Ann Arbor officials eye goal of 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015
After just about meeting the goal of getting 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2010, the city of Ann Arbor is preparing to embark on a new green energy challenge.
Mayor John Hieftje plans to bring a proposal to the City Council soon, prescribing a new set of goals along the lines of those recommended by the city's Energy Commission.
The Energy Commission recently voted to recommend the City Council update the city's energy challenge goals. The commission wants to see a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in municipal operations, coupled with 30 percent renewable energy use, by 2015.
Andrew Brix, the city's energy programs manager, addresses the City Council Monday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Community-wide, the commission is targeting an 8 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with 5 percent renewable energy use, by 2015.
"This is not something that's going to happen if we just kind of sit on our hands," Andrew Brix, the city's energy programs manager, said during a report to the Ann Arbor City Council this week. "These are not sort of preordained. We're going to have to keep working for these."
Hieftje issued his original green energy challenge in September 2005, calling on the city to have 20 percent of its energy use for municipal operations coming from renewable sources by 2010, and by 2015 for the rest of the community. The Energy Commission later suggested the city could achieve 30 percent for municipal operations by 2010, and so Hieftje and the City Council raised the bar.
The city fell short of the revised target, but — rounding up — it met the mayor's original goal last year, clocking in at 19.8 percent, Brix said. That's up from about 15 percent when the city started the energy challenge.
That figure is a collective measure of the city's performance in the areas of electricity, natural gas and transportation. Just looking at electricity, the city hit 32 percent last year, Brix reported.
"When you step back and look at that, we're one of the leading cities in the nation in using renewable energy for municipal government and way ahead of what's happening in many states," Hieftje said. "And our nation doesn't even have an energy plan, so we're certainly way ahead of them."
Around the same time Ann Arbor started on its green energy challenge five years ago, Brix said, the city of Grand Rapids also set a 20 percent goal for itself. He said Grand Rapids met that goal by purchasing renewable energy certificates, which is something Ann Arbor has avoided doing.
Brix said the city has been able to achieve 32 percent renewable electricity use through its own generation, including hydroelectric dams on the Huron River, landfill gas recovery initiatives and solar panels that have been installed at city facilities.
As for the community-wide goals, Brix said the city has only just started working with residents and businesses. The city started the month of February with a residential energy challenge, asking households in Ann Arbor to reduce carbon emissions. The city set up a tool online that residents could use to track their progress and record what they were doing.
"We asked them to do 5 percent," Brix said. "We had about 130 households participate. They saved about 5 percent on average. So this shows us a little bit of how much work we have to do toward moving the community. We can do a lot in municipal operations."
Brix said the Energy Commission has decided it wants to focus on greenhouse gas emissions as the primary measure of progress on energy goals, and include renewable energy as a subgoal.
Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje speaks at Monday's City Council meeting.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"With that in mind, we looked at doing a real renewable electricity purchase — more than just credits, more efficiency in municipal operations," he said. "In the community, we looked at renewable portfolio standard requirements. These are state requirements for the utility companies to begin adding renewables to their systems. We looked at their energy efficiency programs, where those are going to get us, where we might be able to lobby the state to strengthen those."
He said the Energy Commission also has looked at adopting a renewable fuel standard.
Brix said one of the city's biggest challenges has been getting data from DTE Energy, but he said the utility company has "gotten a lot better and that's a big help for us."
Over the next year, Brix said, the city will be working on setting longer-term goals through 2020 and 2030 as part of a climate action planning process funded by a state grant.
Many of the goals set so far have been based on financial constraints, Brix said. "But if we look at the science, the science says we need to be 80 percent below our 2000 emissions by 2050," he told council members this week.
If the city adopts the goals the Energy Commission has been looking at, Brix said, the city could be climate neutral in its municipal operations by 2040. But that's still only 3 percent of community-wide energy use, and so other consumers will have to follow the city's lead.
"If the ultimate problem is the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, it's not going to get us all the way," Brix said. "If we look community-wide where that path will take us, we're only going to be about 50 percent below our baseline in 2050, so clearly we need to look at ways to accelerate that past the first few years and look at some larger, longer-term strategies."
He said that could include getting the state to give the city more control over building codes, so it can pass more stringent requirements. Brix said buildings continue to be the biggest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions, and in Ann Arbor they account for about three-quarters.
"So working with existing buildings is absolutely essential," he said. "There's a certain amount that we may be able to do in requiring rental housing to come up to code periodically. We were exploring whether that's something we can do in the existing regulatory environment."
