1. REPORT OF THE COOK COUNTY
SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
June 5, 2013

2. Cook County
Sustainability Advisory Council
Co- Chairs
Christopher G. Kennedy Anne R. Pramaggiore
Chairman, President & CEO
Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises , Inc. ComEd
2
Gerald Bennett Jean Pogge David Anderson
Mayor Chief Executive Officer Consultant to Housing Authority of Cook County
City of Palos Hills Delta Institute
Jack Darin David Pope Alesia Hushaw
Director President Senior Financial Analyst
Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter Village of Oak Park Housing Authority of Cook County
Sandra Frum Kelly Shelton Tom McKone
President President Principal
Village of Northbrook Shelton Solutions, Inc. Civic Consulting Alliance
David Hackett Kathy Tholin Kate Tomford
Partner Chief Executive Officer Chief Sustainability Policy Advisor
Baker McKenzie Center For Neighborhood Illinois Dept. of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Technology
Ed Miller
Program Manager, Environment Eugene Williams Karen Weigert
The Joyce Foundation Mayor Chief Sustainability Officer
Village of Lynwood City of Chicago
Ken Ortiz
Regional Manager Staffed by Cook County Sustainability Office
The Reuse People and Department of Environmental Control
Members Ex-officio Members

3. Letter to President Preckwinkle
3
Dear Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle:
In establishing the Cook County Sustainability Advisory Council in March 2012, you committed to making Cook County more
sustainable environmentally, socially and economically. The Council’s work shows the great potential of Cook County to become a
sustainability leader both in its own facilities and operations, and in the larger community. The strides already made by the County
in 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 by
80% by the year 2050. This goal will focus efforts on key opportunities for sustainability in County operations and in the
community.
• Building energy accounts for two-thirds of GHG emissions in Cook County. Actions recommended by the Council, in addition to
reductions 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 opportunity
targets, including green purchasing, energy efficient Information Technology, and conserving refrigerants. The same process of
data gathering, analysis, setting targets and practicing transparency and accountability, which is currently being used to
conserve 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, and
the Delta Institute, whose hard work and professional expertise were indispensable to the success of the Council. The Cook County
Department of Environmental Control staffed the Council, and major contributions were made by the Cook County Departments of
Capital 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 progress
reports and to assisting in future work.
Sincerely,
Chris Kennedy Anne Pramaggiore
Chairman, Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises, Inc. President and CEO, ComEd

4. Contents
4
 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. Introduction

6. Charge from Cook County Board
President Toni Preckwinkle:
Establish Cook County as a world-class model of
sustainability, cost savings and conservation by
embedding a culture of sustainability in all
County operations, services and partnerships with
suburban communities.
6
Role of the Sustainability Advisory Council:
Serve as a resource, catalyst and advocate for the
change necessary to make Cook County
environmentally, socially and economically
sustainable now and in the future.

7. Sustainability is…
A change to the County’s culture:
 Sustainability is not something we have to do, it is the way
we do business.
7
The values, goals, strategies and initiatives that
communities adopt to meet their needs without
compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.

8. Cook County’s Role in Sustainability
8
Community
Programs
Supply
Chain
Employees
Buildings,
Fleet,
Waste,
Water Use
&
Operations
Cook County:
 Second most populous county in the U.S with over
5 million people.
 About half the population is in the suburban area,
including 130 municipalities and the
unincorporated areas.
 The Forest Preserve District of Cook County owns
11% of the land area.
 Represents 45% of the State’s economic activity.
 Has about 22,000 employees.
 Occupies about 150 government structures, or
17.6 million sq. ft.
 45,000 clean economy jobs in 2010 in tri-state
Chicago metro region.
 General Fund Budget $2.955 billion.
 Reaches millions of property owners, patients,
people who deal with the courts and corrections
systems, or who visit the facilities.
Make sustainability a part of
everything the County does,
leverages and communicates.

9. Benefits of Sustainability Align With
President Preckwinkle’s Four Goals9
There are environmental, economic and social benefits.
1. Fiscal
Responsibility
Sustainability
creates jobs
and cost
savings for
taxpayers,
residents and
businesses.
2. Transparency
&Accountability
Benchmarking
focus areas
provides
priorities for
investment
and ability to
track and
disclose
impacts.
3. Innovative
Leadership
Taking
sustainable
action today
generates
dollar savings
and provides
resources for
the needs of
future
generations.
4. Improved
Services
Efficiency
allows for
spending on
direct services
and means
healthier,
more livable
communities.

