Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Full Report of the Cook County Sustainability Council, 060513


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Full Report of the Cook County Sustainability Council, 060513

  2. 2. Cook CountySustainability Advisory CouncilCo- ChairsChristopher G. Kennedy Anne R. PramaggioreChairman, President & CEOJoseph P. Kennedy Enterprises , Inc. ComEd2Gerald Bennett Jean Pogge David AndersonMayor Chief Executive Officer Consultant to Housing Authority of Cook CountyCity of Palos Hills Delta InstituteJack Darin David Pope Alesia HushawDirector President Senior Financial AnalystSierra Club, Illinois Chapter Village of Oak Park Housing Authority of Cook CountySandra Frum Kelly Shelton Tom McKonePresident President PrincipalVillage of Northbrook Shelton Solutions, Inc. Civic Consulting AllianceDavid Hackett Kathy Tholin Kate TomfordPartner Chief Executive Officer Chief Sustainability Policy AdvisorBaker McKenzie Center For Neighborhood Illinois Dept. of Commerce and Economic OpportunityTechnologyEd MillerProgram Manager, Environment Eugene Williams Karen WeigertThe Joyce Foundation Mayor Chief Sustainability OfficerVillage of Lynwood City of ChicagoKen OrtizRegional Manager Staffed by Cook County Sustainability OfficeThe Reuse People and Department of Environmental ControlMembers Ex-officio Members
  3. 3. Letter to President Preckwinkle3Dear Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle:In establishing the Cook County Sustainability Advisory Council in March 2012, you committed to making Cook County moresustainable environmentally, socially and economically. The Council’s work shows the great potential of Cook County to become asustainability leader both in its own facilities and operations, and in the larger community. The strides already made by the Countyin the past two years provide a solid foundation for further contributions.On behalf of all of the members of the Council, we are pleased to present the Council’s report and recommendations.• The Council recommends that the County commit to an ambitious goal of reducing overall Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by80% by the year 2050. This goal will focus efforts on key opportunities for sustainability in County operations and in thecommunity.• Building energy accounts for two-thirds of GHG emissions in Cook County. Actions recommended by the Council, in addition toreductions already achieved, can put the County well ahead of schedule in achieving its goals.• The County should continue to roll out projects for sustainability in transportation and fleet, waste, water, and other opportunitytargets, including green purchasing, energy efficient Information Technology, and conserving refrigerants. The same process ofdata gathering, analysis, setting targets and practicing transparency and accountability, which is currently being used toconserve building energy, should also be applied to these target areas.Many people contributed to the work of the Council. We especially thank staff members from ComEd, USEquities, CNTEnergy, andthe Delta Institute, whose hard work and professional expertise were indispensable to the success of the Council. The Cook CountyDepartment of Environmental Control staffed the Council, and major contributions were made by the Cook County Departments ofCapital Planning, Facilities Management and Planning and Development, the Bureaus of Administration and Economic Development,and the Cook County Performance Management Office. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. We look forward to progressreports and to assisting in future work.Sincerely,Chris Kennedy Anne PramaggioreChairman, Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises, Inc. President and CEO, ComEd
  4. 4. Contents4 INTRODUCTION: Charge from President Preckwinkle to the Sustainability Advisory Council Definition and benefits of sustainability Cook County’s role in sustainability Sustainability and President Preckwinkle’s 4 goals Recommended goal and areas of focus Sustainability Council’s primary recommendations ENERGY TRANSPORTATION WASTE WATER OTHER FOCUS AREAS APPENDICES Full list of recommendations from all chapters Progress to date
  5. 5. Introduction
  6. 6. Charge from Cook County BoardPresident Toni Preckwinkle:Establish Cook County as a world-class model ofsustainability, cost savings and conservation byembedding a culture of sustainability in allCounty operations, services and partnerships withsuburban communities.6Role of the Sustainability Advisory Council:Serve as a resource, catalyst and advocate for thechange necessary to make Cook Countyenvironmentally, socially and economicallysustainable now and in the future.
  7. 7. Sustainability is…A change to the County’s culture: Sustainability is not something we have to do, it is the waywe do business.7The values, goals, strategies and initiatives thatcommunities adopt to meet their needs withoutcompromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs.
  8. 8. Cook County’s Role in Sustainability8CommunityProgramsSupplyChainEmployeesBuildings,Fleet,Waste,Water Use&OperationsCook County: Second most populous county in the U.S with over5 million people. About half the population is in the suburban area,including 130 municipalities and theunincorporated areas. The Forest Preserve District of Cook County owns11% of the land area. Represents 45% of the State’s economic activity. Has about 22,000 employees. Occupies about 150 government structures, or17.6 million sq. ft. 45,000 clean economy jobs in 2010 in tri-stateChicago metro region. General Fund Budget $2.955 billion. Reaches millions of property owners, patients,people who deal with the courts and correctionssystems, or who visit the facilities.Make sustainability a part ofeverything the County does,leverages and communicates.
