EAB_April_5th_report_FINAL_V4

City of Schenectady Energy and
Carbon Emissions Review
April 2010
City of Schenectady Energy Advisory Board
Chair - Dana R. Swalla, Ph.D.

April 2010 – EAB Energy Use and Carbon Footprint Analysis
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2
Climate Change and Energy Use Trends................................................................................... 4
General Methodology................................................................................................................. 6
Municipal Inventory Methodology and Results ........................................................................... 7
Buildings Sector ..................................................................................................................... 8
Vehicle Fleet Sector..............................................................................................................10
Streetlights and Traffic Signals Sector...................................................................................12
Water and Sewer Sector .......................................................................................................13
Leak detection: ..................................................................................................................15
Water metering studies: .....................................................................................................16
Water conservation savings and costs: ..............................................................................17
Solid Waste and Recycling Sector.........................................................................................21
Citywide inventory methodology and results .............................................................................23
Residential, Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Buildings .............................................24
Transportation and Vehicle Use ............................................................................................25
2009-2010 Conclusions and Summary of Recommendations by Sector ...................................27
General:.............................................................................................................................27
Water:................................................................................................................................27
Solid Waste and Recycling:................................................................................................27
Vehicle fleet: ......................................................................................................................27
Appendix A: Listing of Energy Advisory Board Recommendations for 2007-2008.....................28
References ...............................................................................................................................29

1
Acknowledgements
Board members are energy and environment professionals, academics, and concerned
citizens who have provided their time, pro-bono, to the community through their service to the
Board.
The 2005-2008 Energy Use and Carbon Footprint Analysis was completed by Dana R.
Swalla, Ph.D.1
with assistance by Union College students, Sarah Conner and Robert Eastman.
Dr. Jeff Corbin2
, Dr. Andy Shapiro3
, and Mark DeChiro4
were also instrumental in technically
validating the 2008 Carbon Footprint Analysis. The 2009-2010 Energy Use and Carbon
Footprint Analysis was completed by Dana R. Swalla, Ph.D. Recommendations in Solid Waste
& Recycling were completed with the expertise of Jeff Edwards, Schenectady County
Department of Economic Development and Planning. Michael Tamasi and Dr. Andy Morris
gathered water use and metering information from surrounding municipalities and local
contractors, in addition to helping draft recommendations.
Special appreciation is extended to the following: Bill Nechamen for providing New York
State water information needed for this report, to Sreekumar Nampoothiri for the Schenectady
non-municipal vehicle use inventory, and Nathanial Hancock (National Grid) for providing the
Schenectady non-municipal energy use profiles.
All recommendations drafted by the Board were completed after collaboration with City
administrative staff listed above and City Council members prior to publication in this report.
Energy Advisory Board Members:
Jeff Corbin,Ph.D.
Jeff Edwards
HeatherMeaney
Andy Morris,Ph.D.- Secretary
Dana Swalla,Ph.D. – Chair
MichaelTamasi
Andy Shapiro,Ph.D.,Ex-Officio
Sharon Jordan - Chief of Staff
IsmatAlam - Commissioner of Finance and Administration
CarlOlsen - Commissioner of General Services
PaulLafond - Deputy Director of Water and Wastewater
John Coluccio -Signal Superintendent
Administration Staff:
Union College Faculty/students:
Andy Morris,Ph.D. - Faculty
Jeff Corbin,Ph.D. – Faculty
Sarah Conner
RobertEastman
Contributors:
Mark De Chiro
Regional Coordinator, Capital/Saratoga Energy $mart Communities
Program (c/o NYSERDA)
Bill Nechamen - Chief, Floodplain Management at New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
Margaret Lazzari
Sreekumar Nampoothiri - Capital District Transportation
Committee
Matthew Brom
RPI – PhD Student, Civil Engineering & Transportation
Pat Boudreau
Nathanial Hancock
National Grid

2
Executive Summary
The Schenectady Energy Advisory Board (EAB) was created in May 2007 by Schenectady
City Council Members Barbara Blanchard and Frank Maurizio after Mayor Brian U. Stratton
signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement pledging to reduce the City’s carbon
footprint 7% by 2012.
The Mission of the Schenectady Energy Advisory Board is to make recommendations to the
City Council and to the Administration in line with the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement, in order to minimize environmental and financial impacts by reducing the carbon
footprint of the city infrastructure and the community in general.
The Energy Advisory Board completed the City of Schenectady’s first Carbon Footprint and
Energy Use Analysis in Fall 2007, which was presented to the City Council and public in July
2008.5
This analysis has formed the baseline of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Strategy. The recommendations developed with insight gained from this analysis are listed in
Appendix A, for reference. Many of these recommendations are also included in the City
Comprehensive Plan.6
In May 2009, after review by the Energy Advisory Board, the Mayor and City Council signed
resolution 2009-122 designating Schenectady as a Climate Smart Community. This resolution
further solidifies the City’s commitment to continued reduction in energy use and carbon
emissions and the ongoing work of the Board. Ten goals set forth in this resolution are listed
below:
 Pledge to Combat Climate Change by Becoming a Climate Smart Community
 Set Goals, Inventory Emissions, Move to Action
 Decrease Energy Demand for Local Government Operations
 Encourage Renewable Energy for Local Government Operations
 Realize Benefits of Recycling and Other Climate Smart Solid Waste Management
Practices
 Promote Climate Protection through Community Land Use Planning
 Plan for Adaptation to Unavoidable Climate Change
 Support a Green Innovation Economy
 Inform and Inspire the Public
 Commit to an Evolving Process
The Energy Advisory Board creates annual analyses and recommendations in collaboration
with the City administration and City Council. This report is primarily focused on
recommendations developed from 2009-2010 covering water & sewer, solid waste/recycling,
and vehicle fleet sectors. This work further builds on the analysis and recommendations
completed in 2008. Prior analysis for the City building sector, traffic & streetlight sector, and
selected results from independent consultants hired between 2004-2010 are also included for
completeness.
For City municipal operations, the single highest energy use and carbon footprint are due to
water pumping (Figure 1a), followed by the vehicle fleet. Among the City buildings, the highest
total energy use and carbon footprint is from the police department building, followed by City
Hall.

