Written CommunicationsFrom:Andre Duurvoort
To:Gwyn Azar
Cc:Gilee Corral
Subject:RE: Questions about Climate Action Plan updates regarding GHG reduction
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:23:29 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Dear Gwyn and colleagues,
Thank you for your comments and interest in our GHG reduction goals. The City Council approved a
request by the Sustainability Division to update our Climate Action Plan (CAP) this fiscal year. The
CAP update is a project in the FY 2020-21 City Work Program and the Sustainability Commission will
be working on this project. Because the CAP Update is an official part of the Sustainability
Commission’s adopted Work Program, the GHG reduction goals and other aspects of the CAP update
will be discussed in Sustainability Commission public meetings over the coming months. These
Commission discussions must be held in public to avoid potential violations of the Brown Act. The
next Sustainability Commission meeting will be held virtually on October 15th at 4:00 p.m. The
agenda for this meeting and link to join will be published here within 72 hours of the meeting. We
encourage you to attend this and future Commission meetings and make your voice heard. Please
feel free to reach out to me with any follow up questions.
BCC: Sustainability Commission
Andre Duurvoort
Sustainability Manager
City Manager's Office
AndreD@Cupertino.org
(408) 777-3362
From: Gwyn Azar <>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 6:54 PM
To: City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission <SustainabilityCommission@cupertino.org>
Subject: Questions about Climate Action Plan updates regarding GHG reduction
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
We are members of the Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team’s Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Team. We are deeply concerned about the weakness of Cupertino’s
current GHG reduction goals, especially in comparison to our neighboring cities such
as Menlo Park and Palo Alto. We were wondering if the Sustainability Commission
has any updates about whether or not a more aggressive policy is in the works
considering the upcoming Climate Action Plan.
We will be in contact regarding future GHG-related initiatives, and we hope to
maintain an open line of communication between our team and the Committee.
We look forward to working with you!
Best,
Gwyn, Leon, and Jocelyn
From:Gary Latshaw
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Material for Climate Action Plans
Date:Wednesday, October 7, 2020 9:35:51 AM
Attachments:San Carlos CAP assessment form sierra club.pdf
2030 menlo park CAP Adopted July 2020 FINAL.pdf
City Clerk - It was recommended to me to have these files as part of written communications
for our upcoming Sustainability meeting on October 15th.
Please do so.
Gary
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@cupertino.org>
Subject: Material for Climate Action Plans
Date: September 24, 2020 at 9:50:08 AM PDT
To: Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org>
Gilee - Please pass these on to my fellow commissioners and appropriate staff. I
have attached the Menlo Park CAP because it is very aggressive. The San Carlos
file is actually a letter sent by the sierra club. I think the check list on the second
page would be of value to Cupertino. Both these cities are facing a very direct
threat from the rising sea levels. Of course, that is not an issue for Cupertino, but I
think we have an obligation to do everything we can to curb GHG emissions.
Thanks, Gary
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties
August 18, 2020
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Via email to: Adam Lokar, Management Analyst
RE: San Carlos Climate Action Plan
We live in a climate crisis which threatens the survival of organized human life on Earth. Meanwhile, the
federal government is weakening environmental regulations and accelerating the construction of fossil
fuel projects. However, strong climate policies from Bay Area cities are already i nfluencing state level
policy. Time is running out, and our best opportunity for climate action is for cities to lead the way with
strong local policies.
According to a 2018 study by San Mateo County,1 San Carlos is projected to lose property valued at $885
million due to inundation by the Bay from just 3 feet of sea level rise, a level that scientists believe we
may see as early as 2070.2 That translates into 14% of San Carlos’ land area and 11% of the total
assessed value of the City’s real estate.
The only certain way to mitigate climate change and delay and minimize sea level rise is to dramatically
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). To this end, we recommend that San Carlos set GHG reduction
goals well beyond the current state targets and focus its Climate Action Plan (CAP) on feasible mitigation
policies that are, as advised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “rapid, far-
reaching and unprecedented.” In addition, San Carlos must strengthen itself against climate impa cts3 by
preparing a Vulnerability and Adaptation Plan for sea level rise, extreme heat and wildfires.
In order to support your development of a strong CAP, we invite you to complete the attached Climate
Action Plan Assessment Form, which lists the elements of a CAP that we consider most critical. We
recommend that San Carlos streamline its CAP to focus on the measures that will achieve the largest
1 County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, March 2018, p. 154, https://seachangesmc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/2018-03-12_SLR_VA_Report_2.2018_WEB_FINAL.pdf
2 Rising Seas in California, An Update on Sea Level Rise Science, April 2017, p. 31,
http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf
3 An example action plan: https://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/2020-2025-strategic-plan/OPC-2020-2025-Strategic-
Plan-FINAL-20200228.pdf
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and also consider adopting an abbreviated format,4 so that the
document is more accessible to all readers, including decision makers and members of the public. We
strongly encourage you to create a clear plan for tracking the actions in your CAP, measuring progress
publicly at least quarterly.
We appreciate the opportunity to present San Carlos with recommendations for climate action and are
available for any further clarification. We look forward to working with San Carlos to create the
strongest Climate Action Plan possible.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gladwyn d’Souza, Co-Chair, Conservation Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
Gita Dev, Co-Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
Kristel Wickham, Climate Action Leadership Team, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
Cc James Eggers, Executive Director, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
4 For an example of an abbreviated Climate Action Plan, see City of Menlo Park 2030 Climate Action Plan, July 2020,
https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/11486
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Climate Action Plan Assessment Form
Please complete the form below for your City’s proposed Climate Action Plan and send it to the Sierra Club Loma
Prieta Chapter’s Climate Action Leadership Team at dashiell.leeds@sierraclub.org.
Action
#
Description Included in
CAP?
Comments
1
Adopt a bold goal to reduce community-wide GHGs by at
least [80%] by 2030, given that scientific findings now show
California’s goal of a 40% reduction is no longer sufficient
to address the severity of the crisis.5
☐
2
Specify all resources required to implement each action
in the plan, including dollar amounts, staff hours and task
owners. ☐
3
Identify approximately 10 easy-to-track metrics to help
Council members and the public gauge success of the plan
and define a reporting frequency for those metrics.
☐
4
New buildings: plan to immediately stop the expansion of
natural gas infrastructure, which can be accomplished by
enacting a strong “San Mateo County-style” All Electric
Reach Code requiring all new buildings to be 100%
electric.
☐
5
Existing buildings: create a plan to reduce 80% of
GHG emissions from existing buildings by 2030, which
can be accomplished with a “Burnout Ordinance” paired
with rebates that together aim to phase out the burning of
natural gas in existing buildings, as was recently proposed
in Menlo Park’s CAP.6
☐
6
Create a plan for reducing vehicle miles traveled by
25%, which can be accomplished by a) rezoning to
encourage higher density near transit and b) creating a
Green Streets network7 that makes the City easier and
safer to navigate without a car.8
☐
7
Create a plan for increasing access to electric vehicle
(EV) charging, especially for those living in multi-family
housing and where charging can be done during the day,
when clean solar energy is abundant on California’s
electric grid.
☐
8
Create a plan to replace 100% of the City’s municipal
assets that currently use fossil fuels with efficient
electric alternatives, including but not limited to: Gas pool
heating equipment, gas and diesel municipal fleet vehicles,
gas furnaces, gas water heaters and gas-powered
landscaping equipment.
☐
9
Create a climate adaptation plan focused on protecting
areas of the community vulnerable to wildfires, extreme
heat events, flooding and sea level rise, as forecasted by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and County agencies.
☐
10
Create a citizen’s advisory commission to support the
development and implementation of a CAP, and then to
monitor staff progress on the CAP.
☐
5 Palo Alto has adopted a goal of 80% GHG reduction by 2030 and Menlo Park has adopted a goal of 90% GHG reduction by
2030.
6 City of Menlo Park 2030 Climate Action Plan, July 2020, https://www.menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/11486
7 Sierra Club Guidelines for a Green Streets Network: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce-
authors/u4142/Sierra%20Club%20Loma%20Prieta%20Open%20Streets%205-1-20.pdf
8 For an example of a City that has implemented Green Streets, see Oakland’s Slow Streets Program,
https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/oakland-slow-streets
2030 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Prepared by the Environmental Quality Commission
Adopted by City Council July 2020 (Resolution No.6575)
A 2030 PLAN TO ELIMINATE CARBON EMISSIONS &
PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY FROM CLIMATE CHANGE
JUNE 2020
1
Contacts
Rebecca Lucky, Sustainability Manager, City of Menlo Park
rllucky@menlopark.org
Tom Kabat, Environmental Quality Commissioner, City of Menlo Park
tomgkabat@gmail.com
James Payne, Environmental Quality Commissioner, City of Menlo Park
jamespayne1987@gmail.com
Josie Gaillard, Environmental Quality Commissioner, City of Menlo Park
josie_gaillard@icloud.com
2
INTRODUCTION
Menlo Park is uniquely threatened by
climate change and uniquely positioned
to tackle it.
