• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
City Power Play: 8 Practical Local Energy Policies to Boost the Economy
 

City Power Play: 8 Practical Local Energy Policies to Boost the Economy

on

  • 510 views

A brief overview of ILSR's new report covering 8 powerful policies and practices that cities have employed to reduce energy use, save money, and create local jobs, all without waiting for someone else ...

A brief overview of ILSR's new report covering 8 powerful policies and practices that cities have employed to reduce energy use, save money, and create local jobs, all without waiting for someone else to act. It provides short case studies of the policies in place, and links to the text of the local rule.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
510
Views on SlideShare
330
Embed Views
180

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

6 Embeds 180

http://www.ilsr.org 164
http://cloud.feedly.com 7
http://feeds.feedburner.com 4
http://www.newsblur.com 3
http://newsblur.com 1
http://communitypowernetwork.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    City Power Play: 8 Practical Local Energy Policies to Boost the Economy City Power Play: 8 Practical Local Energy Policies to Boost the Economy Presentation Transcript

    • CITY POWER PLAY 8 Practical Local Energy Policies to Boost the Economy John Farrell, Director of Democratic Energy
    • MUNICIPAL UTILITIES Why a Municipal Utility? "I think we were created because this new technology was available and the people of Chattanooga needed some organization to master that technology for their benefit. In those days it was electric networks and motors and things like that. But as the technology changes, the same issues are there...if it fits that classification of eventually being a public utility, in the sense of something that everybody needs, then organizations like us have not just a right, but a responsibility to step up and provide that for our community." Harold DePriest, Chattanooga EPB Austin 35% renewable by 2020 Sacramento 90% reduction in GHG by 2050 Palo Alto Carbon-free in 2017 Flat demand through 2030 1
    • COMMUNITY CHOICE Marin Clean Energy Oak Park 50% renewable plan for 20% local 100% Illinois wind power 2
    • BUILDING CODES Municipality State Code Sectors Model Policy Austin,TX IECC 2009 R+C IECC 2012;all new homes net zero energy capable by 2015 Boulder County,Parker, Thornton,&Westminster,CO IECC 2001/03 R+C IECC 2012 Babylon,NY IECC 2007/09 R+C Score of 70 or less on Home Energy Rating System (30% more efficient than‘reference home’).All buildings over 4,000 s.f.must achieve LEED v2.2 Blaine County,ID IECC 2007/09 R State code and score ≤ 70 on Home Energy Rating System (30% more efficient than‘reference home’). Kansas City,MO none R+C IECC 2012 Over 100 cities in Mass. IECC 2012 R+C “Stretch code”requires 20-35% better efficiency in residential structures and 20% in commercial buildings Phoenix,Tucson,Pima County, Avondale,Chandler,El Mirage, Peoria,& Scottsdale,AZ none R+C IECC 2012 Jackson/Teton County,WY none R+C IECC 2012 Santa Monica,CA IECC 2009* R+C 15% less energy than state code Boulder,CO IECC 2001/03 R+C 30% less energy than IECC 2006,higher savings for larger residential buildings Marin County,CA R New residential and remodels over 1500 SF must use 15% less energy than standard design. *California’s 2008 code is slightly more efficient than IECC 2009. Their 2013 code (in force 1/1/2014) is better than the 2012 IECC.*California’s 2008 code is slightly more efficient than IECC 2009. Their 2013 code (in force 1/1/2014) is better than the 2012 IECC.*California’s 2008 code is slightly more efficient than IECC 2009. Their 2013 code (in force 1/1/2014) is better than the 2012 IECC.*California’s 2008 code is slightly more efficient than IECC 2009. Their 2013 code (in force 1/1/2014) is better than the 2012 IECC. Municipalities Exceeding State Standard Codes 3
    • 3 State sets min and max State sets min, certain cities can exceed No state standard (local authority) voluntary min. BUILDING CODE AUTHORITY
    • Boulder, CO $2 million per year Local energy efficiency Babylon, NY Repurposed solid waste fund to home energy efficiency loans Reached 2% of homes, $1,300 annual savings 4 LOCALTAXING AUTHORITY
    • NEW HOME SOLAR REQ. Lancaster, CA 1 kW per new home Sebastopol, CA 2 Watts per s.f. 5
    • BEST SOLAR PERMITTING CITIES 6
    • 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 13% 15% 19% 26% 39% 5% 6% 8% 12% 22% Installed Cost per Watt Data from The Impact of City-level Permitting Processes on Residential Photovoltaic Installation Prices and Development Times (LBNL, 2013) Better Local Permitting Means Big Solar Savings ...the savings Approx.year for residential installation* 2013 2017 2023 *From ILSR’s Rooftop Revolution reports: http://www.ilsr.org/rooftop-revolution/ As the cost of solar falls... from permitting rise streamlined
    • 7 BUILDING ENERGY DISCLOSURE Municipality C-Size Public Bldg? Multi- family? Disclosure Requirement Austin,TX 10,000 SF Y Y Buyers/sellers Audits/upgrades for multifamily Boston, MA 35,000 SF Y Y Public (2015) Audit for low performers Minneapolis, MN 50,000 SF Y N Public N/A NewYork, NY 50,000 SF Y Y Public Energy audit Philadelphia, PA 50,000 SF Y N Buyers/sellers N/A San Francisco, CA 10,000 SF Y N Public Energy audit Seattle,WA 10,000 SF Y Y Buyers/sellers N/A Washington, DC 50,000 SF Y Y Public N/A
    • 8 LOCAL ENERGY FINANCING Sonoma PACE Babylon PACE 3% interest, 2% of homes, $1.4 million annual savings
    • LEARN MORE .org ilsr.org Read the report Listen in Keep up-to-date