10. Recommended Goal and Areas of Focus
GOAL: Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
80% by 2050, from 2010 baseline
Energy Transportation Waste Water
Other
(Refrigerants,
IT, Purchasing,
etc.)
Purpose of Goal: To keep global temperature increases to 2
degrees Centigrade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,
such as extreme heat and floods. Recommendations focus on major
contributors to Greenhouse Gas emissions, and where Cook County
has control or leverage.
10

11. Reducing the County’s GHG Emissions by 80% will:
11
Equal the amount of Carbon sequestered by
5.5 Million tree seedlings grown for 10 years.
Save the same amount of GHG emissions as
taking over 45,000 passenger vehicles off
the road for 1 year.
Save the amount of CO2 emissions created by
burning 928 railcars’ worth of coal.

12. We Can Reach GHG Reduction Goal by
Addressing the Largest Sources of GHG
Countywide, 67% of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
come from Building Energy
use.
GHG emissions are a useful
way to organize
sustainability work because
climate change is such a
major issue, and GHGs
come from so many sectors.
There are additional
environmental benefits
from efficiencies in these
sectors, e.g. conservation of
water, land and other
natural resources, and
reduction of particulates,
toxic metals and other
pollutants.
12
Building Energy
67%
Transportation
27%
Solid Waste
4%
Stationary, Industrial
and Product Use
1%
Wastewater
0% Water
1%
Cook County Community GHG Emissions by Sector
Total Annual Emissions = 72MMTCO2e
Data from Chicago 2010 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, March 2012

13. Sustainability Council Recommendations
13
Reduce GHG Emissions from County facilities and operations
80% by 2050.
A. Commit to reducing GHG emissions from County building energy use by
80% by 2050. The Energy chapter shows how and Cook County is well
on its way to achieving this goal.
B. Transportation: Use the detailed analysis of the County’s fleet and fuel to
create a program to reduce emissions from fuel use, including
fleet/vehicle reduction, alternative fuels, and alternative transportation
modes.
C. Solid Waste: Centralize waste and recycling responsibility and
contracting, to identify opportunities to maximize diversion and cost
savings.
D. Water and Wastewater: Use currently available means to reduce water
use an average of 30% through contractors and internal projects.
E. Future projects: Reduce refrigerants, reduce energy used by IT, and
reduce the environmental impacts of goods and services the County buys.
Cook County Government

14. Sustainability Council Recommendations
14
Be Accountable to Cook County Residents and Taxpayers
F. Track overall GHG reduction goal and assure establishment of
sustainability work in other areas such as water and fuel use, solid waste
disposed/recycled, etc.
G. Report annually on energy use and energy reduction measures, and make
this report a template for reporting on other sustainability goals.
H. Build energy use, and other sustainability measures, into the Performance
Measures of individual departments and buildings.
I. Coordinate building energy and other sustainability projects through a
high level Green Team or Sustainability Cabinet, that the Cook County
Board President should call for, with frequent reports on progress to the
President’s Office.
With investments in energy efficiency Cook County can save taxpayers at
least $40 million in net County energy bills, over the next 20 years.
(2010 prices –see slide 23 for details)

15. Sustainability Council Recommendations
15
Create a central data, reporting framework to allow
Cook 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 budget
process, measure progress, and be transparent.
K. Put staff/IT framework (e.g. a Building Energy Manager) in place to
make analysis an ongoing effort.
L. Inform the public about what Cook County has done – It has good
accomplishments and can lead by example.
Create 20 direct and indirect jobs
for every $1M spent on energy
efficiency.
http://aceee.org/blog/2011/11/how-does-energy-efficiency-create-job
Save almost $2M/year in County
facility water bills through easily
achievable measures.