  9. 9. Benefits of Sustainability Align WithPresident Preckwinkle’s Four Goals9There are environmental, economic and social benefits.1. FiscalResponsibilitySustainabilitycreates jobsand costsavings fortaxpayers,residents andbusinesses.2. Transparency&AccountabilityBenchmarkingfocus areasprovidespriorities forinvestmentand ability totrack anddiscloseimpacts.3. InnovativeLeadershipTakingsustainableaction todaygeneratesdollar savingsand providesresources forthe needs offuturegenerations.4. ImprovedServicesEfficiencyallows forspending ondirect servicesand meanshealthier,more livablecommunities.
  10. 10. Recommended Goal and Areas of FocusGOAL: Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions80% by 2050, from 2010 baselineEnergy Transportation Waste WaterOther(Refrigerants,IT, Purchasing,etc.)Purpose of Goal: To keep global temperature increases to 2degrees Centigrade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,such as extreme heat and floods. Recommendations focus on majorcontributors to Greenhouse Gas emissions, and where Cook Countyhas control or leverage.10
  11. 11. Reducing the County’s GHG Emissions by 80% will:11Equal the amount of Carbon sequestered by5.5 Million tree seedlings grown for 10 years.Save the same amount of GHG emissions astaking over 45,000 passenger vehicles offthe road for 1 year.Save the amount of CO2 emissions created byburning 928 railcars’ worth of coal.
  12. 12. We Can Reach GHG Reduction Goal byAddressing the Largest Sources of GHGCountywide, 67% ofGreenhouse Gas Emissionscome from Building Energyuse.GHG emissions are a usefulway to organizesustainability work becauseclimate change is such amajor issue, and GHGscome from so many sectors.There are additionalenvironmental benefitsfrom efficiencies in thesesectors, e.g. conservation ofwater, land and othernatural resources, andreduction of particulates,toxic metals and otherpollutants.12Building Energy67%Transportation27%Solid Waste4%Stationary, Industrialand Product Use1%Wastewater0% Water1%Cook County Community GHG Emissions by SectorTotal Annual Emissions = 72MMTCO2eData from Chicago 2010 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, March 2012
  13. 13. Sustainability Council Recommendations13Reduce GHG Emissions from County facilities and operations80% by 2050.A. Commit to reducing GHG emissions from County building energy use by80% by 2050. The Energy chapter shows how and Cook County is wellon its way to achieving this goal.B. Transportation: Use the detailed analysis of the County’s fleet and fuel tocreate a program to reduce emissions from fuel use, includingfleet/vehicle reduction, alternative fuels, and alternative transportationmodes.C. Solid Waste: Centralize waste and recycling responsibility andcontracting, to identify opportunities to maximize diversion and costsavings.D. Water and Wastewater: Use currently available means to reduce wateruse an average of 30% through contractors and internal projects.E. Future projects: Reduce refrigerants, reduce energy used by IT, andreduce the environmental impacts of goods and services the County buys.Cook County Government
  14. 14. Sustainability Council Recommendations14Be Accountable to Cook County Residents and TaxpayersF. Track overall GHG reduction goal and assure establishment ofsustainability work in other areas such as water and fuel use, solid wastedisposed/recycled, etc.G. Report annually on energy use and energy reduction measures, and makethis report a template for reporting on other sustainability goals.H. Build energy use, and other sustainability measures, into the PerformanceMeasures of individual departments and buildings.I. Coordinate building energy and other sustainability projects through ahigh level Green Team or Sustainability Cabinet, that the Cook CountyBoard President should call for, with frequent reports on progress to thePresident’s Office.With investments in energy efficiency Cook County can save taxpayers atleast $40 million in net County energy bills, over the next 20 years.(2010 prices –see slide 23 for details)
  15. 15. Sustainability Council Recommendations15Create a central data, reporting framework to allowCook County Government to meet the goal.J. For each GHG source, quantify the base, set goals, analyze ROI(dollars, environmental and social benefits), integrate goals into budgetprocess, measure progress, and be transparent.K. Put staff/IT framework (e.g. a Building Energy Manager) in place tomake analysis an ongoing effort.L. Inform the public about what Cook County has done – It has goodaccomplishments and can lead by example.Create 20 direct and indirect jobsfor every $1M spent on energyefficiency. almost $2M/year in Countyfacility water bills through easilyachievable measures.