3
As of 2008, the City’s municipal operations was determined to make up roughly 3% of the
City’s total carbon footprint due to private building operation and vehicle use (Figure 1b).
Therefore, the EAB continues to work with the City Administration, City Council, and other
public/private entities to develop public outreach strategies to reduce the City’s overall carbon
footprint and energy use.
Figure 1: (a) Municipal carbon emissions by sector, (b) Comparison of municipal and
citywide carbon emissions.5
In 2004, the City executed a performance contract with Siemens Building Technologies to
evaluate the municipal building use and upgrade equipment. Another study was completed by
L&S Energy Services in February 2010, as part of a Department of Energy (DoE) Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant requirement. This report summarizes additional
conservation strategies currently underway in Schenectady, most of which have been covered
in current and past EAB recommendations. Results from the Siemens 2005 report and 2010
L&S report are included here, where relevant.7

4
Climate Change and Energy Use Trends
Motivations by individuals, municipalities, and businesses to reduce energy use currently
stem from a variety of sources, a few of which are listed below:
 Concern for the environment and the risk of dramatic climate change due to greenhouse
gas (GHG) accumulation and use of fossil fuels.
 A desire to save money and valuable resources.
 Reduce dependency on foreign energy sources.
 Comply with regulations reducing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases
(GHG).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) as the most common greenhouse gases. The EPA also indicates that current
and projected concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere ―threaten the public health and
welfare of current and future generations.‖ 8
Municipalities and larger businesses are compelled to reduce their GHG emissions to
comply with regulations in addition to being responsive to public needs. A continuing challenge
is determining methods to set priorities, save energy, and reduce emissions in ways that are
both financially and environmentally effective. For municipalities, an additional challenge is
developing public outreach and educational strategies to reach energy use and conservation
goals.
To reach both financial and environmental goals, it is necessary to track both energy use
and carbon emissions. Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the fluctuation in energy prices for gasoline,
electricity, and natural gas. Decisions based solely on supply costs must include this price
fluctuation risk. Furthermore, the environmental costs of various energy sources are not always
embedded in the costs charged to customers, due to variations in regional regulations and
currency values.
As a practical matter, using carbon emissions as both a financial and environmental
assessment tool has value since the energy content of a particular source can be more easily
compared to other sources. The energy content of various sources are captured in the
equivalent carbon dioxide metric, and through the use of carbon emissions factors. Carbon
emissions are emerging as a new currency that is traded similar to monetary currency. Also,
new regulations passed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oblige companies and
municipalities that produce more than 25,000 tons (short) to track and report their emissions
annually.9

5
Figure 2: Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices, Energy Information Administration10
Figure 3: Monthly Average Retail Prices of Electricity by Sector.11
Figure 4: Monthly U.S. Price of Natural Gas Sold to Commercial Consumers 12

6
General Methodology
This report contains the results of both energy use and carbon emissions inventory for the
City of Schenectady municipal operations and for the entire City of Schenectady. Municipal
operations represent a subset of the larger citywide total.
The purpose of this inventory is to provide City government with information to inform policy
decisions. Both federal governmental agencies as well as private companies and organizations
have recently developed software that can be used to calculate carbon emissions. However,
the cost of this software is usually prohibitive to smaller municipalities, which requires an annual
license fee. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (formerly STAPPA and ALAPCO),
ICLEI, and Torrie Smith Associates Inc., developed the Clean Air and Climate Protection
(CACP) software using EPA funding. As such, the EPA has made this software available to
municipalities free of charge. The Board has obtained a copy of this software, and will consider
using it for future analysis.
The EPA has issued certification recommendations and guidance for those conducting local,
state, and federal carbon emissions inventories. Training and materials can be found at this
site. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ts1.pdf
The primary value in using off-the-shelf software is routine updating of carbon emissions
factors and ability to compare results with other communities. The Energy Advisory Board
conducted a survey of a demonstration version of the CACP software in 2007, as well as other
commercially available software. In 2007, the EAB decided that common spreadsheet tools
were sufficient for conducting the analysis, provided that care is taken in obtaining the most
recent carbon emissions factors. In addition, all analysis was completed and verified by energy
and environmental technical experts both inside and outside EAB membership. Future
analyses will use EPA tools and recommended certification procedures documented in the ISO
14000 series of standards. Life cycle assessment as well as greenhouse gas certification
procedures are included in ISO 14040 and 16064:1-3, respectively.
The carbon emissions factors used in the current analyses were obtained from the EPA’s
database, and verified against the carbon emissions factors used in the New York City
Emissions Inventory, completed in 2007. Every attempt was made to ensure that these
quantifications were as close to actual emissions as possible and that all uncertainties were
reduced as far as practicable.
Table 1: Carbon Emissions factors used for this report.
GHG Parameter Emission Factor CO2 Emissions Unit Base Units
Compressed Natural Gas 0.1257263756440 lbs cubic feet
Coal 4141.8360000000000 lbs tons
Diesel 20.9680772531510 lbs US gallons
Diesel (ULSD) 21.0297480686018 lbs US gallons
Ethanol (E-85) 11.0523447878980 lbs US gallons
Gasoline 20.7085424276427 lbs US gallons
Green Electricity 0.0000000000000 lbs Kwh
Grid Electricity 0.8600230000000 lbs Kwh
Heavy Fuel Oil 27.5841290108120 lbs US gallons
Light Fuel Oil 23.0101406551437 lbs US gallons
Methanol (M-85) 9.5413730577200 lbs US gallons
Natural Gas 12.3248104900883 lbs Therms
Sewage Gas 0.0000000000000 lbs Therms
Solar 0.0000000000000 lbs Kwh

7
All outputs from the carbon emissions analysis used in this report are in units of metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). CO2 equivalent is a common unit that allows emissions of
greenhouse gases of different strengths to be added together and allows each greenhouse gas
to be weighted according to its relative contribution to global climate change. For example,
methane and nitrous oxide are much less abundant than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but
because they have a greater potential to impact global climate change, conversion into CO2e
accords them much more weight than their abundance may suggest.
Municipal Inventory Methodology and Results
The greenhouse gas emissions and energy use inventory included in this section includes
data obtained from City of Schenectady government operations, activities, and facilities in Fiscal
Years 2005-2010.
Emissions from facilities and fleets owned and leased, as well as from operations that take
place in facilities owned or leased by the City of Schenectady, are included. Municipal
operations are separated from Citywide emissions and energy use because the City
government ultimately has greater control over its own emission-producing actions, such as
building heating and cooling, than over those resulting from private activities within its
jurisdiction.
Government operations that are not directly controlled by the City of Schenectady (such as
school buses and public transportation), as well as energy and fuel used by private entities
contracted by the City of Schenectady, are not included in these inventories, unless otherwise
noted. Fuel used by taxis and for-hire vehicles, as well as City employee commute have been
captured indirectly in the Citywide Vehicle Use Assessment.
• Buildings: Electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil from City-owned buildings and facilities.
• Vehicle Fleet: Gasoline and diesel fuel used by various City-owned or leased motor vehicles
such as passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, and marine vehicles.
• Streetlights: Electricity use resulting from the operation of outdoor lighting such as
streetlights, traffic signals, illuminated pedestrian signs, and parks and recreation lights.
• Water and Sewer: Electricity, natural gas, and fuel consumption from water pumping and
wastewater treatment.