16. Sustainability Council Recommendations
16
Lead Community Sustainability in Suburban Cook County
M. Act as aggregator for grants and financing for municipal sustainability
initiatives.
N. Promote voluntary sign-on of other local governments to County
sustainability goals such as energy efficiency; share lessons learned,
provide technical and grant-seeking assistance.
O. Identify sustainability programs in unincorporated Cook that would
increase those areas’ value to their neighboring communities.
P. Where appropriate, use the County’s purchasing
power, or regulatory authority, especially
to boost emerging sustainable market
activities such as renewable energy
or recycled/reused products.
Cook County Community
10,000
Tons of solid waste creates:
1 landfill job OR
10 recycling jobs OR
75 materials reuse jobs
http://www.epa.gov/region9/newsletter/feb2011/greenjobs.html

17. Sustainability Council Recommendations
17
Q. Serve as center for information sharing on sustainability; especially by
establishing a link between efficiency and sustainability. Use case studies
and models, promote good resources on Cook County’s website, conduct a
sustainability survey and promote peer learning. Consider annual
sustainability summit.
R. Create “green employee” outreach program for Cook County employees.
Promote information about progress the County is making, how employees
can be sustainable at work and in their communities.
S. Target economic development assistance and job training to green jobs
in materials reuse, energy efficiency retrofit and building technology, water
conservation and green infrastructure.
Reduce toxins, ozone, particulates and other pollutants that cause respiratory and
other illnesses and death.
An efficient transit and freight service and adequate water supply boost the
region’s economic competitiveness.

18. Energy
Energy Transportation Waste Water Other

19. Energy – Building Energy Use is the Largest GHG Contributor
and Energy Efficiency Has Many Benefits.
19
Goal
 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 social
Savings are
cumulative.
Many financial
incentives are
available.
Data, goals and
accountability
create results.
Benchmarking
provides priorities
for investment.
$1M in energy
efficiency
spending
creates 20
direct and
indirect jobs.
Green jobs pay
well.
Reduces GHG
emissions and
other pollutants
which impact
respiratory and
circulatory
health.

20. Dept. of Corrections
Campus
35%
Juvenile Complex
5%
Stroger Hospital
Campus
26%
Courthouses
(2-6 Districts)
5%
Oak Forest Hospital
Campus
9%
County Building
4%
Provident Hospital
Campus
5%
Remaining Buildings
11%
Energy - Where Cook County Government Uses
Building Energy: The 2010 Baseline
Cook County
Government:
• Operates 150
structures.
• Used 247million
kwhs of
Electricity and 13
million therms of
Natural Gas last
year.
• Annual Energy
Budget in 2010
was $34.1M.
11 County
government
facilities use 90%
of energy. Focusing
on these facilities
will give the most
results.
20
Energy Goal:
Reduce GHG
Emissions from
Building Energy
80% by 2050.
Annual County Owned Facilities’ Energy Use
Energy Streams = Electricity, Natural Gas & Steam
Graph shows breakdown of total energy use (kBtu)
Graph based on 2010 Utility Data
Results may change once all utility data is collected

21. Energy - The 2050 Goal for County Government
Buildings is Ambitious – and Achievable
The goal is
ambitious, but
known solutions
can get Cook
County quite
far on the
path. GHG
benefits, as
well as savings,
are cumulative.
Electricity has
higher GHG
impact than
natural gas,
but both can
represent
dollar savings.
21
270,110
10,732
11,754 7,357 2,436
20,097
15,581 1,275 4,069 8,337 5,402
129,049
54,022
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2010Baseline
2011ReductionAchieved
2012ReductionAchieved
CourtHousesEE
CountyBuildingEE
DOC&JTDCPC
StrogerPC
DOC&JTDCRemainingBuildings
(non-PC)
StrogerRemainingBuildings
(non-PC)
RemainingBuildingsEE
(Est.@15%ESavings)
SpaceConsolidation
(Est.@2%ESavings)
ExtendedPaybackProjects,Adv.inTech,
Renewables,OtherInitiatives
2050Goal
Cook County Facilities 2050 GHG Reduction Strategy
- Estimated Reductions of Different Initiatives -
Low Cost/NoCost & O&M Capital
Space Consolidation
&Other
metrictons of GHG
E = Energy, EE = Energy Efficiency, PC= Performance Contract
ActualGHG Emissions Reductionin GHG Achieved EstimatedReductionin GHG