  16. 16. Sustainability Council Recommendations16Lead Community Sustainability in Suburban Cook CountyM. Act as aggregator for grants and financing for municipal sustainabilityinitiatives.N. Promote voluntary sign-on of other local governments to Countysustainability goals such as energy efficiency; share lessons learned,provide technical and grant-seeking assistance.O. Identify sustainability programs in unincorporated Cook that wouldincrease those areas’ value to their neighboring communities.P. Where appropriate, use the County’s purchasingpower, or regulatory authority, especiallyto boost emerging sustainable marketactivities such as renewable energyor recycled/reused products.Cook County Community10,000Tons of solid waste creates:1 landfill job OR10 recycling jobs OR75 materials reuse jobs
  17. 17. Sustainability Council Recommendations17Q. Serve as center for information sharing on sustainability; especially byestablishing a link between efficiency and sustainability. Use case studiesand models, promote good resources on Cook County’s website, conduct asustainability survey and promote peer learning. Consider annualsustainability summit.R. Create “green employee” outreach program for Cook County employees.Promote information about progress the County is making, how employeescan be sustainable at work and in their communities.S. Target economic development assistance and job training to green jobsin materials reuse, energy efficiency retrofit and building technology, waterconservation and green infrastructure.Reduce toxins, ozone, particulates and other pollutants that cause respiratory andother illnesses and death.An efficient transit and freight service and adequate water supply boost theregion’s economic competitiveness.
  18. 18. EnergyEnergy Transportation Waste Water Other
  19. 19. Energy – Building Energy Use is the Largest GHG Contributorand Energy Efficiency Has Many Benefits.19Goal Reduce GHG emissions from building energy 80% by 2050. For Cook County Government buildings: Reduce energy use by 2%(from 2010 baseline) per year.Benefits: environmental, economic and socialSavings arecumulative.Many financialincentives areavailable.Data, goals andaccountabilitycreate results.Benchmarkingprovides prioritiesfor investment.$1M in energyefficiencyspendingcreates 20direct andindirect jobs.Green jobs paywell.Reduces GHGemissions andother pollutantswhich impactrespiratory andcirculatoryhealth.
  20. 20. Dept. of CorrectionsCampus35%Juvenile Complex5%Stroger HospitalCampus26%Courthouses(2-6 Districts)5%Oak Forest HospitalCampus9%County Building4%Provident HospitalCampus5%Remaining Buildings11%Energy - Where Cook County Government UsesBuilding Energy: The 2010 BaselineCook CountyGovernment:• Operates 150structures.• Used 247millionkwhs ofElectricity and 13million therms ofNatural Gas lastyear.• Annual EnergyBudget in 2010was $34.1M.11 Countygovernmentfacilities use 90%of energy. Focusingon these facilitieswill give the mostresults.20Energy Goal:Reduce GHGEmissions fromBuilding Energy80% by 2050.Annual County Owned Facilities’ Energy UseEnergy Streams = Electricity, Natural Gas & SteamGraph shows breakdown of total energy use (kBtu)Graph based on 2010 Utility DataResults may change once all utility data is collected
  21. 21. Energy - The 2050 Goal for County GovernmentBuildings is Ambitious – and AchievableThe goal isambitious, butknown solutionscan get CookCounty quitefar on thepath. GHGbenefits, aswell as savings,are cumulative.Electricity hashigher GHGimpact thannatural gas,but both canrepresentdollar savings.21270,11010,73211,754 7,357 2,43620,09715,581 1,275 4,069 8,337 5,402129,04954,022050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,0002010Baseline2011ReductionAchieved2012ReductionAchievedCourtHousesEECountyBuildingEEDOC&JTDCPCStrogerPCDOC&JTDCRemainingBuildings(non-PC)StrogerRemainingBuildings(non-PC)RemainingBuildingsEE(Est.@15%ESavings)SpaceConsolidation(Est.@2%ESavings)ExtendedPaybackProjects,Adv.inTech,Renewables,OtherInitiatives2050GoalCook County Facilities 2050 GHG Reduction Strategy- Estimated Reductions of Different Initiatives -Low Cost/NoCost & O&M CapitalSpace Consolidation&Othermetrictons of GHGE = Energy, EE = Energy Efficiency, PC= Performance ContractActualGHG Emissions Reductionin GHG Achieved EstimatedReductionin GHG
  22. 22. Energy – Ahead of target on 2050 Goal for CountyBuildings – Early Action Means More SavingsReductions inGHG arecumulative –earlierreductionsmean moresavings overtime.Aggressiveimplementationof knownprojects willresult inreaching the2026 targetearly.2250,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000201020152020202520302035204020452050metric tons of CO2eGHG Abatement Initiatives and the 2050 GHG Goal2010 GHG Baseline, 270,110E= Energy, EE = Energy Efficiency, PC = PerformanceContractGHG Reduction-from meeting the target-GHG Reduction Achieved thru 201222,486 (8% Reduction from 2010)Additional GHGReductions AchievedAdditional GHGReductionsPlanned(Aggresive )