8
Buildings Sector
The annual electrical consumption, sorted by location and usage, are plotted in Figure 5 for
the top thirteen energy using municipal operations for the City of Schenectady. The energy
usage and carbon emissions resulting from water pumping and streetlights are discussed in the
Water & Sewer Section, and Traffic & Streetlight Sector Section respectively. The average
carbon emissions for the top building emission sources (including electrical, natural gas, and
fuel oil sources) is plotted in Figure 6.
Figure 5: Annual Electrical Consumption (2007) for the top thirteen municipal electrical
energy users.
Figure 6: Average CO2 Emissions (2006/2007) for the top building emitters.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
EnergyUsage(kWh/yr)
AnnualElectrical Consumption (2007) - by location
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
AVGCO2(metrictonnes)
Average CO2 Emissions (2006/2007) - by location

9
4100
4150
4200
4250
4300
4350
4400
1
CO2Emissions(tons)
2005 Usage (Siemens) Avg 2006-2007
The electrical consumption is highest for the police department, followed by City Hall and
Fire Stations 1,2, 4, and 3, in that order.
In 2004, the City executed a performance contract with Siemens Building Technologies to
evaluate the municipal building use and upgrade equipment. 7
A series of Facility Improvement
Measures (FIM) for City municipal buildings and operations are included in their report and so
will not be repeated here. Estimated energy use savings are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of total energy savings based on Siemens Performance Contract.
Energy
Savings
Electric Usage
Savings(kWh/yr)
Electric
Demand
Savings (kw/yr)
National Grid
Gas Savings
(Therms/yr)
No. 2 Fuel Oil
Savings
(Gallons/yr)
$322,053 811,692 2366.9 47,351 1,380
A number of these improvements were implemented for many of the City buildings. The
reduction in carbon emissions that resulted from these improvements is plotted in Figure 7.
It is estimated that the carbon
emissions due to Schenectady City
operations were reduced by 4% (170
metric tonnes) compared to 2005 levels
as a result of these improvements. Work
is ongoing to verify that improvements
are being maintained as well as to
continue implementation of performance
contract monitoring and recommended
improvements.
Summary:
 Carbon Emissions reductions of 4% of municipal operations (170 metric tonnes) were
obtained after Siemens Performance Contract improvements.
 Highest energy use and carbon emissions are from Police Department and City Hall.
Actions for 2010:
 Verify building performance improvements.
 Update energy use and carbon emissions for 2007-2010.
Figure 7: Carbon Emissions reductions from
performance contract improvements.

10
30%
29%
11%
8%
7%
5%
4%3%3%
Police Dept
Waste-SNAP
Fire Dept
Street Dept
Sewer
Parks
Water & Eng
Utilities & facil
Heavy Equip
 Investigate Property-Assisted Clean Energy (PACE) program for financing energy
improvement investments; city pays up front and homeowner pays it as part of property tax
payments.13,14
Vehicle Fleet Sector
The City vehicle fleet ranges from off-road heavy equipment to police vehicles. In 2007, the
City had approximately 300
vehicles. In 2007, the unleaded
gasoline and diesel fuel usage
was 126,207 gallons and
115,339 gallons, respectively. In
2009, the City vehicle fleet
consumed 151,505 gallons and
141,167 gallons of unleaded
gasoline and diesel fuel,
respectively. The carbon
emissions distribution of City
vehicle fleet fuel consumption for
2007 is shown in Figure 8. The
total emissions for the vehicle
fleet is 2315 tonnes.
The City vehicle fleet gasoline and diesel fuel consumption has increased 20% and 22%,
respectively, compared to 2007. The miles per gallon (MPG) of the City’s Vehicle Fleet are
plotted in Figure 9. Equipment such as fire trucks, garbage trucks, and certain other special use
equipment cannot be replaced with other vehicles at this time. Many of these larger vehicles
tend to be amongst the lowest MPG, but are used relatively infrequently. Therefore, the EAB
has targeted low-mileage rated ―discretionary‖ vehicles, or those that have some ability to be
replaced with improved technology or perhaps eliminated altogether.
Figure 9: Distribution of Schenectady Vehicle Fleet
MPG rating.
MPGs of Vehicle Fleet
0
50
100
150
200
250
1-10 11-15 16-20 20-25 26+
MPG
NumberofVehicles
Figure 8: Percentage of Vehicle Fleet Emissions, by
department

11
These vehicles are listed below, along with average miles per gallon (MPG), miles driven,
and number of vehicles in fleet as of 2008. Table 3 lists the associated fuel and estimated
maintenance costs for these vehicles.
Ford Crown Victoria: Avg 8.7 MPG, Qty: 21
20 to police department
Total miles driven in 2007: 331,501 miles
Chevy Impala: Avg: 13.3 MPG, Qty: 8
All to police department
Total miles driven in 2007: 97249 miles
Jeep Grand Cherokee: Avg 13. 8 MPG, Qty: 1
Driven by Mayor
Total miles driven in 2007: 12, 481 miles
Dodge 2500 Pickup trucks: Avg 8.6 MP, Qty: 16
7 to water/sewer department
1 is vehicle pool, 11 assigned to individuals
Ford E-350 Vans: Avg 9.6 MPG, Qty: 4
All to water department, all assigned to individuals
Ford F-150 Pickup trucks: Avg 7.8 MPG, Qty: 7
All to Waste-SNAP
4 are vehicle pool, 2 assigned to individuals
Total miles driven in 2007: 3876 miles
Table 3: Summary of discretionary vehicle usage and costs