22. Energy – Ahead of target on 2050 Goal for County
Buildings – Early Action Means More Savings
Reductions in
GHG are
cumulative –
earlier
reductions
mean more
savings over
time.
Aggressive
implementation
of known
projects will
result in
reaching the
2026 target
early.
22
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
metric tons of CO2e
GHG Abatement Initiatives and the 2050 GHG Goal
2010 GHG Baseline, 270,110
E= Energy, EE = Energy Efficiency, PC = PerformanceContract
GHG Reduction
-from meeting the target-
GHG Reduction Achieved thru 2012
22,486 (8% Reduction from 2010)
Additional GHG
Reductions Achieved
Additional GHG
Reductions
Planned
(Aggresive )

23. Energy - Investment in Cook County Building
Energy Efficiency Saves Taxpayer Dollars
23
Costs for
many of the
building
energy
reduction
strategies are
known, and
most have
dollar savings
over time that
are greater
than the
investments.
*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 realized
Based 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. Energy - Detailed Review of Selected Cook County
Buildings Identifies Strategies to Save Energy
Analysis of
sample buildings
(suburban
courthouses, 118
N. Clark) shows
opportunities for
energy savings.
Many have short
payback periods.
An Energy
Manager is
needed to do this
level of data
tracking, analysis
and
implementation
strategy.
24
The 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 Meadows
District 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 how
many of these measures were implemented to more accurately estimate the savings potential.
$98k Investment
Over $323k in Annual Savings
With a < 4 month Simple Payback

25. Energy – Detailed, Ongoing Analysis is Needed for the Entire
Cook County Building Portfolio–and Other GHG Sources
25
At the finest
level of
detail, specific
lists of energy
conservation
measures
were
developed for
specific
buildings, with
costs and
savings for
each. This is
the result of ~
2 years of
work.
Similar detailed analysis is needed on other sources of GHG
emissions: fleet and transportation, materials waste, water and
wastewater, refrigerants, etc. These can be part of a phased
Sustainability program.

26. Energy – Progress
26
 Cook County Government
 The County has saved over $3 million since March 2011through operational
programs such as Wattage Wars (a competition between nine County
buildings to reduce energy usage) and de-lamping and curtailment.
 Energy Service Contract (ESCO) projects are under way that guarantee a
20% reduction in energy usage at Jail and Hospital campus buildings and
providing a positive return on investment. The projects will be fully
implemented in less than 3 years – some savings will start to accrue right
away.
 A comprehensive space use and facility condition analysis will provide the
basis for a future comprehensive capital plan with energy projects.
 20 energy audits, 49 buildings added to Portfolio Manager, creation of
planning tool that identifies all county-owned buildings and the analysis that
has been done to date.
 Cook County Dept. of Transportation and Highways replaces 108
incandescent-bulb traffic signals with LED lights, reducing the energy bills for
those fixtures by 70%.

27. Energy – Progress
27
 Cook County Community
 Nearly 600 energy audits funded by Cook County’s federal grants
were performed on homes, businesses and municipal facilities in
suburban 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 savings
over the first 5 years.
 Cook County helped local governments save energy on their water
pumping by funding projects such as wind turbines and efficient pumps
 Funding for home weatherization projects will save 100,000 kwhs and
85,000 therms.
 Over 66 FTE jobs were created through these projects.

28. Energy – Initial Analysis Done in a Majority of
Cook County Buildings.
28
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
Square Footage of County Buildings
with
Initial Energy Analysis
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
Square Footage of County Buildings
in USEPA Energy Star Portfolio
Manager
Sq Ft not in Portfolio Manager
Sq Ft in ESCO Portfolio Managager
Sq Ft. in CNT Portfolio Manager
Energy Audits performed with U.S. Dept. of Energy Grant Funds
Energy Audits performed by ComEd
Proposed ESCO – RFP responses for Courthouses, Provident
Hosp., Highway facilities and Oak Forest Hosp.
ESCO- Dept. of Corrections and Stroger Hosp. Campuses
No Analysis
Many buildings need meters installed to get data.