  23. 23. Energy - Investment in Cook County BuildingEnergy Efficiency Saves Taxpayer Dollars23Costs formany of thebuildingenergyreductionstrategies areknown, andmost havedollar savingsover time thatare greaterthan theinvestments.*Performance Contract (Operational/maintenance cost savings not included in $ savings)** Savings and implementation cost estimated as a potential performance contract. Savings estimate based on Stroger Hospital performance contract savings and cost*** A portion of projects already implemented and the savings realizedBased on 2010 Utility Cost Obtained from Cook County Energy Analysis – Major Facilities (2003 – 2011)Electricity = $0.09/kWh, Natural Gas = $0.66/therm, Steam = $13.35/klbs
  24. 24. Energy - Detailed Review of Selected Cook CountyBuildings Identifies Strategies to Save EnergyAnalysis ofsample buildings(suburbancourthouses, 118N. Clark) showsopportunities forenergy savings.Many have shortpayback periods.An EnergyManager isneeded to do thislevel of datatracking, analysisandimplementationstrategy.24The above graph represents savings and implementation costs for the County Building and 5 District Courthouses.The values in the above graph are shown as incremental and not cumulative. In addition, these values include savings identified through DCEO’s RCx Study performed on the County Building and Rolling MeadowsDistrict Courthouse. The results of the Rolling Meadows study were extrapolated to Markham and Bridgeview District Courthouses, as they are identical buildings.*ComEd was unable to confirm how many, if any, of the identified no cost measures were implemented, as a result of Cook County’s recent energy efficiency efforts. It is recommended that Cook County determine howmany of these measures were implemented to more accurately estimate the savings potential.$98k InvestmentOver $323k in Annual SavingsWith a < 4 month Simple Payback
  25. 25. Energy – Detailed, Ongoing Analysis is Needed for the EntireCook County Building Portfolio–and Other GHG Sources25At the finestlevel ofdetail, specificlists of energyconservationmeasuresweredeveloped forspecificbuildings, withcosts andsavings foreach. This isthe result of ~2 years ofwork.Similar detailed analysis is needed on other sources of GHGemissions: fleet and transportation, materials waste, water andwastewater, refrigerants, etc. These can be part of a phasedSustainability program.
  26. 26. Energy – Progress26 Cook County Government The County has saved over $3 million since March 2011through operationalprograms such as Wattage Wars (a competition between nine Countybuildings to reduce energy usage) and de-lamping and curtailment. Energy Service Contract (ESCO) projects are under way that guarantee a20% reduction in energy usage at Jail and Hospital campus buildings andproviding a positive return on investment. The projects will be fullyimplemented in less than 3 years – some savings will start to accrue rightaway. A comprehensive space use and facility condition analysis will provide thebasis for a future comprehensive capital plan with energy projects. 20 energy audits, 49 buildings added to Portfolio Manager, creation ofplanning tool that identifies all county-owned buildings and the analysis thathas been done to date. Cook County Dept. of Transportation and Highways replaces 108incandescent-bulb traffic signals with LED lights, reducing the energy bills forthose fixtures by 70%.
  27. 27. Energy – Progress27 Cook County Community Nearly 600 energy audits funded by Cook County’s federal grantswere performed on homes, businesses and municipal facilities insuburban communities Audits identified almost 70 million kBTUs in potential energy savings. More than 90 energy efficiency projects at municipal buildings and non-profits have produced the potential for over $2.3 million in cost savingsover the first 5 years. Cook County helped local governments save energy on their waterpumping by funding projects such as wind turbines and efficient pumps Funding for home weatherization projects will save 100,000 kwhs and85,000 therms. Over 66 FTE jobs were created through these projects.
  28. 28. Energy – Initial Analysis Done in a Majority ofCook County Buildings.2802,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,000Square Footage of County BuildingswithInitial Energy Analysis02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,000Square Footage of County Buildingsin USEPA Energy Star PortfolioManagerSq Ft not in Portfolio ManagerSq Ft in ESCO Portfolio ManagagerSq Ft. in CNT Portfolio ManagerEnergy Audits performed with U.S. Dept. of Energy Grant FundsEnergy Audits performed by ComEdProposed ESCO – RFP responses for Courthouses, ProvidentHosp., Highway facilities and Oak Forest Hosp.ESCO- Dept. of Corrections and Stroger Hosp. CampusesNo AnalysisMany buildings need meters installed to get data.
  29. 29. Energy - Recommendations29Cook County Government Hospital and Corrections Campuses: perform retro-commissioningand “low hanging fruit” projects. Pursue 15% energy reduction frombuildings not in ESCOs. Water conservation to save further energy. Suburban Courthouses, Highway Facilities and Administrationbuildings: Pursue ESCOs where appropriate and continue toimplement recommendations from Energy Audits. Integrate known project needs and operational cost savings into2014 budget and capital planning processes. Hire appropriate energy management staff to coordinate energyprojects and monitor energy use and attain energy incentive grants. Create an energy efficiency revolving loan fund within the County’sbudget. Analyze unique opportunities such as possible co-generation ofelectricity from steam operation at the jail.