Menlo Park’s location on the shore of San
Francisco Bay places approximately $1.3 billion1 of
property in our Belle Haven neighborhood at risk of
flooding from climate change by as early as 2070.2
While it is impossible for Menlo Park alone to halt
the global sea level rise that threatens our city, bold
climate leadership on our part is perhaps our only
hope of keeping sea level below the height of an
“affordable” sea wall. The San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority estimated in a 2016
feasibility study that a combination of levees and
sea walls built along the shoreline of Menlo Park
and East Palo Alto to address just three feet of sea
level rise would cost approximately $100 million.3
If we do not provide visible and inspiring leadership
on climate and global greenhouse gas emissions
continue rising at their current rate, no sea wall or
levee will save the portion of our city between
Route 101 and the Bay. That land, which includes
a disproportionate percentage of our city’s low
income residents and residents of color, will be
inundated and residents and businesses will have
to permanently relocate. On the other hand, if we
take a leadership position and our bold climate
action inspires rapid and far reaching climate action
by other cities, we may be able to save our Belle
Haven neighborhood with a combination of sea
walls and levees.
The good news is that if there is any city well
positioned to lead on climate action, it is Menlo
Park. Located in Silicon Valley, our residents and
leaders embrace innovation. Our county (San
Mateo) is one of the wealthiest in the country,4
1 According to County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment p. 139, sea level rise of 3.3 feet will inundate Menlo
Park real estate valued at $1.288 billion and a rise of 6.6 feet will
inundate $1.621 billion in real estate.
2 Griggs, G, Árvai, J, Cayan, D, DeConto, R, Fox, J, Fricker, HA, Kopp,
RE, Tebaldi, C, Whiteman, EA (California Ocean Protection Council
Science Advisory Team Working Group), Rising Seas in California: An
Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science Trust,
April 2017. Ranges shown are from the median (50th percentile) to
the extreme (99.9th percentile) range of the projections.
Source: http://data.pointblue.org/apps/ocof/cms/index.php?page=flood-map
YEAR: 2070-2100
the Bay is projected to rise 3.3 feet
which means we have the financial resources to
tackle the issue of climate change head on.
Analysis conducted by members of the
Environmental Quality Commission’s Climate
Action Plan subcommittee shows that every dollar
spent now by the City on bold climate action can be
expected to save City residents $100 in future
adaptation costs5 addressing sea level rise alone,
not to mention the healthcare costs associated with
treating ailments caused by air pollution (see
“Natural Gas Phase Out” section below).
Finally, our City Council and staff have already
demonstrated a capacity for leadership by passing
an innovative all-electric Reach Code that virtually
eliminates natural gas from new buildings. At last
count, 15 other California cities had adopted a
“Menlo Park style” all electric Reach Code for new
buildings, proving that courageous action on
climate does in fact inspire others to follow.
3 Public Draft Feasibility Report, SAFER Bay Project, Strategy to
Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along San
Francisco Bay, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park,
October 2016, p. 37.
4 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-
income_counties_in_the_United_States
5 Supporting analysis available in PDF format in Appendix C and in
Excel format upon request
3
ZERO CARBON BY 2030
In order to address the significant thr eat to Menlo
Park posed by climate change, the City Council
adopted a bold climate goal of zero carbon by
2030. This will be achieved through a 90%
reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
(CO2e) from 2005 levels, and elimination of the
remaining 10% of CO2e through direct carbon
removal measures.
An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
conducted in December 2019 revealed that
emissions in Menlo Park fell from 349,284 tons in
2005 to 284,378 tons of CO2e in 2017, a reduction
of 19%. The aim of this plan will be to reduce
community-wide emissions by another 71% for a
total reduction of 90% from 2005 emissions, leaving
just 34,933 tons of CO2e per year by 2030.
2005
2017
2030
34,933
tons CO2e
Menlo Park Community
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons of CO2e)
2005 2017 2030
Vehicles 137,628 158,686 18,373
Natural gas 102,295 95,742 13,656
Electricity 87,617 21,528 -
Waste 21,745 8,424 2,903
Total Emissions 349,285 284,380 34,933
Waste
8%
Natur
al gas
39%
Vehicl
es
53%
Waste
Electricity 3%
7%
Natural gas
34%
284,378
tons CO2e Vehicles
56%
Waste
6%
Electricity
25% Vehicles
40%
349,284
tons CO2e
Natural
gas
29%
4
OPTIONS FOR ACTION
In order to achieve a goal of “Zero emissions by
2030,” Menlo Park must begin taking bold action
immediately. Fortunately, the City has already
decarbonized its electricity supply by joining with
other cities in the County to create a joint powers
authority (Peninsula Clean Energy) that sources
power mainly from renewables and hydropower.
This creates a clean energy stepping stone from
which to decarbonize the rest of the City’s
economy.
Our next step is to decarbonize all of our buildings
and transportation. In an ideal world with more
time, the City’s climate goals could be achieved
simply by unleashing the power of free enterprise
and relying on markets and educated consumers to
transform our fossil-fuel dependent economy to one
that stops emitting greenhouse gases in time to
avert catastrophic climate change. Members of the
Climate Action Plan (CAP) subcommittee of the
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), who
prepared this plan, certainly would prefer this type
of approach, as it limits the role of government and
would reduce the likely opposition from some
interest groups. However, no matter how carefully
the subcommittee considered various incentive-
and education-based laissez-faire approaches,
none of them appears able to solve the climate
problem in time to avert catastrophic change to our
daily lives. In fact, the less action the City takes
now, the costlier the government intervention will
be later to deal with the resulting climate disasters.
The key reasons that market approaches alone
cannot solve climate change are three-fold:
1)markets are currently distorted by the
absence of accurate pricing for key
externalities, such as the right to dump
harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere, which today is virtually free to
any person or business who wishes to do it,
leaving the rest of us bear the ever
increasing cost,
2)powerful political interest groups such as
the fossil fuel industry have successfully
spread enough disinformation about climate
change that Americans significantly
underestimate the problem and therefore
underestimate the actions that must be
taken to address it, and
3)polluting devices last far too long once
installed and we simply do not have enough
time for the typical market signals to trickle
down to those who determine product
offerings and today offer environmentally
obsolete products to customers.
Just as the US government stepped in forcefully
after the bombing of Pearl Harbor to require that
much of America’s free market economy be
transformed to support the war effort, so too must
the government now step in forcefully and
confidently to lead the American public away from
the brink of climate disaster.
Thankfully, the actions required of every American
citizen to forcefully combat climate change are
much less onerous than the food rations or military
conscription imposed on World War II-era
Americans. We are fortunate that a robust private
sector has already provided every technological
solution and innovation necessary to almost
completely retire fossil fuels as an energy source in
America today.
PERSONAL ACTION
Below is a list of the personal actions that, if every
citizen took them, would halt global warming in its
tracks:
•Retire all gas vehicles immediately and
replace them with electric vehicles, bikes,
transit or another form of non-fossil
transport
•Replace every gas appliance in a home
(including furnace, water heater and stove)
with an efficient electric version
•Power every home and car with 100%
renewable electricity, either by installing
solar panels or purchasing renewable
energy from one’s utility
•Consider the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with every purchase decision
and choose “low-carbon” products and
services whenever possible
5
•Reduce weekly consumption of meat and
animal products, a move which has
significant ancillary health benefits.
GOVERNMENT ACTION
At the local government level, climate action must
focus on eliminating the use of two categories of
fossil fuels: 1) gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles,
and 2) natural gas in home appliances. Given the
25-year expected life of a typical gas furnace, it is
critical for the City to begin prohibiting the
installation of new replacement gas furnaces and
water heaters as soon as possible.
In considering the wide-reaching actions and
change required to meet the City’s proposed
climate goals, researchers reviewed dozens of
approaches employed by cities all over the world,
including:
▪A “5-minute city” approach to zoning
implemented in Copenhagen, Denmar k that
drastically reduced vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and made the city more walkable
▪A carbon fee on buildings recently
implemented in New York City
▪An announced plan to end the flow of
natural gas in the City of Arcata, California
and now being considered by Palo Alto.
After months of weighing each of the dozens of
approaches, the CAP subcommittee identified three
basic options for action: 1) a Bold Plan with 22
actions to be implemented over one year, 2) a
Moderate Plan with 76 actions to be im plemented
over three years and 3) a Go Slow Plan with no
specific actions other than to follow evolving state
rules.
PLAN CHANGES DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Shortly after the CAP subcommittee fleshed out the
three different approaches to climate action
described above, the world was gripped by the
global pandemic of COVID -19. The pandemic has
significantly affected the context in which this plan
is presented, namely:
•The time and attention of City Council and
staff has understandably shifted almost
entirely to managing the health risks and
economic consequences of the pandemic
•Almost overnight, the country has gone from
enjoying robust economic growth to
experiencing one of the starkest economic
recessions in US history
•Due to the economic recession, the City’s
budget has shrunk dramatically, with a
2020-21 shortfall of $12.7 million
•Layoffs of dozens of City staff as a result of
the City’s budget shortfall
•City commissions, including the
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC),
unable to meet for 4 months, which means
the CAP subcommittee has been delayed in
vetting the CAP with the EQC
Despite disrupted City operations, the CAP
subcommittee continued refining the Climate Action
Plan and vetting it with the City Council’s CAP
subcommittee (distinct from the EQC’s CAP
subcommittee) to receive their input on what might
be politically viable in Menlo Park. The result of
that continued work is a significantly pared down
plan, presented below. While the CAP
subcommittee still believes that the original Bold or
Moderate Plans (presented in Appendix B), with
their 22 and 76 actions respectively, are in fact
what the Climate Crisis requires, we have decided
to propose a significantly pared down plan, with the
thought that some action is better than no action.
This plan includes only the highest impact actions.