29. Energy - Recommendations
29
Cook County Government
 Hospital and Corrections Campuses: perform retro-commissioning
and “low hanging fruit” projects. Pursue 15% energy reduction from
buildings not in ESCOs. Water conservation to save further energy.
 Suburban Courthouses, Highway Facilities and Administration
buildings: Pursue ESCOs where appropriate and continue to
implement recommendations from Energy Audits.
 Integrate known project needs and operational cost savings into
2014 budget and capital planning processes.
 Hire appropriate energy management staff to coordinate energy
projects and monitor energy use and attain energy incentive grants.
 Create an energy efficiency revolving loan fund within the County’s
budget.
 Analyze unique opportunities such as possible co-generation of
electricity from steam operation at the jail.

30. Energy - Recommendations
30
 Invest in technology to support energy management and use
benchmarking as a tool to prioritize energy efficiency improvements.
 Continue benchmarking to identify further energy consumption
anomalies and document results of efficiency efforts.
 Create an umbrella green coordinating group among Depts./Offices.
 Build Energy Efficiency goals into Performance Measures of
Depts./Offices
 Revise County’s energy procurement guidelines to include metrics for no-
coal and renewable energy.
 Institutionalize employee behavioral changes to include efficiency and
begin charge-back system for department energy costs.
 As energy use is reduced, analyze cost and feasibility of renewables
installations.

31. Energy - Recommendations
31
Cook County Community
 Establish a program, including appropriate staffing, to engage
suburban municipalities in energy efficiency investment, data sharing
programs. This could take the form of an “energy concierge” who
assists local governments to understand the benefits of energy
efficiency; which of their buildings are good candidates, the various
technical assistance programs and financial benefits available from
the state and utilities and promulgates peer case studies and best
practices.
 Work with utilities to improve data tracking systems and information
sharing with local communities.
 Provide technical assistance for grant writing and efficiency
program assistance to municipalities.

32. Transportation
Energy Transportation Waste Water Other

33. Transportation
33
Goal
 Decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled by Cook County residents and employees
(and reduce GHG emissions from vehicles 80% by 2050)
Efficient transportation
saves money on fuel,
time wasted in traffic,
lost business
productivity
due to workers and
goods stuck in
commute.
More housing and
transportation choices,
walkable, healthier,
child- and elderly-
friendly communities,
less pollution from
particulates, ozone.
More affordable
communities.
Economic development
benefits of aligning
infrastructure,
investments & land use
with worker & freight
Movement.
Efficient land use
makes the most of
existing infrastructure,
lowering or delaying
debt.
Benefits: Environmental, Economic, Social

34. Transportation
34
Transportation is the
second largest
GHG contributor in
suburban Cook:
over 12,000,000
MTCO2e.
County government
has already begun
analyzing its own
fleet to get data,
establish a
baseline, and
create a plan to
achieve efficiency
goals.
Trucks 2%
Cargo 5%
Passenger
24%
Specialty
69%
By Type of Vehicle
Health and
Hospitals
3%
Offices
Under the
President
27%
Offices of
other
Elected
Officials
70%
2013 Cook County Government Fleet
Total Vehicles =1,700
Total Fleet Cost = $16.5 Million in FY 2012
By User Agency

35. Transportation – Projections for GHG Reductions
with Fleet Management
35
As an Example:
Using 2012 as a
baseline, the County
could reduce GHG
emissions by almost
2,000 metric tons, or
15% by 2016 by:
1. Reducing annual
miles driven by 2%
2. Replacing
unleaded vehicles for
the next 4 years with:
10 units per year
with CNG
10 units per year
with Hybrid
10 units per year
with Propane
Information from CST Fleet Services, Cook County Fleet Assessment Draft Report, May 2013

36. 36
Cook County Government
 Created Shared Fleet used by multiple departments, and entered into car sharing
contract. 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 to
implement best practices, save money and improve the value of existing assets to
the County . Centralizing and right-sizing the fleet, along with rethinking the fueling
and maintenance policies and infrastructure, provides many opportunities to
increase the sustainability of the County’s fleet operations.
 Continuing to install diesel retrofits to reduce pollution from heavy equipment at
Highway 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. Transportation – Progress
37
Cook County Community
 Dept. of Environmental Control worked with Center for Neighborhood
Technology to enroll over 100 more businesses in the employee tax benefit for
transit program, benefiting almost 1,000 employees (and removing associated
auto 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 of
economic opportunity.
 Reorganized Dept. of Transportation & Highways to focus on economic
development, Complete Streets for multiple modes of travel.
 Created Bureau of Economic Development, appointed Council of Economic
Advisors focused on spurring growth around transit and freight nodes.
 Creating new resources for infill development: Land Bank, $30 Million
Section 108 Loan Pool for economic development financing, Brownfield
Redevelopment & Intermodal Promotion Act to support job creation near
Harvey’s CN Terminal, revamped tax incentives, and others.