12
The low MPG observed in police vehicles such as the Crown Victoria and Chevy Impala
compared to EPA ratings is attributed to the idling required to maintain computer and other
equipment operation while on duty. As a result, a number of car companies have started
development of higher mileage, diesel engine police vehicles that are designed with emergency
response needs in mind. These vehicles are estimated to get approximately 28-30 mpg under
normal operation. 15
Also, the City of New York has purchased 40 Nissan Altima hybrids that
average 40 MPG.
It is estimated that if all of the City’s Crown Victoria and Chevy Impala vehicles were
replaced with vehicles averaging 28 mpg or higher, a reduction of 281 metric tonnes of CO2
could be obtained. Approximately 30,000 fewer gallons of gasoline or diesel would be burned,
resulting in a cost reduction averaging between $81,000/yr to $123,000/yr, depending on fuel
cost.10
Summary:
 The City vehicle fleet gasoline and diesel fuel consumption has increased 20% and 22%,
respectively, compared to 2007.
 A reduction of 281 metric tonnes of CO2 and fuel cost reduction of about $123,000/yr
could be obtained if existing police vehicles are replaced with vehicles with 28 MPG or
higher.10
Recommendations:
 Initiate vehicle purchase policy for all city departments that encourages use of higher
gas mileage/lower emissions vehicles (2008).
 Encourage vehicle sharing between departments, when feasible (2008).
 Discontinue personal use of city vehicles (2010).
 Calculate and track emissions from vehicle fleet annually (2008).
Streetlights and Traffic Signals Sector
Many traffic signal and pedestrian crossing light signals contain inefficient incandescent
lamps ranging from 50 to 135 watts. A typical light emitting diode (LED) light consumes
between 6 to 22 watts, depending on application and color. In 2004-2007, the City of
Schenectady replaced 130 incandescent traffic signals (approximately 2600 lamps) with light
emitting diode (LED) lamps after consultation with representatives from Siemens Building
Technologies and NYSERDA. Additional details are included here for documentation purposes.
The average cost of an LED traffic light (depending on application and color) is about $92,
while a typical incandescent traffic lamp is less than $3.00. 16
However, the overall cost of an
LED traffic light is much less due to their long life, lower energy use, and reduced maintenance
costs. LED traffic lights are now commonly warranted to last as long as five years and can last
as long as 10 years. The average incandescent traffic signal lasts less than a year, often for
only a few months.
Comparison of metered electrical data for year 2005 (before the switch to LED lights) and
2009 indicates the City is now saving approximately 462,000 kWh of power per year along with
associated electrical and maintenance costs by replacing the roughly 2600 incandescent traffic
and pedestrian lights with LED lights. The estimated reduction in resulting carbon footprint is

13
approximately 180 metric tonnes of CO2, or about 2% of the carbon emissions from municipal
sources. This estimate was independently confirmed by National Grid in 2010.
The Schenectady Metroplex Development Authority recently funded installation of
approximately twenty LED streetlights on Jay Street. While this is a promising first step in
evaluation and implementation of LED streetlights in Schenectady, the reliability required to
justify full replacement of existing sodium-vapor based streetlights with LED streetlights is
currently not well established. The City is currently working with local businesses (both small
and large) to implement possible pilot programs to help spur continued advancement of LED
streetlight technology.
The Department of Energy (DoE) recently announced a solid-state street lighting consortium
for municipalities.17
Their goal is to leverage the efforts of multiple cities pursuing evaluations of
LED street lighting products. The Consortium will collect, analyze, and share technical
information and experiences related to LED street lighting demonstrations. Energy Advisory
Board members, City staff, or other advisors may consider joining this Consortium in order to
keep the City up-to-date on streetlight developments as they come available.
Summary: Replacement of LED traffic signals
 Energy saved: 462,000 kWh/yr.
 Carbon emissions reduction: 180 metric tonnes of CO2 (about 2% of the carbon
emissions from municipal sources)
Actions for 2010:
 Continue to work with local businesses and energy efficiency organizations, such as
NYSERDA, to support development of next generation streetlights.
 Consider joining DoE consortium to share experiences with solid-state street lighting
technology as it comes available.
Water and Sewer Sector
Nationwide, the connection between water consumption and energy use in communities
have recently received attention. It is estimated that the more than 60,000 water systems and
15,000 wastewater systems in the United States are among the country’s largest energy
consumers, using about 75 billion kWh/yr nationally—3 percent of annual U.S. electricity
consumption.
This demand is equivalent to the entire residential demand for the state of California and
does not include energy for what is called end use: the energy required to further treat, circulate,
heat, or cool water at the consumer level.18
Consistent with this trend, the 2007-2008 Schenectady Energy Use and Carbon Footprint
Analysis indicated the single highest source of both energy use and carbon emissions resulted
from water pumping. Total water pumped each year between 2004 and 2009 is plotted in
Figure 10. This includes all water treated (about 0.3% of total) in addition to water used to flush
transmission and distribution mains, for fighting fires, or lost through leaks in the system. The
latter portion is un-billed and makes up between 15-27 percent of the total water produced,
according to a recent study performed by the City.19

14
Figure 12 below shows water pumping in Schenectady results in more than 7.2 million
kWh/yr of electrical energy consumed, and 2725 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions (Figure 11a).
This is more than the City’s vehicle fleet emissions due to burning diesel and gasoline fuel, and
is nearly equal to the combined emissions from all City buildings, including natural gas (3122
tonnes).
Figure 10: Total water pumped by City of Schenectady per year (2004-2009).
Figure 11: (a) Municipal carbon emissions by sector, (b) Monthly Electric Consumption –
Water Pumping.
4,400
4,500
4,600
4,700
4,800
4,900
5,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Totalwaterproduced(milliongallons)
Year
Schenectady Water Produced
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
1/1/2007
2/1/2007
3/1/2007
4/1/2007
5/1/2007
6/1/2007
7/1/2007
8/1/2007
9/1/2007
10/1/2007
11/1/2007
12/1/2007
1/1/2008
ElectricConsumption(KWh/month)
Billing Date
Monthly Electric Consumption - Water
Pumping