  30. 30. Energy - Recommendations30 Invest in technology to support energy management and usebenchmarking as a tool to prioritize energy efficiency improvements. Continue benchmarking to identify further energy consumptionanomalies and document results of efficiency efforts. Create an umbrella green coordinating group among Depts./Offices. Build Energy Efficiency goals into Performance Measures ofDepts./Offices Revise County’s energy procurement guidelines to include metrics for no-coal and renewable energy. Institutionalize employee behavioral changes to include efficiency andbegin charge-back system for department energy costs. As energy use is reduced, analyze cost and feasibility of renewablesinstallations.
  31. 31. Energy - Recommendations31Cook County Community Establish a program, including appropriate staffing, to engagesuburban municipalities in energy efficiency investment, data sharingprograms. This could take the form of an “energy concierge” whoassists local governments to understand the benefits of energyefficiency; which of their buildings are good candidates, the varioustechnical assistance programs and financial benefits available fromthe state and utilities and promulgates peer case studies and bestpractices. Work with utilities to improve data tracking systems and informationsharing with local communities. Provide technical assistance for grant writing and efficiencyprogram assistance to municipalities.
  32. 32. TransportationEnergy Transportation Waste Water Other
  33. 33. Transportation33Goal Decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled by Cook County residents and employees(and reduce GHG emissions from vehicles 80% by 2050)Efficient transportationsaves money on fuel,time wasted in traffic,lost businessproductivitydue to workers andgoods stuck incommute.More housing andtransportation choices,walkable, healthier,child- and elderly-friendly communities,less pollution fromparticulates, ozone.More affordablecommunities.Economic developmentbenefits of aligninginfrastructure,investments & land usewith worker & freightMovement.Efficient land usemakes the most ofexisting infrastructure,lowering or delayingdebt.Benefits: Environmental, Economic, Social
  34. 34. Transportation34Transportation is thesecond largestGHG contributor insuburban Cook:over 12,000,000MTCO2e.County governmenthas already begunanalyzing its ownfleet to get data,establish abaseline, andcreate a plan toachieve efficiencygoals.Trucks 2%Cargo 5%Passenger24%Specialty69%By Type of VehicleHealth andHospitals3%OfficesUnder thePresident27%Offices ofotherElectedOfficials70%2013 Cook County Government FleetTotal Vehicles =1,700Total Fleet Cost = $16.5 Million in FY 2012By User Agency
  35. 35. Transportation – Projections for GHG Reductionswith Fleet Management35As an Example:Using 2012 as abaseline, the Countycould reduce GHGemissions by almost2,000 metric tons, or15% by 2016 by:1. Reducing annualmiles driven by 2%2. Replacingunleaded vehicles forthe next 4 years with:10 units per yearwith CNG10 units per yearwith Hybrid10 units per yearwith PropaneInformation from CST Fleet Services, Cook County Fleet Assessment Draft Report, May 2013
  36. 36. 36Cook County Government Created Shared Fleet used by multiple departments, and entered into car sharingcontract. Initial savings estimated at $250,000 for 2013. Began Countywide fleet analysis to analyze the management of fleet assets,maintenance, fuel costs, and fleet information systems. This program will help toimplement best practices, save money and improve the value of existing assets tothe County . Centralizing and right-sizing the fleet, along with rethinking the fuelingand maintenance policies and infrastructure, provides many opportunities toincrease the sustainability of the County’s fleet operations. Continuing to install diesel retrofits to reduce pollution from heavy equipment atHighway Department, Forest Preserve District, Sheriff. Cook County Government offers transit tax benefits to its employees. Begun to work collaboratively with City of Chicago on identifying alternative-fueling projects and seeking federal and other grants.Transportation – Progress
  37. 37. Transportation – Progress37Cook County Community Dept. of Environmental Control worked with Center for NeighborhoodTechnology to enroll over 100 more businesses in the employee tax benefit fortransit program, benefiting almost 1,000 employees (and removing associatedauto traffic and emissions). Undertook key projects, such as $40M expansion of Joe Orr Road in Lynwood,and Center Street in Harvey near the CN freight terminal, to create nodes ofeconomic opportunity. Reorganized Dept. of Transportation & Highways to focus on economicdevelopment, Complete Streets for multiple modes of travel. Created Bureau of Economic Development, appointed Council of EconomicAdvisors focused on spurring growth around transit and freight nodes. Creating new resources for infill development: Land Bank, $30 MillionSection 108 Loan Pool for economic development financing, BrownfieldRedevelopment & Intermodal Promotion Act to support job creation nearHarvey’s CN Terminal, revamped tax incentives, and others.