This does not mean it is the best plan. It means it
is only a good subset of the best plan and future
efforts should be made to expand it as our ability
and the wisdom of doing so becomes ever more
apparent.
6
THE PLAN
Action # Description 2030 GHG
Reduction
(tons/yr)
Estimated Initial
Investment for FY
2020-2021
Explore policy/program
options to convert 95%
of existing buildings to
all-electric by 2030
1 Two basic options:
1)Announce the “end of flow” of natural gas in the City by
2030 OR
2)Enact a “burn-out ordinance” requiring that when gas
appliances expire, they must replaced by electric
(preferably high efficiency heat pump) alternatives;
phase in for large commercial, small commercial,
residential; may require follow-on compliance ordinance
as current permit compliance for residential gas
appliances is low; will require follow-up “cash-for-
clunkers” program to achieve 2030 goal; relies on PCE
subsidies to reduce or eliminate cost differential; may
require use of UUT funds to cover additional cost
differential for low-income residents. Extend burnout
ordinance to expiring air conditioners, to be replaced
with heat pumps, eliminating need for separate gas
heating.
1)86,465*
OR
2)51,636*
$195,000 to
$275,000
*Initial investment to
hire contract staff
(building official,
legal aid, energy
analyst) and provide
policy options that
would lead to
adoption of a policy,
ordinance, and/or
program
2 Announce and promote goals of 1) making all new vehicles be <7,120* $0-$20,000 to
electric by 2025 and 2) reducing gasoline sales each year by influence regional
10%, based on the total reported in 2018. Track progress on agency to lead on
both goals publicly on an annual basis. behalf of the city
Set citywide goal for
increasing EVs and
decreasing gasoline
sales
Expand access to EV 3 Install or assist building owners in installing EV chargers 7,370* $140,000
charging for throughout the City, siting them preferably where they will be <13,000* for *Initial investment
multifamily and used during daylight hours (when solar electricity is abundant on multifamily for contract analyst
commercial properties our grid) and also where residents of multi-family housing can to evaluate
access them. Current project to explore and evaluate policy multifamily
options for existing multifamily properties. properties
Reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by 25%
or an amount
recommended by the
Complete Streets
Commission
4 Reduce VMT, especially by gasoline vehicles, through a two-
pronged approach:
1)Change zoning to encourage higher density (esp. for
housing) near transit
2)Make the City easier to navigate without a car by
accelerating implementation of the Transportation
Master Plan with an emphasis on developing a clear
network of protected pedestrian/bike paths throughout
town
31,743* Explore in 2021 or
2022 after current
and complimentary
projects are
completed
Current projects underway that help achieve this goal: SB2
Housing grant, Transportation Management Plan, Transportation
Management Association, and implementation of new VMT
guidelines for new development
Eliminate the use of 5 Replace 100% of the following municipal assets with efficient
electric substitutes for:
1)Gas pool heating equipment
2)Gas and diesel municipal fleet vehicles
3)Gas furnaces
4)Gas hot water heaters
5)Gas-powered gardening equipment
879* Currently budgeted
fossil fuels from for end of life assets/
municipal operations appliances, and new
community
center/library
Develop a climate 6 Develop a climate adaptation plan focused on protecting areas of 0 Flood and Sea Level
adaptation plan to the community vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding, as Rise Resiliency
protect the community forecasted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric District to Lead
from sea level rise and Administration (NOAA) and California State agencies. Consider
flooding requiring developers to fund efforts to protect the community.
TOTAL (assumes option 2 is chosen in action #1) 98,748+ $355,000 - $435,000
*GHG emission reductions have been estimated and have not been verified
7
You will notice that the plan, as presented, falls well
short of the goal of reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions by 249,447 tons/yr by 2030. In fact, the
plan only addresses 40% of the sought-after
reductions. This simplified 6-action plan is
significantly scaled back from the more
comprehensive plans envisioned before COVID -19
struck, a compromise the CAP subcommittee felt
was warranted, given the City’s projected budget
short-falls. The CAP subcommittee hopes that
market momentum in the EV sector will make a
significant contribution to the reduction of Menlo
Park’s greenhouse gas emissions, an effect not
accounted for here. The Environmental Quality
Commission expects the significantly truncated
six-action plan presented above to be
completed within one year and strongly advises
City Council to revisit the original, more
comprehensive plan in July 2021, so that as the
economy improves, those actions can be
reincorporated into the plan.
NATURAL GAS PHASE OUT
Ending the use of natural gas has multiple bene fits,
including the avoidance of failures in gas system
operations, such as the one that destroyed homes
and caused death in Brookline, Massachusetts in
2018 and the one that did even greater harm in San
Bruno, California in 2010.
The normal operation of gas appliances in buildings
has also been found to cause indoor air pollution
that would be illegal outdoors due to its negative
health impacts, according to a recent study from
UCLA.6 That study links chronic exposure to the
NO2 emitted from gas stoves to a range of health
ailments, including: asthma, lung inflammation,
increased risk of respiratory infection, lung and
breast cancer and low birth weight in babies.
Doctors in a January article in the New England
Journal of Medicine wrote the following, “As
physicians deeply concerned about climate change
and pollution and their consequences, we consider
expansion of the natural gas infrastructure to be a
grave hazard to human health.” They continued,
“We also recommend that new residential or
commercial gas hookups not be permitted, new gas
6 UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, “Effects of Residential
Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public
Health in California,” April 2020,
https://coeh.ph.ucla.edu/effects-residential-gas-appliances-
indoor-and-outdoor-air-quality-and-public-health-california
appliances be removed from the market, further
gas exploration on federal lands be banned, and all
new or planned construction of gas infrastructure
be halted.”7 It is therefore within the City’s normal
powers, which are aimed at protecting the health
and safety of its citizens, to seriously consider
announcing the “End of Flow” (EOF) of natural gas.
This is similar to an approach proposed in the City
of Arcata, California whereby the City would
explore and pass an ordinance that sets an end
date, for example 7/4/2030, for the flow of natural
gas to all gas customers within the City limits. This
sets a date certain by which community members
would want to make any needed electrification
updates to their homes for water heating, cooking
and space heating. The City could then either
stand back and let community members educate
themselves on choices that would work for them, or
the City could be an active partner to interested
citizens, perhaps leading a helpful bulk buying
program for: water heaters, heat pu mp HVAC
units, EV chargers and installation services, or
performing other joint effort transformation
activities. There is already a local model for city -led
bulk buying called Sunshares, which performs bulk
buying for home solar systems and electric
vehicles. While the idea of city-led bulk buying may
sound new and different at first, we should realize
that the City of Menlo Park already performs bulk
buying of commodities and services for its citizens
and businesses, including water supply, public
safety services, street tree maintenance, roads and
sidewalks, etc.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Some of the six proposed actions can most likely
be implemented by existing staff with extra support
from a contractor/consultants.
Other than the General Fund, there are two o ther
potential sources of funds:
1) the $400,000 presented in the 2020-21
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as
earmarked for implementation of the
Climate Action Plan and
7 New England Journal of Medicine, “The False Promise of
Natural Gas,” Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., Howard Frumkin,
M.D., Dr.P.H., and Brita E. Lundberg, M.D.,
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1913663
8
2)issuing debt or borrowing money.8
Saving our community for future generations seems
like one of the most prudent uses of borrowed
funds one can imagine. Conversely, if we wait until
extra City revenue is available to fund climate
action, we will most certainly lose the climate fight.
There will be additional capital expenditures
incurred as part of the Climate Action Plan, as well,
including:
-Investment in EV charging infrastructure
-Street improvements related to the TMP
implementation
-Investment in electric replacements for
municipal gas and diesel assets
If funds for these capital expenditures have not
already been allocated in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP), an amendment would
need to be made to the CIP for that purpose. The
EQC’s CAP subcommittee recommends against
using funds currently earmarked in the CIP for
climate action to pay for municipal greening
projects. Such projects are good candidates for
outside financing or borrowing, whereas the CAP
funds in the CIP should be focused on high impact
activities to reduce community-wide greenhouse
gas reductions, such as policy development,
programs, incentives, education and marketing.
PLAN METRICS
Climate Action Plans have a poor history of being
effectively implemented and one reason for that is
that progress is typically only measured every five
years and with staff turnover, well intentioned plans
can go unexamined for years. In order to avoid
such an outcome, the CAP subcommittee
recommends that a short list of concrete metrics be
adopted and that the City Council request quarterly,
if not monthly, updates on those metrics.
Key metrics to track include:
1.Number of gas hot water heaters
citywide that are replaced with electric
versions (data source: Menlo Park
Building Department)
2.Number of gas furnaces citywide that are
replaced with electric versions (data source:
Menlo Park Building Department)
3.Number of utility natural gas accounts
terminated (data source: Peninsula Clean
Energy or PG&E)
4.Number of new cars registered that are gas
vs. EV (data source: DMV)
5.Number of total cars registered that are gas
vs. EV (data source: DMV)
6.Gallons of gasoline sold in Menlo Park (data
source: City sales tax reports)
7.Percentage of municipal assets converted
from gas or diesel to electric (data source:
Menlo Park Public Works Department)
8.Vehicle miles traveled, including trips
inbound, outbound and within the City
(Google Environmental Insights Explorer)
9.Number of other cities that query and/or
copy Menlo Park’s climate policies and
programs (data source: outreach efforts and
research by Menlo Park Sustainability staff)
While Sustainability staff and members of the CAP
subcommittee question the value of conducting
frequent high level greenhouse gas inventories, we
do all agree that measurement is important and
believe that tracking the specific items listed above
will help staff and Council gain insight into the
effectiveness of the climate actions that the City
decides to undertake. County efforts to measure
greenhouse gas emissions are expected to
continue and will hopefully reflect progress made
by cities within the County.