15
Figure 12: (a) Municipal carbon emissions by sector, (b) Monthly Electric Consumption –
Water Pumping.
As a result, the EAB initiated a series of studies to advise the City on methods to reduce the
City’s water consumption and associated costs due to infrastructure maintenance and water
treatment.
Our study of communities near Schenectady, and others in New York, the United States,
and Canada indicate that the most effective strategies for reducing water consumption are
through initiation of metering for all properties, combined with comprehensive leak
detection/mitigation and installation of water-saving devices.
Studies by independent consultants have also indicated that improvements in water
pumping and metering result in a reduction in costs. In 2005, Siemens Building Technologies
completed a study of the motors used to pump water from the City’s reservoir, and studied the
accuracy of 150 installed meters used to track water usage.7
After this study, at least one of the
existing 300 hp electric motors was replaced with a new, high efficiency (95.4%) motor. Energy
savings are estimated to be approximately 43,378 kWh/yr (if all four existing motors (with
varying efficiencies) are replaced. Siemens estimated cost savings of $142,994 due to
replacement of selected water meters in the City. Upgrade of selected commercial meters with
more accurate, auto-reading features is ongoing.
In tandem with this upgrade, the City is considering placing meter reading towers throughout
the City to reduce the need for drive-by meter reading. If adopted, this would reduce carbon
emissions by City vehicles used for meter reading purposes.
Leak detection
Advancements in acoustic sensing technology have resulted in leak detection devices that
can detect and track both small and large leaks without the need for expensive excavation.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
EnergyUsage(kWh/yr)
AnnualElectrical Consumption - by location

16
One such device used extensively in Boston, MA is an ―umbilical cord‖ sensor placed in
large water mains.20
Leaks in smaller systems can be detected and tracked using a ―smart ball‖
type acoustic sensor.21
A summary of leak detection results are included below:
 Boston, MA saved 3 million gal/day of water due to state-of-the-art leak detection
technology.22
 Silery, Quebec uncovered daily losses of 3.8 million litres of treated potable water – 35%
of their treatment plant’s total production. 23
New York City Leak Repair Statistics – 200624
4,076 miles surveyed
 115 leaks repaired
 5.46 Million Gallons/ Day savings estimate (also see EPA report)
Leak types:
 39% service line, 34% valve, 11% hydrant, 10% joint leaks, 6% main
Water metering studies
The City currently meters all commercial properties. The roughly 22,000 residential
accounts in Schenectady are billed according to Code Section 255-74 A, B, C, primarily on a
flat-rate structure.25
Among the 237 municipalities that responded to the 2007 Water and Sewer survey by the
State of New York in 2007, only 14% continue to use a flat rate system for residents. More than
59% of municipalities use a combination of flat-rate (with an allowed base gallon/yr usage) and
metered with $/1000 gallon rate ranges. The neighboring towns of Niskayuna and Clifton Park
have rate ranges that escalate with increased usage. 26,27
The City of New York recently initiated full metering of all properties. Water consumption
was reduced by 15-17%, with 85% or greater completion rates for ―small meter‖ installation
contracts.24
The EPA has issued a comprehensive study of water conservation efforts by 17
municipalities in the US and Canada.28
More specific information about New York City’s
conservation efforts from this report are listed below. Note that the water savings from meter
installation were more than double the savings obtained from toilet replacement or leak
detection programs combined. Savings of 20%-40% on water and wastewater bills were
obtained due to the entire conservation program.
Summary of Results for New York City
Water savings from leak detection program 30 to 50 mgd
Water savings from meter installation 200 mgd
Homeowner inspections 200,000
Water savings from homeowner inspections 4 mgd

17
Number of inefficient toilets replaced 1.3 million
Water savings from toilet replacement program 70 to 80 mgd
mgd = million gallons per day
Other communities have observed water consumption reductions up to 50% after installation
of meters. These communities have achieved full metering of commercial and residential
properties through both voluntary incentives and mandatory regulations.
Case studies obtained from other sources are summarized below:
Case Study #1: As part of an intensive water conservation program in 1991, the town of Port
Elgin, Ontario (pop. 6500) avoided a $5.5 million expansion of its water treatment plant by
installing 2400 residential water meters for a cost of $550,000. This reduced the summer water
use by 50% and use for all of 1993 by 25%. It also dropped the waste water flow by 30%. The
town also saved $12,000 in water and sewage treatment operating costs (chemicals and
energy).
Case Study #2: In Alberta, Edmonton households are metered, while most Calgary households
pay a flat rate. A study that compared use in both cities showed that the unmetered houses
used 50% more water. The study also showed that metered users in both cities used about the
same amount.
Case Study #3: The town of Elmira, Ontario,estimated that replacing all toilets with ultra-low
flow devices would result in a 30% flow reduction, and defer construction of a $33.5 million
sewage treatment plant. This would save them up to $9.3 million over a 5-year period.
Case Study #4: A faucet drip or invisible toilet leak that totals only two tablespoons a minute
comes to 15 gallons a day. That's 105 gallons a week and 5,460 wasted gallons of water a year
(from Clifton Park, NY Water Authority).
Case Study #5: A Schenectady family moved to a flat-rate billing structure after a leak was
detected in their previously metered home. Under the flat-rate system, this family of four paid
$600 more per year for their water and sewer fees than they had paid while metered. Under the
flat rate, it is estimated they pay roughly two to three times what a commercial or metered user
pays for their water. 29
Water conservation savings and costs
Communities have observed a reduction between 15%-30% due to metering alone. A
combination of leak detection, metering, and device replacement (toilets, showerheads, etc)
have resulted in savings up to 50%.
A 15%-30% reduction in water consumption (using 2005 data) results in a reduction
between 1 to 2 million kWh and 736 to 1472 million gallons of water saved. A 1 million kWh
electric savings are:
 More than the Schenectady police department building uses in year.
 More than double what it takes to power City Hall for a year.