Also expected to help in the city's efforts to reduce emissions is a new PACE program that would help property owners finance energy efficiency improvements.
Brix pointed out the leading participant in February's residential energy challenge reduced her home's carbon dioxide emissions by 27.6 percent.
"I believe we could do 20 percent tomorrow if we all just kind of snapped our fingers and got really serious about it," he said.
Hieftje said the city still has a standing offer hanging out there for any power company interested in inking a 20-year contract with the city to provide clean energy produced in Michigan.
"And we'll even pay more than the going rate today as long as we have a fixed price going out," he said. "So far, no one has taken us up on it, and I think that says something about the slowness with which our state is moving forward in these endeavors.
"There's plenty of room for new wind fields up in Michigan's Thumb where the farmers there have welcomed it, and there's just so much that could be done, but so far not much has been done here in Michigan. Hopefully that corner can be turned."
Hieftje acknowledged there isn't an overabundance of sunlight in Michigan, and there are limited wind resources. So to meet the city's goals, he said, the city must become an expert at energy efficiency.
"By reducing the amount of energy used, the renewable energy we do have, mostly from hydro and landfill gas, becomes a larger percentage of the total," he said. "Conservation also saves money. Our energy program is saving, rather than costing tax payers money."
For example, he said, the city's LED streetlight program downtown is paying for itself in four years, according to a University of Michigan study.
"That’s a good return on investment, especially given that municipalities look at the long term," he said. "Replacing old boilers, using solar water heaters for the swimming pools, having efficient processes for water and waste water treatment, and efficient vehicles, it all adds up to significant savings."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
northside
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 11 p.m.
This plan innovative, progressive, and forward-thinking. Dare I say like something Zingerman's might do? Oh wait. Only the private sector is capable of creativity and innovation.
David Muzzatti
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.
Time to follow EU's declaration from March whereby no cars will be allowed in Euro Zone cities by 2050.
DonBee
Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 1:12 p.m.
Macabre - Given the cities in question, dense with narrow streets and almost no parking, and good public transit, the chance that the cities will have no business is very small. Oh, by the way if you read the EU plan, trucks for delivery and work, taxies, police and fire, and special permits will be allowed. The key here is special permits, each city will decide the criteria for special permits.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 4:37 a.m.
... and no businesses inside Eurozone cities by 2055.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
Livable means not spending our children's future tilting at windmills. We have no idea what the burning of fossil fuels will do 100 years from now. It was far worse in the 1800s in many ways, and the planet is far from damaged today. Don't underestimate the Earth. It survived five billion years before Ann Arbor City Council came into existence. During that time, there were ice ages and volcano ages. And yet it still sustains life.
f4phantomII
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
Why do we need an "energy programs manager"? Eliminated the position and fix more potholes, or rehire a cop or firefighter.
JoeNuke
Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 2:47 a.m.
carpools with the bicycle coordinator
Roy Munson
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 5:03 p.m.
The role of fossil fuels in "climate change" or "global warming" (whatever you want to call it), is debatable at best. Participating in this thing is nothing more than a way to feel better about yourself. I say if you want to feel better about yourself, do something useful. Make a donation to the Food Gatherers or other such difference making organizations here in the city.
RayA2
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
Thanks Ann Arbor City Council for your efforts to promote a livable planet. Thinking of especially our children's future is not always popular these days, especially with the ignorance promoting tea party politicians. Your efforts highlight the need to keep our tax money in local government control, and away from the Lansing bunch led by Slick Rick.
a2michgirl
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
"There's plenty of room for new wind fields up in Michigan's Thumb where the farmers there have welcomed it, " Mayor John Hieftje better check his sources! I'm originally from the Thumb and read the Huron Daily Tribune on-line every day. There is a large population who don't like the wind turbines at all, accusing them of causing everything from migraines to bird deaths and don't even mention the noise! Wind farm zoning is a hot button topic up there and people have even vandalized the wind turbines. We'll see what happens when those "long-term" (15 years) contracts for land leases expire and the renewable energy credits have all dried up.
Paul
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
open the roads to trucks my company has to go 20 miles out of the way to go to certain towns! at 4 miles to the gal at $4.00 diesel fuel = equals $40 dollars there's are carbon mark!
Ron Granger
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
How much gas do the police use in Ann Arbor? How much time do they spend idling? Why do they need such large cars? The same questions apply to the U of M police.
deb
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2 p.m.