METHOD FOR EVALUATING ACTIONS
The six actions detailed above were selected from
over 76 actions included in the original Bold and
Moderate Plans, because they offer the City the
most potential for Greenhouse Gas Reductions per
dollar spent.
Dozens of potential climate actions were
considered. Actions took many forms, including:
city ordinances, city directives, programs and
collaborations. Each action was evaluated for the
8 An interesting model for borrowing against existing
financial assets (such as the City’s reserves) has been
employed during the COVID recession by leading charitable
Foundations who are borrowing at low interest rates against their
endowments in order to continue disbursements,
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/business/ford-
foundation-bonds-coronavirus.html.
9
following key criteria:
• Potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions
• City staff resources required to implement
• City cost to implement
• Out-of-pocket expenses for community
members to implement (lifecycle
economics for user)
• Political feasibility
• Potential for replication by other cities
The cost estimates above should be viewed as
preliminary, requiring further thorough analysis by
City staff prior to policy adoption.
THE TRUE COST OF CARBON
As mentioned above, there is in fact a societal cost
to burning fossil fuels, sometimes referred to as the
“cost of carbon.” There are debates today over
how best to calculate that cost. Some say it should
be based on the damages caused by those
emissions. Others say it should be based on the
cost to remove those carbon emissions from the
atmosphere, once that becomes possible. In the
absence of a global consensus, the EQC’s CAP
subcommittee attempted to estimate the cost of
carbon to Menlo Park by taking the projected
losses from sea level rise in our city alone, $1.3
billion, and dividing that by the tons of CO2e we
expect to emit over the next 40 years in a business
as usual situation. Using this simple methodology,
we arrived at a “cost of carbon” of $130/ton for
Menlo Park.
There are a number of ways the City could use this
figure. We could consider levying a tax of $130/ton
on fossil fuels, in order to cover future damages the
City will incur, in essence internalizing the
externalized “cost of carbon.” Another way to use
this figure would be for the City to factor it in to all
decisions concerning assets in the City that
consume fossil fuels, for example in calculating the
true cost to the City of a gasoline-powered police
car or the true cost to citizens of a gas furnace.
NOTE ON LEADERSHIP
Saving our City from sea level rise will require
collective global action, which Menlo Park can likely
only influence through bold leadership. In
evaluating the relative effectiveness of various
climate actions, the CAP subcommittee noted the
significant impact that replicability and
demonstration of feasibility of a pol icy or program
had on its potential to generate emissions
reductions. If other cities can easily copy a policy
or program, it is likely to catalyze emissions
reductions many times greater than our City’s
emissions reductions alone. Therefore, it is
strongly advised that City staff favor simplicity and
replicability in its design of climate policies and
programs and it is further advised that the City
invest resources in proactively sharing its climate
policies and programs with other cities, counties
and government entities.
We must also be nimble and ready to act on
economic stimulus opportunities that may present
themselves, as the Country attempts to pull itself
out of a recession.
NOTE ON UTILITY PARTNERS
An analysis of community member economics for
each action revealed that rebates can make or
break the economics behind purchasing decisions
for equipment like electric vehicles and electric heat
pumps for space and water heating, all of which are
essential for progress on climate action. The City
can greatly increase the political feasibility of many
climate actions included in this plan by calling on its
local Community Choice Energy (CCE) provider to
rapidly deploy the significant capital currently held
on its balance sheet to fund rebates on electric
replacements of gas appliances. Such rebates can
make climate friendly replacements cost effective
and that enables city councils like ours to pass
ordinances requiring such replacements. In turn,
the new electric devices generate net revenue that
rebuilds the CCE’s financial reserves.
To this end, Peninsula Clean Energy’s board
recently signaled its support for local cities’ efforts
to electrify, voting on May 28, 2020 to invest $6
million to electrify existing buildings in San Mateo
County. This program will reportedly include
substantial incentives for: 1) the installation of
electric heat pump water heaters, 2) upgrades to
electric service panels so they can handle the
increased electric demands of all-electric homes,
and 3) whole-home electric conversions for low
income residents. Such programs are a promising
10
signal that local CCEs intend to help ease the
financial burden of converting homes from natural
gas to all-electric, since it is not only essential for
fighting climate change but also in their long-term
financial interest to do so.
NOTE ON EQUITY
Climate change does not affect all members of
society equally. Tragically it disproportionately
affects low income people and people of color, as
evidenced right here in Menlo Park, where sea
level rise is expected to have a devastating impact
on residents of our Belle Haven neighborhood. A
similar pattern is observed all over the globe, where
poor island nations are becoming the first to be
wiped off the globe. Climate justice advocate Hop
Hopkins illustrates the connection between climate
change and racism by explaining how allowing
climate change to occur requires that we accept
that portions of our local and global communities
are “sacrifice zones, and you can’t have sa crifice
zones without disposable people, and you can’t
have disposable people without racism.”
Meanwhile wealthier segments of society go on
emitting greenhouse gases at ten times the rate of
poorer segments, unwilling to make even small
changes to their purchasing decisions. The COVID
crisis has shed a light on the shocking inequity in
health outcomes for people of color, some of which
can be attributed to well documented racial
disparities in exposure to air pollution from fossil
fuels. Menlo Park must ask itself whether it wishes
to continue contributing to this global and local
inequity, or whether it can strongly prioritize
leadership in solving these interconnected
problems.
Finally, although Menlo Park is situated in one of
the wealthiest Counties in the country, that wealth
is not equally distributed and some residents may
find it difficult to afford at least the capital outlay for
the changes recommended in this plan. To
address issues of equity, there are a number of
options for ensuring that low-income residents have
the financial support they need to make the
required changes to their homes and vehicles.
Both the State and local CCEs have shown a
willingness to provide financial subsidies
specifically targeted at low income residents.
Peninsula Clean Energy recently set aside $2
million, out of a $6 million program, just to assist
low-income residents with all-electric retrofits of
their homes. If the City wishes to further bolster
that support, it could consider allowing the Utility
User’s Tax (UUT) on natural gas sales to increase
from its current 1% level to the existing voter-
approved level of 3.5%. That would provide an
estimated $500,000 in additional funding every year
to low-income families converting gas appliances to
all-electric. The City must take an active role in
ensuring that low-income residents are not unfairly
disadvantaged by the requirements of its Climate
Action Plan.
ANOTHER NOTE ON COVID-19
Lastly, this Climate Action Plan is being presented
to City leaders in the midst of a generation-defining
event, namely the global COVID -19 pandemic. It is
understandable and appropriate that City leaders
would devote their immediate attention to protecting
the health and wellbeing of our community, as we
fight this deadly virus.
As the health emergency wanes, however, the CAP
subcommittee hopes that Council members will
view the proposed Climate Action Plan as an
opportunity for Menlo Park. COVID-19 has jolted
us all out of our routines and everyday existence,
highlighting in a graphic way our vulnerability as a
species. Climate change has the potential to do
the same, only on an even greater scale. If we are
able to take in the lessons presented to us by this
current crisis, we will be better prepared to address
the climate crisis that is coming. For example, we
should ask ourselves: Do we want to be like South
Korea and flatten the carbon “curve” by proactively
investing in mitigating the carbon dioxide
“contagion”? Or will we delay, like Italy, and only
take decisive action once the problem has
ballooned? Is it still acceptable to stand by and
watch one window of opportunity after another
close before our eyes, leaving us with a much
larger problem, the only response to which
threatens to destroy our economy? Can we accept
that this problem, like COVID, will ravage poor
communities and people of color? The choice is
ours. How will we act?
This Climate Action Plan presents us with
economic opportunities as well. If enacted, this
plan will jumpstart a new local market in electri c
appliance installation, injecting money into the
11
economy and providing hundreds of new jobs, just
when they are needed.
Finally, as medical professionals learn more about
the adverse health impacts of burning fossil fuels in
our homes, the Climate Action Plan offers Menlo
Park an opportunity to set a new standard for
health and safety in our homes and places of work
by removing fossil fuels from our air completely.
Our future is in our hands. It is time to act.
12
APPENDIX A
ORIGINAL PLAN OPTIONS – BOLD, MODERATE
AND GO SLOW
Dr. John Holdren, scientific advisor to President
Obama, advised that humans have three basic
choices when it comes to climate change: 1)
mitigate the problem by reducing our emissions, 2)
adapt to the problem and try to move out of harm’s
way, or 3) suffer. What every civic leader must do
today is pick the mix of those three options that
they are willing to bring to their communities.
A summary of the benefits and drawback s of each
plan, from a City official’s perspective, is offered
below.