  38. 38. Transportation - Recommendations38Cook County Government County Vehicle Fleet - Needs same analytic approach as applied to energy. Coordinate Forest Preserve District bike trail planning with local alternativetransportation planning. Analyze options for alternative fuels, fueling stations for County fleet, to reduce GHGemissions and to save money. Seek grants available for alternative-vehicle fleet and fueling station projects.Cook County Community Advocate for investments and operating budgets that strengthen transit options withinCook County by working with Cook County appointees to transit boards and CMAP. Target a significant percent of County tax and economic development incentives towithin ½ mile of transit stations. Prioritize Community Development Block Grant funds and County tax and economicdevelopment incentives to Cargo Oriented Development and Transit OrientedDevelopment opportunities. Invest HOME to support affordable housing in TODs. Support access to suburban officeparks by supporting Transportation Management Associations.
  39. 39. WasteEnergy Transportation Waste Water Other
  40. 40. Waste – Goals and Benefits of Reduction, Reuseand Recycling40GoalDivert more waste from landfills: 50% by 2025, 60% by 2035, 80% by 2050.The Cook County Solid Waste Plan recommends following a “zero-waste” philosophy.Save on costs to disposeof and store materials,and through sourcereduction, save onpurchase of materials.Recapture value ofmaterials.Create local jobsthrough growth of therecycled commoditiesindustry. 10,000 tons ofsolid waste creates 1 jobat a landfill, OR 10recycling jobs, OR 75materials reuse jobs.Save landfill space andassociated air andwater pollution; reduceemissions from energyused to extract,manufacture new goodsand to transport wasteto landfills.Track and account formaterials to identifyrecycling and reuseopportunities torecapture value ofmaterials.Benefits: environmental, economic, social
  41. 41. Waste – Composition of Landfill Municipal Solid Waste byMaterial in Cook County Communities, 200741The largestcomponents ofthe waste streamhave a highpotential forreuse andrecycling.Recycling ofpaper, plastic,glass, and metalwill not beenough to reachdiversion goals.Additionalrecycling streamsand marketableend-use productswill be requiredfor organics andconstruction anddemolition debris.Construction &Demolition25.30%Paper 23.40%Organics20.70%Plastic 13.00%Textiles 7.00%Metal 4.80%Glass 2.80%Inorganics2.40%HouseholdHazardousWaste 0.40%BeverageContainers0.20%The Cook CountyDept. ofEnvironmentalControl isresponsible byState law forplanning andcoordination ofsolid waste andrecycling insuburban CookCounty – anopportunity tomake an impact.
  42. 42. Waste– Community Reuse and Recycling Needs toIncrease Dramatically – Waste Produced Must Decline42Cook Countyresidents createmore waste percapita/daythan the USaverage andrecycle less.Solid wastefrom suburbanCook isresponsible for1,304,285MTCO2e, the3rd largestGHG source.0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,000Southern Cook Northern Cook Western CookCounty-wide Waste Generation and Recycling RatesTons of Waste GeneratedTons of Waste Recycled
  43. 43. Waste - Progress43Cook County Government Waste audits have been conducted at several County government facilities. Cook County has a contract to recycle its electronic waste. Composting is under way at the Sheriff’s Boot Camp, in cooperation with the Dept. ofEnvironmental Control and Chicago Botanic Garden.Cook County Community Passed the first Solid Waste Plan (2012) for suburban Cook County in 12 years, with anideal goal of zero waste. Conducted a marketing study with the Delta Institute on the emerging demand for reuseof building materials. A 2012 County ordinance requires demolition debris diversion rate of 70% with anadditional re-use rate of 5% for residential demolition projects. 26,000 tons have beenrecycled or reused since implementation in Nov. 2012. Cook County Dept. of Environmental Control funded a waste transportation study toexamine economic and environmental costs of waste generation and transport in Countycommunities.Cook County is the first government in the Midwest to use the paperless Green Halowaste reporting system, which helps contractors identify savings. Now beingconsidered by several other governments in the region.
  44. 44. Waste- Recommendations44Cook County Government Coordinate a municipal solid waste and recycling reporting system forCook County municipalities and County government offices. Establish baselinenumbers. With commitments from County waste agencies and unaffiliated municipalities,develop plans to meet diversion and reduction goals. Expand waste audits of Cook County government facilities to identify diversionopportunities, including opportunities to reduce costs or increase revenues andadd additional recycling streams where appropriate. Increase the use of online services in County government. Analyze supply chain for opportunities to boost the market forrecycled/recyclable materials, to reduce packaging, to substitute services (e.g.web-based) for physical products, to reduce use of products containing toxicsubstances, etc. Increase reuse and salvage operations within County government, includingfollowing the Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance guidelines for renovations.