38. Transportation - Recommendations
38
Cook County Government
 County Vehicle Fleet - Needs same analytic approach as applied to energy.
 Coordinate Forest Preserve District bike trail planning with local alternative
transportation planning.
 Analyze options for alternative fuels, fueling stations for County fleet, to reduce GHG
emissions 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 within
Cook County by working with Cook County appointees to transit boards and CMAP.
 Target a significant percent of County tax and economic development incentives to
within ½ mile of transit stations.
 Prioritize Community Development Block Grant funds and County tax and economic
development incentives to Cargo Oriented Development and Transit Oriented
Development opportunities.
 Invest HOME to support affordable housing in TODs. Support access to suburban office
parks by supporting Transportation Management Associations.

39. Waste
Energy Transportation Waste Water Other

40. Waste – Goals and Benefits of Reduction, Reuse
and Recycling
40
Goal
Divert 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 dispose
of and store materials,
and through source
reduction, save on
purchase of materials.
Recapture value of
materials.
Create local jobs
through growth of the
recycled commodities
industry. 10,000 tons of
solid waste creates 1 job
at a landfill, OR 10
recycling jobs, OR 75
materials reuse jobs.
Save landfill space and
associated air and
water pollution; reduce
emissions from energy
used to extract,
manufacture new goods
and to transport waste
to landfills.
Track and account for
materials to identify
recycling and reuse
opportunities to
recapture value of
materials.
Benefits: environmental, economic, social

41. Waste – Composition of Landfill Municipal Solid Waste by
Material in Cook County Communities, 2007
41
The largest
components of
the waste stream
have a high
potential for
reuse and
recycling.
Recycling of
paper, plastic,
glass, and metal
will not be
enough to reach
diversion goals.
Additional
recycling streams
and marketable
end-use products
will be required
for organics and
construction and
demolition debris.
Construction &
Demolition
25.30%
Paper 23.40%Organics
20.70%
Plastic 13.00%
Textiles 7.00%
Metal 4.80%
Glass 2.80%
Inorganics
2.40%
Household
Hazardous
Waste 0.40%
Beverage
Containers
0.20%
The Cook County
Dept. of
Environmental
Control is
responsible by
State law for
planning and
coordination of
solid waste and
recycling in
suburban Cook
County – an
opportunity to
make an impact.

42. Waste– Community Reuse and Recycling Needs to
Increase Dramatically – Waste Produced Must Decline
42
Cook County
residents create
more waste per
capita/day
than the US
average and
recycle less.
Solid waste
from suburban
Cook is
responsible for
1,304,285
MTCO2e, the
3rd largest
GHG source.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Southern Cook Northern Cook Western Cook
County-wide Waste Generation and Recycling Rates
Tons of Waste Generated
Tons of Waste Recycled

43. Waste - Progress
43
Cook 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. of
Environmental Control and Chicago Botanic Garden.
Cook County Community
 Passed the first Solid Waste Plan (2012) for suburban Cook County in 12 years, with an
ideal goal of zero waste.
 Conducted a marketing study with the Delta Institute on the emerging demand for reuse
of building materials.
 A 2012 County ordinance requires demolition debris diversion rate of 70% with an
additional re-use rate of 5% for residential demolition projects. 26,000 tons have been
recycled or reused since implementation in Nov. 2012.
 Cook County Dept. of Environmental Control funded a waste transportation study to
examine economic and environmental costs of waste generation and transport in County
communities.
Cook County is the first government in the Midwest to use the paperless Green Halo
waste reporting system, which helps contractors identify savings. Now being
considered by several other governments in the region.