Bold Plan Moderate Plan Go Slow Plan
• A few bold actions
• One-year implementation
• Achieves goal of Zero by 2030
• Less $ now (staff resources)
• Less $ later (lower sea walls)
• Subject to opposition
• Less human suffering
• Regional leadership role
• Many moderate actions
• Three-year implementation
• Makes progress toward goal of
Zero by 2030
• More $ now (staff resources)
• Some $ later (sea walls)
• Subject to some opposition
• Some human suffering
• Regional leadership role
• No proactive actions
• No specific implementation time
• Falls well short of Zero by 2030
goal
• Less $ now (staff resources)
• More $ later (high sea walls)
• Subject to some opposition
• More human suffering
• No regional leadership role
THE MODERATE PLAN
The Moderate Plan is a set of 60+ actions
(Appendix B), implemented over 3 years, that
involve working with the community (residents,
businesses and commuters) to assist and compel
them to change, while simultaneously working with
other cities, the County, the State and utilities to
make such change easier. This would be
accomplished by changing laws, capabilities and
economics in a way that transforms standard
practice, similar to the way that our all-electric
Reach Codes are transforming standard practice in
new construction. Menlo Park is gaining credibility
in this area and therefore has a reasonable chance
of catalyzing regional change through bold
leadership and knowledge sharing.
The Moderate Plan would also seek an expanded
vision and commitment from Community Choice
Energy providers (CCEs), who will reap
considerable benefit in the form of increased net
revenue from electrification, just as oil companies
will see diminishing revenue. According to this
plan, the CCEs would be advised to rapidly deploy
their net revenue, in order to quickly transform the
market to support building electrification.
The Moderate Plan is the most time-intensive
option of those presented, with significant staff
resources deployed in the next three years to pass
incremental ordinances that will drive needed
behavior change. Sustainability staff currently
estimate that implementing the Moderate Plan
would require approximately 6 incremental full
time equivalent (FTE) staff for the first year and
a similar or smaller number in the remaining
two years included in the plan. These
incremental staff resources could be hired as
consultants and would not be needed past the 3 -
year term of the plan.
While the action-intensive approach of the
Moderate Plan may seem cumbersome, the CAP
subcommittee suspects that the public requires
incremental education and a piecemeal approach
to rule changes, in order to have time to adjust to
change. As such, the Moderate Plan also includes
significant public outreach and education efforts to
13
assist the public and businesses in understanding
the benefits of mutual cooperation.
Finally, the Moderate Plan by itself would not
guarantee that the City would reach its proposed
climate goal of Zero emissions by 2030. Instead,
this plan would put us on a path to achieve that
goal in a later year or, alternatively, could be seen
as laying the groundwork for implementation of
additional measures, such as those outlined in the
Bold Plan, starting in year 4 of climate action when
the public may be more receptive to bolder action.
THE BOLD PLAN
The Bold Plan is much simpler (Appendix B) in that
it involves far fewer actions and therefore fewer
staff resources to implement. It also has the
advantage of nearly guaranteeing achievement of
the City’s climate goals. It achieves this primarily
by announcing to the community that the City will
stop the flow of natural gas (a potent greenhouse
gas) and restrict the use of gasoline vehicles within
City limits by a certain date in the future, possibly
by the year 2030. This approach gives community
members time to make the needed adjustments to
their homes and transportation, all of which are
perfectly feasible, within an announced 10 -year
timeframe.
As for the elimination of gasoline and diesel (GAD)
fuels from Menlo Park vehicles, the Bold Plan could
include a normal health-and-safety powers type
ordinance, requiring the phasing out of
underground fuel tanks by 7/4/2030, for example.
Any businesses that used underground fuel storage
tanks would need to remove them for certain by
that date. If climate preservation is being seriously
pursued in the next decade and automobile makers
follow their plans for electric vehicle production,
there will be much lower need for GAD stations left
in our area and those that remain will be selling a
fraction of the volume of gasoline that they do now.
This could mean that, regardless of which climate
plan the City pursues, the number of local gasoline
stations is likely to drop significantly within the next
decade from the current 12 to as few as six. Some
locations could be repurposed as EV charging
stations with amenities such as a coffee shop,
convenience store or car wash.
Another approach to eliminating GAD fuels would
be for the City to pass a number of ordinances that
reduce the subsidies currently offered to GAD -
powered cars and trucks. Some of the subsidies
that could be reduced or eliminated for GAD
vehicles include City-provided free parking in
downtown lots and free parking on the side of
public streets, a subsidy the City already limits
overnight in Menlo Park. Both of these measures
would encourage reductions in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) in the City, as well as conversions
to electric vehicles (EVs). These shifts would also
offer residents the ancillary benefits of reduced
traffic congestion and/or reduced air pollution.
THE GO SLOW PLAN
The Go Slow Plan (GSP) would entail stepping
back from climate leadership and following other
entities, if and when they step forward to lead.
The City would forgo the opportunity to carve out its
own unique approach to prob lems, as we did with
the recent Reach Codes, and would likely end up
joining County efforts or copying other Cities’
approaches. A Go Slow Plan would likely entail
sitting quietly on the sidelines and following plans
developed and offered by regional or state entities,
as they emerge. The Go Slow Plan is by far the
most risky of the plans in that it results in the
highest likely damage cost to public and private
property from sea level rise and would cause the
most human suffering in vulnerable parts of our
City. Gut-wrenching decisions will face City
officials as they decide how much money to spend
delaying the eventual loss of real estate valued at
over $1 billion along our Bay shoreline. One can
imagine weighty decisions about what
neighborhoods to save resulting in heated
disagreement among residents that would tear at
the fabric of our community.
Although the Go Slow Plan may look “easy” in the
short term, due to the lower staffing requirements
and the slower pace of change required now, this
approach may in fact prove to be penny wise and
pound foolish. In reality, a Go Slow approach
simply hands a growing problem to a future City
Council, who would have even less time and
resources at their disposal to battle climate change
and oversee adaptation on multiple fronts.
We understand from the worldwide scientific body,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), that time is of the essence and that in order
to have a meaningful impact on climate change,
14
any mitigation efforts must start immediately. This
would render the Go Slow Plan scientifically
imprudent, leaving the City Council to choose
between: a) implementing the Moderate Plan
immediately and simultaneously exploring the Bold
Plan for later implementation if needed, b) cutting to
the chase and just pursuing the Bold Plan
immediately or c) developing a plan they feel would
perform better.
Appendix: B Moderate 2020
Action Action
#
Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost
($/ton) *
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by
MP (tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings
to
Participant**
Notes & Assumptions
A: Municipal Greening
Develop and implement plan for electrifying
municipal fleet 1 Directive Public Works/
Sustainability 0.05 446 -$7,624 3,000 $980,000 $3,406,667 Develop clear plan for converting 100% of municipal
vehicles to EVs
Expand city owned, public EV charging
infrastructure throughout City 2 Directive Sustainability/
Public Works 0 714 -$53.16 6,000 $400,000 $151,880
CAP sub note: Focus on parking lots at city facilities,
inc. parks, library, community center and areas that
serve multi-family housing. (1) Analyze EV
infraststruce needs of the city and design accordingly
(2) Establish rules for use of chargers and best
practices for signage and other use factors (3) Jump
start infrastructure development with initial public
investments (4) Develop partnerships with utilties and
private businesses as long term investors when
building out the city's EV-charging infrastructure (5)
Monitor and adapt to trends in the eV market and with
EV technologies, use of city infrastructure, and shifts in
national, regional policy
Develop and Implement plan for electrifying all
municipal buildings + pools 3 Directive Public Works/
Sustainability 0.05 433 -$33.94 39,000 $360,000 $225,305 Install heat pumps and heat pump water heaters in all
municipal buildings and the 2 pool complexes
For Resiliency purposes only: Develop and
implement plan for installing batteries for resiliency
in key municipal facilities, starting with new
community center
4 Directive Public Works/
Sustainability 0.05 1 $16,781 109 $360,000 -$300,000 Install solar and batteries in municipal facilities for
resiliency during emergencies.
Adopt CA regulations + Marin concrete language
on embodied carbon in municipal construction, e.g.
sidewalks
5 Directive Public Works 0 54 $16.67 3,000 $9,000 -$9,000
Review state purchasing guidelines published recently
and adopt those as a starting point, create signage for
carbon-free sidewalks.
Raise Nat Gas UUT to 3.5% (to fund electrification
of low income households, municipal electrification
program and other Council-directed GHG
reductions)
6 Directive Finance/
Sustainability 0.125 579 $2.16 35,000 $5,000 $473
First step is to increase UUT rate on natural gas. City
Council then decides where to apply funds :
electrification (+ batteries?) in 1) day cares, 2)
municipal buildings, 3) schools, 4) low income
residents’ homes.
Subtotal 0.275
B: Commercial Greening
Facilitate daytime EV charging at commercial
establishments and allow public access use at night 7 Ordinance
Sustainability/
Planning/
Building
0.5 1,428 $3.50 85,700 $90,000 $134,256
Facilitate installation of EV chargers for commercial
establishments of a certain size to encourage charging
from 9am to 3pm when supply of renewable energy is
abundant and cheap; also allow public charging
access at night
Work with Facebook to develop a bus
electrification plan, including shuttle 8 Collaboration 0.05 1,631 $0.61 8,200 $1,400,000 -$110,000
Require electrification of gas appliances (space
heating and water heating) and A/C upon burnout
to heat pump - commercial
9 Ordinance Sustainability/
Building 0.5 19,469 $0.26 3,115,100 $24,000 $7,650
Require property owner to replace gas HVAC units at
end of life with electric heat pump HVAC. Also require
that replaced A/C be provided by heat pumps; limit to
commercial establishments of a certain size
Adopt Marin limits on embodied carbon in
construction and require materials that sequester
carbon in commercial construction
10 Ordinance Sustainability/
Building 0.5 2,835 $1.76 170,100 $3,600 -$3,600
Subtotal 1.55
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2020
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 1
Appendix: B Moderate 2020
Action Action
#
Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost
($/ton) *
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by
MP (tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings
to
Participant**
Notes & Assumptions
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2020
C: Residential Greening
Require access to EV charging in existing multi-
family buidlings 11 Ordinance
Sustainability/
Planning/
Building
0.5 5,942 $1.68 178,300 $21,000 $21,048
Ideas: 1) City resources could defray costs for projects
at affordable housing developments, 2) Prohibit
landlord from raising rent as a result by exempting this
change from "significant renovation" definition in rent
control laws. Copy Mountain View?
