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are available today. However, in order for these solutions to realize their potential, we must make climate protection a priority in our policies, budgets and investments, and personal and orga nizationa
l actions.

Climate Action Plan

ES-9