44. Waste- Recommendations
44
Cook County Government
 Coordinate a municipal solid waste and recycling reporting system for
Cook County municipalities and County government offices. Establish baseline
numbers.
 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 diversion
opportunities, including opportunities to reduce costs or increase revenues and
add additional recycling streams where appropriate.
 Increase the use of online services in County government.
 Analyze supply chain for opportunities to boost the market for
recycled/recyclable materials, to reduce packaging, to substitute services (e.g.
web-based) for physical products, to reduce use of products containing toxic
substances, etc.
 Increase reuse and salvage operations within County government, including
following the Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance guidelines for renovations.

45. Waste- Recommendations
45
Cook County Community
 Aggressively seek grant funding for communities lacking residential curbside
recycling.
 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 to
expand local business and job opportunities in recycling, green packaging, and
other 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 generating
large quantities of food scrap per day to compost, and working with municipalities
on 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. Water
Energy Transportation Waste Water Other

47. Water – Goals and benefits of reduced water
usage.
47
Goal
 Reduce water used at County facilities by 30% by 2025, 40% by 2035.
Reducing water use will
save money on water bills
for County government;
Regional water efficiency
reduces infrastructure
costs.
Reduces pollution in
waterways, helps
preserve natural
streamflow for
aquatic habitat.
Assuring adequate
water for the region’s
future improves
economic
competitiveness.
Metering and accounting
will make this “hidden”
resource visible and
promote accountability.
Benefits: environmental, economic, social

48. Water - Most County Government Water Use is in
Courts & Corrections, and Health & Hospitals Facilities
48
Most County use of
water (from the City
of Chicago) is in
Corrections and
Health facilities,
costing just over $2M.
Cook County receives
about $1M in
charitable exemptions
from water fees on
health facilities.
Chicago’s water rates
are rising from $4.74
/1000gal. in 2012 to
$7.64/1000 gal in
2015, and exemptions
are being phased out.
Total cost could be
almost $6M by 2015.
Small purchases of
water are made from
suburban suppliers –
most have higher
rates.
Water and wastewater caused 540,000 MTCO2e of GHG emissions in suburban Cook County in 2010.
Administration
8%
Health &Hospital
44%
Courts &Corrections
48%
Millions of Gallons - from City of Chicago Water Data (2012)
Annual Water Usage = 772 M Gallons
(2012)

49. Water - Typical Water Use Reduction Potential
by Type of Public Building
49
Admin 64,850 45% 29,182 32% 20,752 15% 9,727
Corr./
Courts
369,981 52% 192,390 35% 129,493 17% 62,897
Health/
Hosp.
336,713 40% 134,685 28% 94,280 18% 60,608
TOTAL 771,544 46% 356,258 32% 244,525 17% 133,357
% savings as provided by Water Management

50. Water - Expected Savings for Cook County
Government With Available Techniques and Fixtures
50
Achieving the “Medium”
level of water reduction for
all 3 facility types would
lower annual water use by
about 244 M gal.
Irrigation occurs at few County
facilities. Since irrigation is a
significant target of industry-wide
savings, we assume “Medium”
instead of “High” savings levels.
At 2015 Chicago water rate of
$7.64/1000gal, Medium level
water use reduction = annual
savings of $1.86M (assuming
no charitable exemptions for
health facilities’ water purchases).
Savings are probably under-
stated because this does not
account for the money Cook
County spends on water from
suburban suppliers, especially
Maywood and Rolling Meadows,
where rates are high.