18
 More than 2100 – 60W light bulbs left on continuously for a year.
 A third of what it takes to light all of the City’s streetlights in a year.
 Enough electricity reduction to meet the State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard
(EEPS) with one initiative (15% reduction).
Also, 736 million gallons of water is enough water to serve an additional 7360 households in
Schenectady averaging 100,000 gallons/yr.
A plot showing the estimated savings due to electrical costs alone for the City of
Schenectady from data obtained in 2005 is plotted in Figure 11. The anticipated electric
savings are anticipated to be between approximately $100K - $350K/yr depending on percent
reduction (15%-30%) and applied electric rate ($0.09/kWh - $0.16/kWh). This estimate does not
include savings due to reductions in wastewater treatment plant electrical or chemical costs.
Figure 13 illustrates the cost risk the City currently bears relative to consumption and
electrical pricing. A number of options have been presented to help reduce this risk, such as
turning off pumps during peak electric usage times or other peak load use reduction strategies.
Using 2005 data, the City might save more than $10,000/yr by turning the water pumps off for
one hour per day during the peak load period (assuming $0.16/kWh). Further investigation of
other cost reduction methods are underway.
Other savings potentials that come from metering, such as water treatment and
infrastructure savings , as well as the opportunity to project and control water consumption
needed for additional funding or future business ventures have not been included in this study
All of these risks and opportunities must be balanced against the projected cost of
installation, operation, and maintenance of a metered water system. While the final cost of a
metered system can only be determined by a competitive bid process, a few estimates have
been obtained.
Figure 13: Estimated Water Savings (2005 Data)
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
0 10 20 30 40
Estimatedannualsavings(Electriconly)
Percent Consumption Reduction
EstimatedWater savings (2005 Data)
$/kWh = 0.09
$/kWh = 0.16

19
The total cost of meters (including installation) has been estimated to range between less
than $290 (meter = $200, installation = $90) per household to $550 (meter = $200, installation =
$250) per household depending on the number of meters purchased and installed. Large
volume purchases drop the per unit cost considerably. For example, the volume pricing for an
average installation drops from $250 per house for a single installation to $90 per house for a
volume of 15,000 households. Both the meter equipment and installation volume pricing
estimate would have to be determined by a competitive bid process.
The EAB has recommended that homeowners be given the opportunity to install their own
meters, similar to commercial properties. It is estimated that a homeowner using 100,000
gallons of water/yr could recover their meter installation costs in as little as one year if they are
given the current City of Schenectady commercial rate. See Case Study #5. A pilot program
using these early adopters may be helpful to further determine future feasibility and strategies
for a possible Citywide metering system.
For full City installations, recent funding opportunities have targeted 10%-25% cost share for
meter installations, which results in a breakeven payback period between 2 to 11 years,
depending on the anticipated electric rate and percent consumption reduction. Details of this
calculation are available by request. Additional costs, such as billing/collections for residential
customers, operations and maintenance (O&M) of meters depends on the chosen billing
structure and period (quarterly, semi-annual, etc).
The EAB has requested the City make available their costs for commercial properties as a
way to project costs for residential properties. This data was not available at the time the report
was completed. However, Siemens conducted an O&M study of Schenectady’s commercial
meters for their 2005 report. Other studies have been completed to determine the accuracy of
meters over time. The projected replacement period varies between 15 to 30 years, depending
on use and water conditions.30
Summary:
 Water metering found to result in consumption reductions between 15%-50%. Communities
avoided expensive water treatment plant upgrades costing millions of dollars, and reduced
existing costs due to water treatment by initiating leak detection and full metering of
properties.
 Encouraging installation of ultra-low flow toilets and other water saving devices may result in
a 30% flow reduction per account for the average resident.
 Estimated savings range from one to two million kWh/yr and 736 to 1472 million gallons of
water saved. Savings in electric costs alone range from $100K - $350K/yr depending on
percent reduction (15%-30%) and applied electric rate ($0.09/kWh - $0.16/kWh).
Recommendations:
 Implement comprehensive leak detection study. Current leak detection technology can
sense even small leaks without digging up ground.

20
 The Energy Advisory Board recommends that the City Council and Administration should
approve a performance contract for installation of water meters at all residential properties in
City of Schenectady within a year of EAB formal presentation to Council.
If performance contract is not approved within this period, then residents shall have the
option to voluntarily install privately purchased meters by licensed plumber (type of meter
and installation to be checked by City inspector).
Metered water rate to be set similar to surrounding community standards and/or current
Schenectady commercial rate.
 City publicize departmental budgets by putting them online, starting with the Water
Department, using Clifton Park’s website as a model.

21
Solid Waste and Recycling Sector
All of the solid waste for Schenectady County is currently transported over 200 miles to the
Seneca Meadows landfill, located in Waterloo, NY. In 2009, the City generated approximately
30850 tons of solid waste. Approximately 8% of this material is recycled material (1299 tons
mixed paper, 488 tons enameled metal appliances, and 721 tons comingled container
products).
Every pound of garbage transported to the landfill results in higher transportation costs, in
addition to tipping fees charged at the landfill. These tipping fees range from $50/ton to
$200/ton, depending on the type of solid waste (ie, household garbage, construction waste, or
tires). Clearly, there is a direct relationship to the amount of solid waste produced, City costs
and resulting carbon emissions.
The City of Schenectady recently instituted a flat-rate system of residential garbage fees
that increase based on number of units (up to three units). Since the introduction of this system,
the City has saved approximately $60-$80K in tipping fees per year and has reduced collection
by 3% or 1000 tons. This system is more equitable than the previous system, and appears to
encourage some reduction in solid waste. However, it does not directly encourage recycling
since the same price is charged for a given property regardless of trash volume produced.
Given the steady increase in fuel costs and tipping fees over time, the City must continually
seek to reduce the amount of solid waste produced in order to maintain or reduce overall costs.
From 2007-2010, the EAB has continued to investigate strategies to encourage recycling by
residents and businesses. In 2008, the EAB hosted a presentation from Utica/Rome city
officials on ―Pay as You Throw‖ trash collection options. For this option, individuals purchase
special bags or tags for each bag of garbage. A common concern voiced for this method is that
some residents will simply dump their garbage illegally rather than buy special bags or tags. The
EAB continues to evaluate other communities experience with this method.
Another option is to create additional incentives for recycling, either through a rebate system
similar to Recycle Bank31
, increased education about recycling and composting, or increased
enforcement of set-out requirements. Currently, existing recycling laws are not enforced for
citizens or private haulers. For instance, Section 161.4 (K) requires private haulers pick up only
source separated waste.
The requirement to separate recyclables can be a disincentive, so some communities and
businesses have moved to single stream recycling. With this method, plastics, glass and other
container products, as well as paper products are put into a single bin and sorted at a special
facility.
Currently, these materials are trucked to sorting facilities in other states, so it is unclear what
carbon or cost reduction can be achieved. Also, glass shards tend to contaminate paper
recyclables, which reduces its value to end users. Therefore, the EAB is not recommending
single stream recycling until more information can be obtained.
A facility is currently being built in Albany by Sierra Processing that can manage plastics
labeled 1 through 7, which is the vast majority of plastics used by residents. Allowing a broader
range of plastics in the City’s set-out requirements should encourage more recycling, in addition
to removing the requirement to sort paper products by type.