  45. 45. Waste- Recommendations45Cook County Community Aggressively seek grant funding for communities lacking residential curbsiderecycling. Analyze impacts of further landfill closures on community costs to transport waste;use information to leverage diversion programs. Building on successes of the Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance, identify ways toexpand local business and job opportunities in recycling, green packaging, andother materials reuse sectors. Support a comprehensive recycling law with minimum requirements for residential,commercial and industrial facilities. Boost the fledgling food scrap composting market by requiring facilities generatinglarge quantities of food scrap per day to compost, and working with municipalitieson local compost pickup programs. Promote public and private sector investment opportunities in local recycling,composting, and waste to energy projects. Demonstrate to municipalities the business case for increased diversion.Shift the Perspective: Waste is an asset in the wrong location.
  46. 46. WaterEnergy Transportation Waste Water Other
  47. 47. Water – Goals and benefits of reduced waterusage.47Goal Reduce water used at County facilities by 30% by 2025, 40% by 2035.Reducing water use willsave money on water billsfor County government;Regional water efficiencyreduces infrastructurecosts.Reduces pollution inwaterways, helpspreserve naturalstreamflow foraquatic habitat.Assuring adequatewater for the region’sfuture improveseconomiccompetitiveness.Metering and accountingwill make this “hidden”resource visible andpromote accountability.Benefits: environmental, economic, social
  48. 48. Water - Most County Government Water Use is inCourts & Corrections, and Health & Hospitals Facilities48Most County use ofwater (from the Cityof Chicago) is inCorrections andHealth facilities,costing just over $2M.Cook County receivesabout $1M incharitable exemptionsfrom water fees onhealth facilities.Chicago’s water ratesare rising from $4.74/1000gal. in 2012 to$7.64/1000 gal in2015, and exemptionsare being phased out.Total cost could bealmost $6M by 2015.Small purchases ofwater are made fromsuburban suppliers –most have higherrates.Water and wastewater caused 540,000 MTCO2e of GHG emissions in suburban Cook County in 2010.Administration8%Health &Hospital44%Courts &Corrections48%Millions of Gallons - from City of Chicago Water Data (2012)Annual Water Usage = 772 M Gallons(2012)
  49. 49. Water - Typical Water Use Reduction Potentialby Type of Public Building49Admin 64,850 45% 29,182 32% 20,752 15% 9,727Corr./Courts369,981 52% 192,390 35% 129,493 17% 62,897Health/Hosp.336,713 40% 134,685 28% 94,280 18% 60,608TOTAL 771,544 46% 356,258 32% 244,525 17% 133,357% savings as provided by Water Management
  50. 50. Water - Expected Savings for Cook CountyGovernment With Available Techniques and Fixtures50Achieving the “Medium”level of water reduction forall 3 facility types wouldlower annual water use byabout 244 M gal.Irrigation occurs at few Countyfacilities. Since irrigation is asignificant target of industry-widesavings, we assume “Medium”instead of “High” savings levels.At 2015 Chicago water rate of$7.64/1000gal, Medium levelwater use reduction = annualsavings of $1.86M (assumingno charitable exemptions forhealth facilities’ water purchases).Savings are probably under-stated because this does notaccount for the money CookCounty spends on water fromsuburban suppliers, especiallyMaywood and Rolling Meadows,where rates are high.
  51. 51. Water – Cook County Government Can Meet theWater Reduction Goal of 40% by 203551Typical strategiesinclude fixing leaks;low-flow fixtures(including specializedfixtures for correctionalsetting), such as faucets,toilets, and kitchen pre-rinse spray nozzles;repairing and updatingcooling towers; ozone orother alternativelaundry systems;alternative landscapingapproaches.Water use atcorrectional, health careand publicadministrative buildingscan all be reduced withreasonable payback forinvestments.77112994 216446301002003004005006007008009002012Baseline35%(Medium)EfficiencyCorrections/Courts28%(Medium)EfficiencyHealth/Hospitals32%(Medium)EfficiencyAdministrationOther:FurtherEff,Consolidation,GreywaterReuse,NewTech/ProcessChange2035Cook County Water Usage Reduction Strategy- Estimated Reductions of Different Initiatives -Millionsof gallonsof waterActualWater Usage EstimatedReductionin WaterUsageWater usage is actual from City of Chicago Water Usage 11/11 to 11/12.Reduction amounts are projections based on typical measures for similar facilities.