51. Water – Cook County Government Can Meet the
Water Reduction Goal of 40% by 2035
51
Typical strategies
include fixing leaks;
low-flow fixtures
(including specialized
fixtures for correctional
setting), such as faucets,
toilets, and kitchen pre-
rinse spray nozzles;
repairing and updating
cooling towers; ozone or
other alternative
laundry systems;
alternative landscaping
approaches.
Water use at
correctional, health care
and public
administrative buildings
can all be reduced with
reasonable payback for
investments.
771
129
94 21
64
463
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2012Baseline
35%(Medium)Efficiency
Corrections/Courts
28%(Medium)Efficiency
Health/Hospitals
32%(Medium)Efficiency
Administration
Other:FurtherEff,Consolidation,
GreywaterReuse,NewTech/Process
Change
2035
Cook County Water Usage Reduction Strategy
- Estimated Reductions of Different Initiatives -
Millionsof gallons
of water
ActualWater Usage EstimatedReductionin WaterUsage
Water 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. Water – CMAP’s Water 2050 report shows how the
Community can decrease water consumption
52
In 2005
Northeastern
Illinois used
1225.7 million
gallons of
water per day.
By
implementing
high
conservation
measures such
as repairing
leaks and
increasing
metering up to
269.4 mgd of
water could be
saved.
Public
Supply,
1225.7,
81%
Self-
Supplied
Industrial
and
Commercial,
191.6 ,
13%
Self-
supplied
Domestic,
36.8, 2%
Irrigation
and
Agriculture,
62, 4%
2005 Reported Withdrawals in
Northeastern Illinois
(in million gallons per day)
Excluding once-through power
Water 2050: Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply/Demand Plan, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, March 2010, p. 29-31, 112
Conservation Measures
Low
Conservation
(mgd)
High
Conservation
(mgd)
High Efficiency Toilets 15.0 74.8
Water Waste
Prohibition
12.1 60.3
Metering 30.3 31.5
Leaks and Audit
Repair
5.9 29.7
Residential Plumbing
Retrofits
5.2 26
Commercial/Industrial 5 25.2
High-Efficiency
Clothes Washers
3.2 16.1
Large Landscape 1.0 5.1
Residential Water
Survey
0.1 0.7
All Measures-Total 77.8 269.4

53. Water - Progress
53
Cook 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 into
zones, for faster payment, reducing late fees and creating greater congruity
between charges and usage.
Cook County Community
 Cook County Dept. of Building and Zoning is in the process of adopting more
conservation-friendly International Building Codes for unincorporated areas.
 Environmental Control helped local communities lower energy costs (and
Greenhouse Gas emissions) of water distribution: funded wind turbine in
Lynwood to power water pump station, and variable-speed drives for energy
efficiency at pumping station in Niles.
 To address stormwater runoff impacts, the County funded demonstration of
permeable-paver alley in Bellwood.

54. Water – Recommendations
54
Cook 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, HHS
ESCOs, or pursue independently if financing is more favorable.
 Undertake a comprehensive program of water audits of corporate/courts buildings
using existing FM staff and outside training. Analyze 69W. Washington before the
restack makes the building more dense. Within set of suburban courthouses, focus
where 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 peer
learning 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 little
irrigation but where used, alternatives should be considered).
 Analyze County’s purchasing/supply chain for indirect water impacts – find ways to
reduce.

55. Water – Recommendations
55
 Consider solar thermal for domestic hot water heating after reduction of water use
intensity.
 Examine large uses of water, e.g. once-through cooling at 118 N. Clark (seek ways to
reduce), 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 Public
Health is working on new Plumbing Code standards, which may open up these and
other new opportunities.
 Integrate water saving investments into multi-year capital/operating budgets.
 Centralize water data/analysis. Include water bills in EPA Energy Star Portfolio
Manager – keep data current.
 Seek agreement with City of Chicago to install “smart” water meters at all County
facilities.
 Pursue discussion with City of “on-bill financing” for water saving investments.
 While rebates for water efficiency fixtures are less available than for energy
efficiency 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. Water – Recommendations
56
Cook County Community
 Install public education signage on water conservation fixtures in County
buildings that are open to the public.
 Become a USEPA WaterSense promotional partner and help disseminate
information 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 water
related issues – e.g. seeking federal grants for green infrastructure
investments.
 Consider use of CDBG and other federal development funds to assist local
communities in saving water and reducing their stormwater impacts.
 Continue to assist local communities in identifying energy efficiencies in their
water supply and pumping infrastructure.

57. Other Focus Areas
Energy Transportation Waste Water Other

58. Examples of Other Opportunities
58
In order to
comprehensively
address GHG
emissions, all
areas of
operation need
to be considered.
Priorities may
change as data is
gathered about
the sources of
GHG emissions.
Phase in new
projects over
time.
 Information Technology is a prime source to
look for energy, materials savings – and
dollar savings.
 Purchasing standards and practices can
help drive sustainability through the
County’s whole supply chain. Reducing
materials used, and packaging, can save
money.
 Refrigerants are a potent Greenhouse
Gas, and sealing leaks and making cooling
systems more efficient also saves money.

59. Appendices
• Full List of All Sustainability
Council RecommendationsA.
• Cook County’s Sustainability
Progress to DateB.