Sparty on; I agree. Additionally, how about changing left hand turn lights to flashing reds like in east lansing. We would have cars moving more efficiently, with less idling, therefore reducing emissions.
deb
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
Good job. Maybe the green energy can power the water fountain which is one of the worst things you can have environmentally. Remember that one of the five LEED categories is water usage. (I am guessing that the fountain is one of the big reasons why the new city hall was only given a silver LEED certification) Guess they just don't care about art thats environmentally irresponsible. . .
Moscow On The Huron
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.
Even if there was such a thing as human-caused global warming (oh, sorry, I mean "climate change"), this would do absolutely NOTHING to address it. The only point of this is to allow Ann Arborites feel good about themselves.
RayA2
Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 12:17 a.m.
DooBee, what does the temperature on Mars have to do with the increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in the temperature on earth?
RayA2
Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 12:14 a.m.
Moscow, you'd have to draw your circles pretty small, like inside the Faux newsroom only, to exclude all of the truly credible scientists who support Climate change. The measured continuous rise in CO2 levels is causing less of the sun's energy to be refracted back into space. It therefore warms the planet and the measured global average temperature confirms this is happening. Where do your Faux experts disagree with this very fundamental mechanism?
DonBee
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.
The item no climate change advocate wants to address is that if man made climate change is melting the ice caps, then why are the polar caps on Mars melting at about the same rate. NOTE: I am not taking a side on climate change here, only pointing to the idea that no one is willing to address this issue and that makes some folks suspicious that the climate change advocates are telling all.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.
The culprit seems to be the Oceans - search PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) ; massive movement of Energy. Also - Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K. Also, the global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. Ann Arbor City Hall seems overly hot to me.
Moscow On The Huron
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
"It is well past the stage where climate change has been proven to be occurring." In certain circles, yes, but not in science-based reality.
RayA2
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
Moscow, Hyperbole such as "absolutely NOTHING to address it" carries no weight. It is well past the stage where climate change has been proven to be occurring. Ostriches may choose to ignore it, like those who chose to keep smoking because it was what their parents did, but they do it at a tremendous cost in lives and health. The difference between the metaphorical ostriches with climate change however is that they are affecting everyone else's health and well being, not just their own. Those of us with our heads above ground have to continue to look for ways to reduce our carbon footprint, no matter how small the short term effect may be.
Sparty On!
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 1 p.m.
Here's an idea on how AA can achieve a 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses today. Quit timing all of the city stop lights to turn red when cars are approaching. All of the stopping and accelerating produces greenhouse gasses. Seriously, all joking aside, stop havig the traffic signals turn red when vehicles are approaching. It's annoying and takes way too long to get through the city.
sh1
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
Laudable goal, but will be more difficult if Snyder succeeds in cutting all clean-energy incentives.
sbbuilder
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
Who's going to go after the elephant in the living room? I refer to the U of M power plant smack in the middle of town. You know, the one with the itty bitty smoke stack? The power plant that burns gas? The power plant that last year burned over 34,000,000 cubic feet of gas? Yeah, that one. But if council wants to go after rental units (gnats) and leave the power plant (elephant) alone, that's their business.
DonBee
Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
deb - In a properly designed system (and most of the US system is) the losses moving power from Quebec to Michigan (which is done daily) costs about 5 percent of the energy flowing through the lines. Another 5 percent is lost in stepping the power down from the transmission system to your household voltage and moving it through the distribution lines. Now the numbers change as the equipment comes close to its upper limit, on a hot day with a heavy power demand, these numbers could double. The UofM plant was put where it is to use the hot water (waste heat for most large plants) to heat the buildings on central campus. It still loses about 5 to 7 percent of the electrical energy it makes distributing it on the campus. But it uses most of the waste heat during the winter to heat the campus buildings. This is the reason for its location. In the summer of course you would not heat the typical building on central campus. Combined heat and power is the standard in Northern Europe with power plants in the central area of many cities including Copenhagen and Stockholm.
deb
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
First I agree that the U should do more to help the city. (I am not providing a link) but, I believe it to be true that most of our energy is consumed by pushing the power through the lines to get to residences and businesses. I would venture to guess then that having this plant in the middle of town is actually much more efficient then getting energy from another source located farther from the area.
sbbuilder
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
I'm not suggesting we have a Nuke plant on the corner of Huron and Washtenaw. I'm just pointing out the obvious. That single plant dwarfs what the City is proposing in CO2 emissions. Even if the City reduced its carbon footprint (I hate that term) to zero, the over-all effect would be miniscule. As a builder, I stongly advocate high energy efficiency. High-efficient furnaces and hot water heaters, loads of insulation, smart electrical grids, etc. But, I do so not because of some perceived global warming. I think it pays high dividends down the road, and makes for a much more comfortable living environment.
timeatwork
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
so many people are trying to go from A to Z in one step. well, maybe were on step B now that the state of MI is requiring a certain amount of renewable energy. but still, any option available now to replace that power plant would be so expensive that no one could afford to turn on their lights. Step C is all about research, not tearing down infrastructure.