Achieve 100% permit compliance for heating and
water heating appliances upon property sale 12 Ordinance Sustainability/
Building 0.5 15,449 $0.32 772,500 $500 -$500
This action is needed to make a burnout ordinance
enforcable. Build in a 1-year lag to give market time to
adjust. Deferred date of implementation: Jan 1, 2021.
Explore legislation to require homebuyer
notification re: sea level rise in flood areas 13 Collaboration 0.05 - $0.00 - $0 $0
Require residents installing solar to also install
conduit and circuits for heat pump water heater
and EV charger
14 Ordinance 0 7,784 $0.00 653,900 $300 $2,338 This facilitates conversion to electric for emergency
water heater burnouts
Update permits and fees to encourage
electrification, including battery storage.
Recommend to contractors and clients that they
electrify all gas burnouts and that they heat pump
all AC burnouts.
15 Directive 0 1,712 $0.00 41,100 -$200 $200 Develop recommended device type lists for building
department display (and handouts)
Subtotal 1.05
D: VMT Reduction
Explore options for VMT reduction and set a city
goal 16 Ordinance Transportation/
Planning 0.5 5,714 $0.88 228,500 -$20,000 $20,000
Consider adjusting zoning & land use regs to
encourage mixed use, dense development near transit
to reduce the number of cars and car trips due to
commuting; reduce parking minimums for new
development; rezone single-family to include multi-
family; explore electric shuttle service between Belle
Haven and Caltrain; expand network of multi-use
paths; explore electric "last mile" options from transit to
common destinations
Establish a Transportation Management
Association (TMA)17 Program 0.5 647 $15.45 9,700 $0 $0 Leverage small and large businesses for transit pass
discounts, shuttle shares, discounts, etc.
Electrify city shuttle buses to transit, esp. on busy
streets 18 Program 0.5 126 $49.67 2,000 $280,000 -$22,000 Possible e-bus vendors: Proterra (US), BYD (China)
Bike/Scooter Share Ordinance 19 0.5 286 $35.00 2,900 $0 $0
Consider Copenhagen-style zoning oriented
around 5-minute walking city approach 20 Ordinance 0.5 660 $5.05 39,600 $0 $4,557,940
Subtotal 2.5
E: Zero Waste
Adopt Foodware Ordinance to reduce/eliminate
plastics and single use disposable foodware 21 Ordinance 0 136 $0.00 300 $2,000 -$2,000
San Mateo County has a model ordinance for
compostable only and is willing to enforce on behalf of
cities.
Apply single-use plastic prohibition to City
operations 22 Directive 0 0 $0.00 - $2,000 -$2,000
Update solid waste ordinance to require recycling
and composting services for all accounts 23 Ordinance 0 404 $0.00 8,100 $600 -$600
Implement zero waste requirements for new
development in the Bayfront area 24 Directive 0 168 $0.00 800 $25,000 -$25,000
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 2
Appendix: B Moderate 2020
Action Action
#
Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost
($/ton) *
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by
MP (tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings
to
Participant**
Notes & Assumptions
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2020
Subtotal 0
G: Adaptation Measures
Monitor and participate in County preparations for
sea level rise 25 Directive Public Works 0.05 - N/A - $100,000,000 -$100,000,000
Strongly recommend that Council request quarterly
update from Public Works on City's plans and
projected cost for addressing Sea Level Rise
Increase urban canopy in Belle Haven to protect
against urban heat island effect 26 Directive Public Works 0.05 7 $12,736 100 $12,000 -$912,000
Subtotal 0.1
H: Public Education
Launch CAP education campaign w/ churches,
Rotary clubs and PTAs 27 Program
Public
Engagement/
Sustainability
0.125 1,447 $1.73 28,900 $0 $0 Council members present to local groups
Create City web page featuring Climate Action
Plan, building electrification 28 Program 0.125 579 $4.32 31,800 $0 $0
Develop and publish electrification FAQ (copy an
available version)29 Program 0.125 579 $4.32 31,800 $0 $0
Post on a City web page for Climate Action Plan and
give to elected officials to help them counter
misinformation and answer questions from public
Speaker series on climate change and solutions 30 Program 0.125 96 $25.91 1,400 $0 $0
- Stanford professors: Mark Jacobson, sea level rise
expert, VMT expert?
- Berkeley professors: Dan Kammen, Bay sea level
rise expert, levees and sea walls experts
- Carbon-free aviation experts
- Location: City hall
Invite “ride and drive” organizers to showcase EVs
at every City public event 31 Program,
Collaboration
Sustainability/
Public
Engagement
0.125 1,223 $2.56 9,800 $200 -$200 Connect city to Acterra
Induction cooking demonstration party for realtors,
kitchen designers, architects, home cooks 32 Program,
Collaboration 0.125 24 $103.57 500 $0 $0
Educate public on the merits of solar + batteries for
resiliency during power outages 33 Program 0.125 644 $6.47 5,800 $0 $0
Hire marketing firm for city-wide CAP campaign 34 Program Communication/
Sustainability 0.125 3,859 $1.08 $11,600 $0 $0
Share aspirational CAP goals; Educate residents about
what they can do; Share what will happen if we don’t
act; Digital campaign, newspaper articles, speakers,
classes, radio PSAs, TV?, mailers, signs around town,
billboard?, signs on buses, banners downtown
Subtotal 1 Based on Future prices
Grand Total 6.5 Nat Gas $ 2.00 Per Therm
Cost/ FTE $100,000 Gasoline $ 3.40 Per Gallon
Costs $647,500 0 Electricity $ 0.22 Per kWh
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 3
Appendix: B Moderate 2021
Action Action #Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-
Staff Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost *
($/ton)
2030 State-wide
GHG Reductions
Inspired by MP
(tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings to
Participant** Notes & Assumptions
A: Municipal Greening
Require % of construction vehicles to be EV on
municipal construction projects 35 Directive
carry over
resources
from 2020
76 -$512.90 1,500 $80,000 $244,000
B: Commercial Greening
Install highway exit signs for EV fast charging 36 Directive carry over 159 $105.01 2,900 $8,000 -$8,000 Shows residents and commuters that EV Fast
charging will help them go EV.
Consider other cities’ ordinances requiring clean
(EV) commercial fleets w/i city limits, e.g. FedEx,
UPS
37 Ordinance EQC 0.50 1,438 $4.97 40,300 $45,000 $150,000 Consider: Recology garbage trucks, package
delivery, Uber, construction vehicles, USPS, etc.
Apply reach codes to commercial remodels 38 Ordinance 0.50 6,922 $2.41 124,600 $5,000 $5,550
Similar to ROB ordinance but captures
opportunities before waiting for burnout after
remodel
C: Residential Greening
Set City goal of 100% new cars to be EV within 3
years 39 0.05 7,120 $0.18 113,900 $0 $0 Metrics
Require electrification of gas appliances and A/C
upon burnout - residential 40 Ordinance carry over 9,463 $1.06 236,600 $2,000 $1,956 Also require A/C be converted Heat Pump
Make sure reach codes apply fairly to ADUs,
attached and detached 41 Ordinance 2,086 $0.00 4,200 $2,000 $2,748 Plugs gap noticed in other towns where garage is
built new and then suddenly converted to ADU
Apply reach codes to residential remodels and
additions 42 Ordinance Sustainability/
Building 0.50 4,171 $4.00 137,700 $2,010 $1,155
Explore removing exemptions from reach codes 43 Ordinance carry over 2,773 $9.01 33,300 $0 $528 No gas stoves or fireplaces no gas heating in labs
Create program for assisting low income homes w/
electrification 44 Program 0.25 4,635 $1.80 152,900 $2,000 $1,165
Possibly funded by UUT rev or by collaboration w/
PCE, and Rebuilding Together teaching on a MP
home
Adopt Marin limits on embodied carbon in
construction and require materials that sequester
carbon in residential construction (beyond state
mandated GreenCode)
45 Ordinance carry over 1,862 $5.37 37,200 $25 -$25
Require electrification upon sale of property +
complimentary rebate program 46 Ordinance carry over 12,583 $0.79 188,700 $10,500 $50 Assumes 30% rebate
Consider extending EV wiring requirement to
remodels and at resale 47 Ordinance carry over 6,602 $1.51 132,000 $400 $44,362
Consider leading regional effort to prohibit the sale
of gas appliances w/i City limits 48 Ordinance 0.50 3,082 $1.62 339,000 $50 $2,060 Includes contracting, distributors & retail.
Essentially no permits allowed for gas devices.
D: VMT Reduction
Designate car-free and low emission vehicle zones
or premium parking 49 Ordinance 0.50 1,266 $3.95 151,900 $50,000 $196,375
(1) Design the geographic zone and the
restrictions, exemptions, and prices (2) Build
public support through consultation and
experimentation (3) Designate the use of
congestion-charge revenue for investments that
benefit the city (4) Invest in mobility alternatives
using public transit, bicycles, and walking (5)
Consider what related policies may be needed
(e.g. reduce parking requirements for new
developments).