  52. 52. Water – CMAP’s Water 2050 report shows how theCommunity can decrease water consumption52In 2005NortheasternIllinois used1225.7 milliongallons ofwater per day.Byimplementinghighconservationmeasures suchas repairingleaks andincreasingmetering up to269.4 mgd ofwater could besaved.PublicSupply,1225.7,81%Self-SuppliedIndustrialandCommercial,191.6 ,13%Self-suppliedDomestic,36.8, 2%IrrigationandAgriculture,62, 4%2005 Reported Withdrawals inNortheastern Illinois(in million gallons per day)Excluding once-through powerWater 2050: Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply/Demand Plan, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, March 2010, p. 29-31, 112Conservation MeasuresLowConservation(mgd)HighConservation(mgd)High Efficiency Toilets 15.0 74.8Water WasteProhibition12.1 60.3Metering 30.3 31.5Leaks and AuditRepair5.9 29.7Residential PlumbingRetrofits5.2 26Commercial/Industrial 5 25.2High-EfficiencyClothes Washers3.2 16.1Large Landscape 1.0 5.1Residential WaterSurvey0.1 0.7All Measures-Total 77.8 269.4
  53. 53. Water - Progress53Cook County Government Conducted first known water use analysis of County facilities, with USEquities. Current ESCO projects at Corrections and Hospital complexes are putting in sub-metering for more useful data on water use. County is beginning to work with City of Chicago to bundle water bills intozones, for faster payment, reducing late fees and creating greater congruitybetween charges and usage.Cook County Community Cook County Dept. of Building and Zoning is in the process of adopting moreconservation-friendly International Building Codes for unincorporated areas. Environmental Control helped local communities lower energy costs (andGreenhouse Gas emissions) of water distribution: funded wind turbine inLynwood to power water pump station, and variable-speed drives for energyefficiency at pumping station in Niles. To address stormwater runoff impacts, the County funded demonstration ofpermeable-paver alley in Bellwood.
  54. 54. Water – Recommendations54Cook County Government 30 day trials of corrections-specific plumbing fixtures at Department of Corrections(DoC) – adopt what works. Add water conservation (and energy savings tied to water conservation) to DoC, HHSESCOs, or pursue independently if financing is more favorable. Undertake a comprehensive program of water audits of corporate/courts buildingsusing existing FM staff and outside training. Analyze 69W. Washington before therestack makes the building more dense. Within set of suburban courthouses, focuswhere water rates are highest (Maywood, Rolling Meadows). Become a USEPA “WaterSense” partner and follow guidelines for purchasing water-saving fixtures and appliances Join Chicago Green Healthcare Initiative or similar resource group(s) and use peerlearning to search for additional water savings at Health & Hospitals. Analyze use reduction options at cooling towers. Pursue alternative landscape options to water use for irrigation (County does littleirrigation but where used, alternatives should be considered). Analyze County’s purchasing/supply chain for indirect water impacts – find ways toreduce.
  55. 55. Water – Recommendations55 Consider solar thermal for domestic hot water heating after reduction of water useintensity. Examine large uses of water, e.g. once-through cooling at 118 N. Clark (seek ways toreduce), steam heating at DoC (Explore for cogeneration of electricity) Look for appropriate opportunities for harvesting and reuse of “free” water sources,such as rainwater and air conditioning condensate. Illinois Department of PublicHealth is working on new Plumbing Code standards, which may open up these andother new opportunities. Integrate water saving investments into multi-year capital/operating budgets. Centralize water data/analysis. Include water bills in EPA Energy Star PortfolioManager – keep data current. Seek agreement with City of Chicago to install “smart” water meters at all Countyfacilities. Pursue discussion with City of “on-bill financing” for water saving investments. While rebates for water efficiency fixtures are less available than for energyefficiency investments, pursue what is available (e.g. current DCEO offer of free low-flow kitchen pre-rinse nozzles). Reduce water-use impact of supplies and services purchased by the County.
  56. 56. Water – Recommendations56Cook County Community Install public education signage on water conservation fixtures in Countybuildings that are open to the public. Become a USEPA WaterSense promotional partner and help disseminateinformation to local communities on water saving opportunities. Share best practices/ successes among Cook municipalities. Play an active role with suburban communities on joint planning on waterrelated issues – e.g. seeking federal grants for green infrastructureinvestments. Consider use of CDBG and other federal development funds to assist localcommunities in saving water and reducing their stormwater impacts. Continue to assist local communities in identifying energy efficiencies in theirwater supply and pumping infrastructure.
  57. 57. Other Focus AreasEnergy Transportation Waste Water Other
  58. 58. Examples of Other Opportunities58In order tocomprehensivelyaddress GHGemissions, allareas ofoperation needto be considered.Priorities maychange as data isgathered aboutthe sources ofGHG emissions.Phase in newprojects overtime. Information Technology is a prime source tolook for energy, materials savings – anddollar savings. Purchasing standards and practices canhelp drive sustainability through theCounty’s whole supply chain. Reducingmaterials used, and packaging, can savemoney. Refrigerants are a potent GreenhouseGas, and sealing leaks and making coolingsystems more efficient also saves money.
  59. 59. Appendices• Full List of All SustainabilityCouncil RecommendationsA.• Cook County’s SustainabilityProgress to DateB.