KJMClark
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
That, of course, is a different argument entirely. I don't completely agree that nuclear is the most environmentally friendly option, but I do agree that there may be even better alternatives than that plant. But then that means that the "gnats" are even worse, since they're far less efficient than that central plant. Still sounds like the city is doing OK.
sbbuilder
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
KJMClark The plant also uses, on occasion, oil. It produces electricity, steam and potable water for the U. But that's not the point. The question here is, if global warming is the focus, is this the smartest way to generate power? The answer is a resounding 'no'. As DonBee has pointed out, nuclear power is far and away the most enviro friendly. The City has acknowledged that they will barely make a dent in CO2 reduction even if they reach all their goals. This is just nipping at the edges.
KJMClark
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
Actually, that's almost exactly the wrong way to think about the problem. That's why so many people can't get their heads around the problem. How can billions of gnats cause such a large problem? It's like saying we should get rid of buses, semis, and trains, because they produce much more emissions than cars and light trucks. But actually, they're much more efficient per passenger or ton of freight. If that power plant is a co-generation plant like I think it is, then it's far more efficient than all of those "gnats". Look up "combined heat and power" and look at the efficiencies possible that way. Remember that that plant is the central power plant for the university, providing both power and heat to a good part of central campus.
Top Cat
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
With China rapidly building new coal burning plants for electricity, this sounds even more silly than the old "No-Smoking" sections in restaurants or airplanes.
DonBee
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
Renewable electric energy right now is not cost competitive in Michigan right now. So the city government will need to spend more per KWh. Most biofuels right now are made from food crops, so the faster we convert to current technology for biofuel, the faster food prices will rise. If Ann Arbor was really serious they would create with the UofM a non-food crop bio fuel zone and again with the UofM a low cost renewable energy zone. Only when the actual costs are lower and the impact on world hunger is removed can we really move the world off fossil fuels. Now if you just want to measure green house gases, you could go pure nuclear.
DonBee
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 11 p.m.
KJMClark - I was not pushing Nuclear, but rather pointing to the idea that if you purely measure greenhouse gases, nuclear meets that standard. Deciding to measure just 1 thing is the wrong way to go.
KJMClark
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.
"Renewable electric energy right now is not cost competitive in Michigan right now." And a new nuclear plant, without government subsidies, and paying for private insurance, *is* cost competitive? I suspect that equation got even worse about a month ago.
KJMClark
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.
Did you guys hear about the Congressional testimony last week from Prof. Muller of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project? That would be the Koch brothers funded, independent fourth party look at all available temperature evidence? That would also be the group so neutral that Anthony Watts said he was "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."? But the testimony was that NOAA, NASA, the Hadley Center and the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia were all basically right. He even said he thought about half the warming, of .7 C since the 50s, was due to human burning of fossil fuels.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 7:41 p.m.
I think the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project is admirable. And, so far, it confirms many recent observations about warming trends over a carefully defined time period of (as you say) 60 years out of five billion. What it does not try to do is claim anything about the propaganda about past temperatures issued by the CRU. It does not confirm AGW. It does not make any claims about global temperatures 100 yeas from now. The bleating of an individual who seems to think religious belief in trends is a substitute for science is irrelevant. We do not know if current warming trends have anything to do with fossil fuels. More than 90% of the people in the world apparently believe in a god of some sort, but that doesn't make it a reality.
Dog Guy
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 11:26 a.m.
The city hall priesthood is burning tax monsy as offering to Gaia. "Come, take a chaplet, offer a libation to Koalemos the god of Stupidity and take care to fight vigorously." Aristophanes, The Birds
thinker
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 10:50 a.m.
We could all stop breathing!!!!!!
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 10:22 a.m.
I don't think they met their goal. They failed to account for all the hot air emanating from City Hall.
racerx
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 10:14 a.m.
As long as homeowners aren't forced to follow, of which I can see happening. Great line Brix, "...we're going ot have to keep working for these." oh so you can stayed employed. Go figure.