Create safe thoroughfares for getting across town
via protected multi-use paths 50 Directive 0.50 306 $8.18 73,400 $0 $15,000
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2021
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 4
Appendix: B Moderate 2021
Action Action #Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-
Staff Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost *
($/ton)
2030 State-wide
GHG Reductions
Inspired by MP
(tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings to
Participant** Notes & Assumptions
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2021
Explore micro mobility options for last-mile
transportation to/from transit 51 Directive 0.50 475 $35.11 17,100 $0 $0
E: Zero Waste
Continue 2020 zero waste actions 52 0.00 709 $0.00 8,500 $0 $0
F: Carbon Removal
Research multiple options for achieving 10% carbon
removal 53 Program 0.125 28,400 $25.44 113,600 $0 -$710,000
Explore plan for reforestation with Peninsula Open
Space Trust (POST) or other partner 54 Program,
Collaboration 9,457 $16.32 37,800 $0 -$141,858 Research where state planted 9 million trees from
Carbon Cap and Trade money allocation report
Arbor Day mass tree planting 55 Program 9,457 $10.00 37,800 $0 -$94,572
If every MP resident planted 10 trees per year for
10 years, we would sequester 10% of our annual
GHG emissions
Consider having City fund a Recology biochar
program, inc. City tree trimmings 56 Directive 9,457 $30.00 37,800 $0 -$283,716
Biochar sequesters carbon by turning dead trees
and trimmings into charcoal that is then used as a
healthy soil amendment
G: Adaptation Measures
Propose building moratorium or developer-funded
escrow to cover building decommisioning cost in
areas to be flooded deeper than 1 foot within 30
years
57 Ordinance 0.50 $200,000 N/A - $0 $0
H: Public Education
Cooking class/demo with induction stove 58 Program,
Collaboration carry over $22.19 9,000 $0 $0
Class for City residents: Zero Out Your Carbon
Emissions 59 Program carry over 1,081 $23.12 8,600 $0 $0
Idea is to create a class for city residents (in the
catalogue) that will show them how to reduce
their carbon footprint.
Intro: What are greenhouse gases and why are
they warming our atmosphere?
1. How to calculate your carbon footprint
2. How to buy and drive an EV
3. How to install a heat pump and HPWH
4. How to choose and use an induction stove
5. How to install solar + batteries
6. How to choose low-carbon construction
materials
7. How to create a Zero Waste home
8. How to repair your broken items, instead of
throwing them out
9. How to buy carbon offsets and other
sequestration options
10. How to use transit and “last mile” vehicles to
get to transit
11. How to use ride share services
Based on Future prices
Grand Total 4.6 Nat Gas $ 2.00 Per Therm
Cost/ FTE $100,000 Gasoline $ 3.40 Per Gallon
Costs $455,000 $200,000.00 Electricity $ 0.22 Per kWh
0.125
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 5
Appendix: B Moderate 2022
Action Action #Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost *
($/ton)
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by MP
(tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings
to
Participant**
Notes & Assumptions
A: Municipal Greening
Support Menlo Park school districts in transitioning
to electric school buses (Not really municipal
Greening since it's a separate school district)
60 Collaboration 127 $0.00 3,000 $1,600,000 -$310,000
Improves student health, reduces air
pollution, reduces GHGs and could
provide power during grid outages.
Council members meet w/
superintendents; request vehicle-to-grid
charging capability for powering schools
during power shut-offs
B: Commercial Greening
Explore Petaluma-style moratorium on 1) new gas
stations and 2) expansion of existing ones or, as
an alternative, limiting the permitted life of
underground fuel storage tanks
61 Ordinance 159 $0.00 6,000 -$50,000 -$490,000 See Petaluma
Explore a NYC-style carbon emissions fee on
buildings 62 Ordinance 2,596 $0.00 104,000 $10,500 $50
Ban gas-powered lawn equipment 63 Ordinance 15 $0.00 - $300 $7,292
Encourage county region and state to
lead. Although this has tiny GHG savings
it has large Nox and Sox polluntant
savings
C: Residential Greening
Announce an Arcata-style end date for the flow of
natural gas in Menlo Park 64 Ordinance 86,465 $0.00 3,458,600 $11,250 -$5,777
Assumes higher inc cost than burn-out
ordinance because replaced equipment
still has useful life
Consider expanding fire inspection to include gas
appliances 65 Ordinance 7,471 $0.00 149,400 $0 $0
Consider Floor Area Ration (FAR) bonus for
passive house building construction 66 Ordinance - N/A - $0 $0
Passive House design increases energy
efficiency of homes, important as temps
rise with climate change and grid is
stressed by increased demand
Decrease subsidies (free parking) and privileges
(the ability to pollute roads) for gas cars 67 Ordinance 476 $0.00 19,000 $30,000 $1,250,000
Adopt ordinance prohibiting idling for vehicles with
gas engines 68 Ordinance 286 $0.00 5,700 $0 $0
Announce gradual plan to make public parking for
EVs only: 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%69 Ordinance 5,714 $0.00 160,000 $8,000 $81,524
Increasingly restrict use of gas cars in city (not
allowed on certain roads, parking lots)70 Ordinance 5,714 $0.00 160,000 $8,000 $81,524
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2022
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton , e.g. muni, business or resident 6
Appendix: B Moderate 2022
Action Action #Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost *
($/ton)
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by MP
(tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings
to
Participant**
Notes & Assumptions
City of Menlo Park
Moderate 3-yr Climate Action Plan - 2022
Implement public safety rule on underground
gasoline tanks 71 Ordinance 7,936 $0.00 317,400 $150,000 -$1,770,000
D: VMT Reduction
End subsidies for parking downtown for all vehicles 72 Ordinance 317 $0.00 12,700 $405,000 $10,545,000
E: Zero Waste Initiatives
Explore hyper management of fugitive methane
emissions from landfill and composting facilities 73 Directive 2,250 $8.00 90,000 $180,000 -$180,000 Could create local offsets for 10%
Update construction and demolition ordinance 74 Directive 189 $0.00 2,300 $600 -$600
Establish library of things to reduce waste, improve
access and equity, and enhance community
relations
75 Directive 50 $180.00 2,000 $90,000 $22,500
Establish a grant program to convert privately
owned drinking fountains to bottle filling stations 76 Directive 84 $0.00 1,700 $4,000 $21,000
Based on Future prices
Grand Total 0 Nat Gas $ 2.00 Per Therm
Cost/ FTE $100,000 Gasoline $ 3.40 Per Gallon
Costs $ - 0 Electricity $ 0.22 Per kWh
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton , e.g. muni, business or resident 7
Appendix: B Bold 2020
Action Action
#
Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost *
($/ton)
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by
MP (tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings to
Participant** Notes & Assumptions
B: Commercial Greening
Adopt Petaluma-style moratorium on 1) new gas
stations and 2) expansion of existing ones 61 Ordinance 159 $0.00 6,000 -$50,000 -$490,000 See Petaluma
Prohibit use of gas vehicles for delivery (e.g.
Amazon, FedEx, UPS)77 Ordinance 0.5 1,438 $4.97 40,269 $45,000 $150,000
Adopt Marin limits on embodied carbon in
construction and require materials that sequester
carbon in all commercial, residential and municipal
construction
78 Ordinance Sustainability/
Building 0.5 6,286 $0.80 377,000 $1,200 -$1,200
C: Residential Greening
Announce an Arcata-style end date for the flow of
natural gas in Menlo Park 64 Ordinance 86,465 $0.00 3,459,000 $11,250 -$5,777 Assumes higher inc cost than burnout ordinance
because replaced equipment still has useful life
Announce gradual plan to make public parking for
EVs only: 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%69 Ordinance 5,714 $0.00 160,000 $8,000 $81,524
Increasingly restrict use of gas cars in city (not
allowed on certain roads, parking lots)70 Ordinance 5,714 $0.00 160,000 $8,000 $81,524
Implement public safety rule on underground
gasoline tanks 71 Ordinance 7,936 $0.00 317,000 $150,000 -$1,770,000
Raise Nat Gas UUT to 3.5% (to fund electrification
of low income households, municipal electrification
program and other Council-directed GHG
reductions)
6 Directive Finance/
Sustainability 0.125 579 $2.16 35,000 $5,000 $473
First step is to increase UUT rate on natural gas. City
Council then decides where to apply funds:
electrification (+ batteries?) in 1) day cares, 2)
municipal buildings, 3) schools, 4) low income
residents’ homes.
D: VMT Reduction
Explore options for VMT reduction and set a city
goal 16 Ordinance
Transportation
/
Planning
0.5 5,714 $0.88 228,500 -$20,000 $20,000
Consider adjusting zoning & land use regs to
encourage mixed use, dense development near transit
to reduce the number of cars and car trips due to
commuting; reduce parking minimums for new
development; rezone single-family to include multi-
family; explore electric shuttle service between Belle
Haven and Caltrain; expand network of multi-use
paths; explore electric "last mile" options from transit
to common destinations
Create safe thoroughfares for getting across town
via protected multi-use paths 50 Directive 0.5 306 $8.18 73,400 $0 $15,000
End subsidies for parking downtown for all vehicles 72 Ordinance 316 $0.00 12,700 $405,000 $10,545,000
E: Zero Waste Initiatives
Adopt Foodware Ordinance to reduce/eliminate
plastics and single use disposable foodware 21 Ordinance 0 136 $0.00 300 $2,000 -$2,000
San Mateo County has a model ordinance for
compostable only and is willing to enforce on behalf of
cities.