22
Summary:
 Since the introduction of the garbage fee system, the City has saved approximately $60-
$80K in tipping fees per year and has reduced collection by 3% or 1000 tons. Substantial
additional savings are possible as residents are incentivized to increase recycling and
composting and other methods to reduce overall solid waste generation.
Recommendations:
 Recommend that City pursue possibility of expanding range of plastics recycling in
conjunction with new Sierra Processing facility.
 Edit handouts that require separate bundling of paper products in paper bags.
 Consider moving to a recycling reward system, such as Recycle Banks.
http://www.recyclebank.com/how-it-works.
 Educate about benefits of composting/recycling. Work to develop infrastructure in the region
for organics composting.
 Enforce current ordinance requiring registration of private waste haulers.
 Recommend instituting a system of warnings leading to non-collection and/or citations if city
recycling set-out requirements are not followed.

23
Citywide inventory methodology and results
The energy use and greenhouse gas emissions inventory included in this section of the
report is primarily from data obtained by National Grid for the City of Schenectady for years
2005-2010. Vehicle use estimates were obtained by the Capital District Transportation
Committee. Solid waste for private haulers, aviation uses, and water freight uses have not been
included.
 Residential: electricity and natural gas consumption in residential buildings in Schenectady.
 Commercial: electricity and natural gas consumption in commercial facilities in
Schenectady.
 Institutional: electricity and natural gas consumption in large institutional and governmental
facilities in Schenectady.
 Industrial: electricity and natural gas consumption in Schenectady industries.
 Transportation: gasoline and diesel fuel used by on-road vehicles in the City of
Schenectady.

24
Residential, Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Buildings
In 2007, it was National Grid’s policy to avoid separating residential, commercial, and
industrial accounts. Also, the EAB was obliged by a non-disclosure agreement to produce only
the final carbon emissions due to combined natural gas and electrical usage from National Grid
data. However, this data was still useful in benchmarking the City’s carbon footprint, and
provided a basis of comparison for municipal versus private energy use.
Figure 14 shows the carbon
footprint from combined electrical
and natural gas consumption for all
City operations in 2007. Here, the
energy use from City buildings
makes up only 3% of the City’s
entire consumption. While each
residence or business makes up a
small portion of the City’s
consumption, the net effect is very
large.
Figure 14: Citywide building carbon emissions (2007)
National Grid has recently decided to modify this policy for organizations and municipalities
seeking to track carbon emissions and energy efficiency. Work is underway by the EAB to
update the carbon footprint and energy use analysis for the City using this data.
The majority of Schenectady City buildings were built before the 1970’s, and therefore are in
need of substantial upgrades in order to reduce energy consumption. A number of local and
federal programs have been designed to provide incentives for private citizens to purchase
Energy Star rated appliances, install energy efficient lighting, and reduce losses due to lack of
insulation or other infiltration mechanisms. The US Government funds weatherization upgrades
through the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (NYSDHCR).
Groups such as NYSERDA and National Grid also provide energy efficiency upgrades. The
EAB routinely sponsors or co-sponsors presentations by these organizations to neighborhood
organizations and provides member volunteer support when possible.
Since its inception in 2007, the EAB has recommended adoption of LEED standards in all
new construction and significant building additions. Construction or rehabilitation of buildings by
large companies and municipalities provide a unique opportunity to promote LEED qualification.
Both General Electric and the Golub Corporation have pursued LEED standards as a way to
market their support of sustainability initiatives as a matter of company policy. This can only
serve to increase adoption of LEED standards for all developments and should be encouraged.

25
Transportation and Vehicle Use
The Energy Advisory Board has continuously sought methods to estimate the vehicle use
patterns for the City of Schenectady. Our goal is to not only track carbon emissions, but also to
estimate the impact of programs and legislation designed to encourage alternative means of
transportation that will lower emissions from fossil fuels. A few of these measures include
increasing public awareness of public bus transportation options, and encouraging walking and
bicycling paths for existing and new construction.
As part of this effort, the Energy Advisory Board consulted with Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute (RPI) Center for Infrastructure, Transportation, and the Environment and the Capital
District Transportation Committee (CDTC). The Capital District Transportation Committee
(CDTC) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy
metropolitan area.
Both of these organizations conduct research on current models used to estimate traffic
patterns. The CDTC regularly uses these models to monitor and forecast traffic usage for all
municipalities in the Capital District. A baseline analysis for 2009 (Table 4) was completed for
the City of Schenectady.
Table 4: Citywide vehicle use estimates
Schenectady City
Yearly
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 126,139,000 miles
Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) 5,265,000 hours
Average Speed (during peak hr) 24 mph
Fuel Consumption 6,947,200 gallons
Operating Cost 78,811,200 dollars
VOC 84,655 kg
NOx 11,278 kg
Carbon emission per year 17,500 ton
Results courtesy of Sree Nampoothiri, Capital District Transportation Committee

26
Based on this analysis, municipal vehicles account for about 2315 tonnes (2552 tons) or
15% of total vehicle use in Schenectady.
A few local universities have teamed with the Capital District Transportation Authority
(CDTA) to offer free bus transportation to their site. For instance, bus transportation that begins
or ends in Troy, NY is free for Rensselaer students and faculty.
Summary:
 Vehicle carbon emissions per year for the City of Schenectady are approximately 17,500
(short) tons. Municipal vehicles account for approximately 15% of total vehicle use in
Schenectady.
Actions for 2010:
 Continue to interact with organizations such as CDTC and RPI to track changes in
vehicle use patterns and take credit for City consolidation efforts, such as the new public
works facility.
 Update analysis to include added data from National Grid.

27
2009-2010 Conclusions and Summary of Recommendations by Sector
General:
City publicize departmental budgets by putting them online, starting with the Water Department,
using Clifton Park’s website as a model.
Water:
Leak Detection:
 Implement comprehensive leak detection study. Current leak detection technology can
sense even small leaks without digging up ground.
Metering:
 City Council and Administration should approve performance contract for installation of
water meters at all residential properties in City of Schenectady within a year of EAB formal
presentation to Council.
 If performance contract is not approved within this period, then residents shall have the
option to voluntarily install privately purchased meters by licensed plumber (type of meter
and installation to be checked by City inspector).
 Metered water rate to be set similar to surrounding community standards and/or current
Schenectady commercial rate.
Solid Waste and Recycling:
 Recommend that City pursue possibility of expanding range of plastics recycling in
conjunction with new Sierra Processing facility.
 Edit handouts that require separate bundling of paper products in paper bags.
 Consider moving to a recycling reward system, such as Recycle Banks.
http://www.recyclebank.com/how-it-works.
 Educate about benefits of composting/recycling. Work to develop infrastructure in the region
for organics composting.
 Enforce current ordinance requiring registration of private waste haulers.
 Recommend instituting a system of warnings leading to non-collection and/or citations if city
recycling set-out requirements are not followed.
Vehicle fleet:
 Initiate vehicle purchase policy for all city departments that encourages use of higher gas
mileage/lower emissions vehicles (2008).
 Encourage vehicle sharing between departments, when feasible (2008).
 Discontinue personal use of city vehicles (2010).
 Calculate and track emissions from vehicle fleet annually (2008).

28
Appendix A: Listing of Energy Advisory Board Recommendations for 2007-2008.
General:
Initiate and maintain procedures that allow convenient tracking and analysis of carbon
emissions across all sectors.
Buildings Sector
 City owned buildings undergoing major renovations or new construction must meet
LEED or equivalent standards.
 Complete Siemens performance contract building upgrades and continue to document
energy savings.
 Encourage energy service providers to submit all billing electronically to allow for easier
energy usage tracking (i.e. carbon footprint analysis), as well as reduce paper waste and
costs associated with paper billing storage.
 Work with Union College to calculate and track emissions from buildings annually using
electronic data.
Water
 Develop a strategy to conserve water in order to save energy, control infrastructure
costs and preserve flexibility for future water supplies and needs.
Vehicle Fleet Sector
 Initiate vehicle purchase policy for all city departments that encourages use of higher
gas mileage/lower emissions vehicles
 Install devices to lower particulates on selected vehicles
 Encourage vehicle sharing between departments, when feasible
 Calculate and track emissions from vehicle fleet annually.
Street lights and Traffic Signals Sector
 Work with National Grid to encourage development of more energy efficient street lights.
 Complete work on LED Traffic light replacement and work with National Grid, Siemens,
and city departments to fully capture energy savings that have resulted from traffic light
replacement.
Transportation Recommendations:
 All new road development projects will make provisions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic,
including the new Erie Boulevard corridor project.
 Planning commission should encourage installation of bike racks in all new
developments and major renovation projects.
 Install bike racks in areas of commerce and recreation.
 Work with Union College students to formulate a traffic usage summary to estimate
carbon footprint of vehicle traffic in Schenectady.

29
Community outreach recommendations:
Work with the Energy Advisory Board to develop the following:
 Annual Energy Fair hosting local ―green‖ businesses and teaching best practices.
 Collaboration with local grade schools (ie school forum, science fairs, information
booklets to bring home)
 Neighborhood Association presentations Development of residential ―Eco-Teams‖
similar to Burlington, VT
 Set up EAB website available through a link from the main City website to track progress
and inform the public of ongoing initiatives, meetings, and minutes.
References
1
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drswalla
2
http://www.union.edu/academic_depts/biology/Our%20Faculty/jeffC.php
3
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-shapiro/7/784/71b
4
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-de-chiro/10/64a/590
5
City of Schenectady Energy Advisory Board Website
6
http://www.cityofschenectady.com/Schenectady2020/default.htm
7
Siemens, City of Schenectady New York, Comprehensive Energy Audit, Submitted by Siemens Building
Technologies, Inc. 6 British American Boulevard, Suite C., Latham, NY 12110, 518 782-0131.
8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December, 2009, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act”,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0171-Dec.15-09.pdf
9
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
10
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html
11
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 9.9: Average Retail Prices of
Electricity (September 24, 2009).
12
Monthly U.S. Price of Natural Gas Sold to Commercial Consumers,
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020us3m.htm.
13
Berkeley, CA example: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0440.htm.
14
PACE information from White House. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0440.htm.
15
http://www.carbonmotors.com/

30
16
―Conventional Vs LED Traffic Signals;Operational Characteristics and Economic Feasibility‖, July 1,
2003, Traffic Engineering Division, Department of Public Works City of Little Rock,
http://www.cee1.org/gov/led/little_rock.pdf
17
DoE Municipal Solid-State Streetlighting Consortium,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos_consortium.html
18
From: ―Energy Down the Drain: The hidden costs of California’s water supply‖, NRDC, August 2004.
19
http://www.cityofschenectady.com/pdf/ANNUAL_DRINKING_WATER_QUALITY_REPORT_2008.pdf
20
http://www.ppic.com/index.shtml
21
http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com/html/smartball_water.php
22
IBM, ―Water: A Global Innovation Outlook Report‖, 2009
23
Case Studies from Neptune Water Meters: http://www.watermeter.ca/english/about.html
24
Waterwise UK Seminar – 2008, New York City Department of Environmental Protection.
25
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:tK5lAWgxDHIJ:www.schenectadytaxpayers.org/taxes/fees/2007
waterrates.pdf+city+of+schenectady+water+rates&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
26
2007 Water and Sewer Rate Report, New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials,
www.nycom.org.
27
City of Clifton Park Water Authority, http://www.cpwa.org/rates.asp
28
―Cases in Water Conservation; How Efficiency Programs help utilities save water and avoid costs‖
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/utilityconservation_508.pdf
29
Conversations and documentation from a Schenectady resident. January-December 2009. Available
by request. Dr.swalla1@gmail.com.
30
―Determining the Economical Optimum Life of Residential Water Meters‖, Allender, H.,
http://www.wqpmag.com/Determining-the-Economical-Optimum-Life-of-Residential-Water-Meters-
article493.
31
Recycle bank: http://www.recyclebank.com/how-it-works.

EAB_April_5th_report_FINAL_V4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to EAB_April_5th_report_FINAL_V4

Similar to EAB_April_5th_report_FINAL_V4 (20)

EAB_April_5th_report_FINAL_V4