Apply single-use plastic prohibition to City
operations 22 Directive 0 0 $0.00 - $2,000 -$2,000
City of Menlo Park
Bold 1-yr Climate Action Plan - 2020
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 8
Appendix: B Bold 2020
Action Action
#
Type of
Action
Lead Dept/
Supporting
Dept
Community
Engagement
Req’d
FTEs
Required
(per yr)
3-yr Non-Staff
Costs
(consultants,
studies)
2030 Ann.
GHG
Reduced
(tons/yr)
City Cost *
($/ton)
2030 State-
wide GHG
Reductions
Inspired by
MP (tons/yr)
Upfront
Incremental
Cost to
Participant**
After Rebates
Net Savings to
Participant** Notes & Assumptions
City of Menlo Park
Bold 1-yr Climate Action Plan - 2020
Update solid waste ordinance to require recycling
and composting services for all accounts 23 Ordinance 0 404 $0.00 8,100 $600 -$600
Implement zero waste requirements for new
development in the Bayfront area 24 Directive 0 168 $0.00 800 $25,000 -$25,000
Explore hyper management of fugitive methane
emissions from landfill and composting facilities 73 Directive 2,250 $8.00 90,000 $180,000 -$180,000 Could create local offsets for 10%
Update construction and demolition ordinance 74 Directive 189 $0.00 2,300 $600 -$600
Establish library of things to reduce waste,
improve access and equity, and enhance
community relations
75 Directive 50 $180.00 2,000 $90,000 $22,500 Include: toys, kitchen appliances and tools
Establish a grant program to convert privately
owned drinking fountains to bottle filling stations 76 Directive 84 $0.00 1,700 $4,000 $21,000
F: Carbon Removal
Research multiple options for achieving 10%
carbon removal 53 Program 0.125 28,400 $25.44 113,600 $0 -$710,000
G: Adaptation Measures
Propose building moratorium or developer-funded
escrow to cover building decommisioning cost in
areas to be flooded deeper than 1 foot within 30
years
57 Ordinance 0.5 $200,000 - N/A - $0 $0
Monitor and participate in County preparations for
sea level rise 25 Directive Public Works 0.05 - N/A - $100,000,000 -$100,000,000
Strongly recommend that Council request quarterly
update from Public Works on City's plans and
projected cost for addressing Sea Level Rise
Based on Future prices
Grand Total 2.8 Nat Gas $ 2.00 Per Therm
Cost/ FTE $100,000 Gasoline $ 3.40 Per Gallon
Costs $280,000 $ 200,000 Electricity $ 0.22 Per kWh
* City Cost = (staff cost + capital inv + operating savings or cost) / tons of CO2e saved. Negative number is good.
** Participant is emitter targetted by aciton, e.g. muni, business or resident 9
Appendix: B Assumptions
Model Assumptions
Captured below are key assumptions used throughout this model. Input cells are marked in yellow.
City Staff FTE Cost $100,000 per year
Type Units
GHG
Emissions
(CO2e
lbs/unit)
2020 Future
Price
Projection
($/unit)
Natural Gas therms 11.7 $2.00
Gasoline gallons 19.6 $3.40
Electricity kWh $0.22
Equipment Type
Efficiency
Ratio
(BTUs
out/BTUs in)
Electric Heat Pump 3.5
Natural Gas Furnace 0.8
Buildling Source
Natural Gas
Emissions
(tons/year)
Electricity
Emissions
(tons/year)
Number of
Building
Emitters**
Municipal Buildings + Pools 865 - 1
Commercial Buildings 53,414 23,467 700
Houses + Apartments 32,186 7,013 14,000
Community Buildings Emissions 86,465 30,481 14,701
Vehicle Source
Gasoline &
Diesel
Emissions
(tons/year)
Number of
Vehicle
Emitters**
Municipal Vehicles 496 1
Equipment Efficiency Assumptions
Fossil Fuel Assumptions
2017 City-Wide Annual GHG Emissions by Source*
Building Emitter**
Vehicle Emitter**
The City
Commercial Building Owners
Homeowners + Landlords
All Buildling Owners
The City
10
Appendix: B Assumptions
Commercial Vehicles 35,954 3,000
Residential Vehicles 122,265 13,500
Community Vehicle Emissions 158,715 16,501
Waste Source
Waste
Emissions
(tons/year)
Number of
Waste Emitters**
Ox Mountain Landfill (active) 8,424 14,701
Plastic Foodware 200
Marsh Road Landfill (retired) 5,000 1
Total City-Wide Emissions 284,085 14,701
City-Wide Building & Vehicle
Emissions (excl. Waste) 275,661 16,501
* Taken from December 2019 Sustainability Staff Report on Menlo Park Greenhouse Gas Inventory
** A target "emitter" is an entity that has decision-making authority over an emissions source and therefore may be a target "participant" in CAP policies and programs
From [GHG inventory summary 2005-2017t.xlsx]bucket'!
Building Type
Number of
Building
Emitters**
Multi-Family Buildings 200
Multi-Family Units 2,000
Single Family Dwellings 12,000
Accessory Dwelling Units 100
Commercial + Multi-Family Buildings 900
Building Type
Number of
Building
Owners
Avg. Sq.
Footage per
Building
Owner
% of Building
Owners Who
Remodel or
Build Each
Year
Construction
Volume
(sq ft/year)
Embodied GHG
Emissions in
Construction
Materials
(CO2e lbs/sq ft)
Embodied
Construction
GHG Emissions
(tons CO2e)
Number of
Building Owners
Who Build Each
Year
Municipal Buildings + Pools 1 1,200,000 1% 12,000 100 600 0.01
Commercial Buildings 700 20,000 5% 700,000 100 35,000 35
Restaurants
The City
All Bulding Owners
Business Owners with Fleets
Households w/ Gas Vehicles
All Vehicle Owners
Waste Emitter**
All Building Owners
TOTALS
Building Emitter Qty Breakdown
Embodied GHG Emissions from Construction Activities in
Community Buildings
All Vehicle Owners
11
Appendix: B Assumptions
Households 14,000 2,000 5% 1,400,000 60 42,000 700
TOTAL 2,112,000 77,600 735
12
Appendix C: Climate Decision Tree Analysis
Question: What happens if Menlo Park does or does not fully fund ($500k/yr for 3 yrs) a bold climate action plan (CAP)?
1. Menlo Park fully funds CAP - $1.5 million No Yes
$0.0 $1.5
2. 20 other CA cities pass bold CAPs No Yes Expected Value of Decision ($ million)$1,267 $1,123 Expected Value of Boldness $144 million No Yes
80%20%Value multiplier 96 20%80%
Probability world meets Paris targets 27%36%
3. CA passes bold climate laws No Yes No Yes Probability world fails to meet Paris targets 73%64%No Yes No Yes
60%40%20%80%55%45%20%80%
4. 10 progressive US states enact bold climate laws No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
80%20%20%80%75%25%20%80%80%20%20%80%75%25%20%80%
5. US meets Paris targets No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
95%5%50%50%85%15%40%60%90%10%45%55%85%15%40%60%95%5%50%50%85%15%40%60%90%10%45%55%85%15%40%60%
6. World meets Paris targets No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
99%1%70%30%65%35%60%40%95%5%50%50%65%35%35%65%99%1%70%30%65%35%60%40%95%5%50%50%65%35%35%65%99%1%70%30%65%35%60%40%95%5%50%50%65%35%35%65%99%1%70%30%65%35%60%40%95%5%50%50%65%35%35%65%
Probability of this outcome 36%0%1%1%3%2%3%2%5%0%0%0%7%4%5%10%3%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%3%0%0%0%3%2%3%5%8%0%0%0%1%0%1%0%1%0%0%0%2%1%2%3%11%0%1%0%1%1%1%1%10%1%1%1%13%7%11%20%
Adaptation
Costs ($ mil)
3-foot Sea Walls req’d @ $100 million*$100 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
6-foot Sea Walls req’d @ $300 million additional**$300 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Abandon land between 101 and Bay @ $1.288 billion***$1,288 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Adaptation costs ($ million)$1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100 $1,688 $100
Expected value of adaptation costs ($ million)$610 $0 $23 $1 $53 $2 $49 $2 $87 $0 $8 $0 $112 $4 $91 $10 $45 $0 $4 $0 $5 $0 $6 $0 $44 $0 $4 $0 $56 $2 $45 $5 $140 $0 $5 $0 $12 $0 $11 $0 $25 $0 $2 $0 $32 $1 $26 $3 $180 $0 $14 $0 $20 $1 $22 $1 $174 $1 $16 $1 $225 $7 $181 $20
Scenario #1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
** Source: “Choosing a Future Shoreline for San Francisco Bay: Strategic Coastal Adaptation Insights from Cost
Estimation,” The Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, p. 12 shows that increasing levee height by 2x results in 4x
increase in cost,
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniella_Hirschfeld/publication/320111123_Choosing_a_Future_Shoreline_for_
the_San_Francisco_Bay_Strategic_Coastal_Adaptation_Insights_from_Cost_Estimation/links/5a947590aca2721405674
b35/Choosing-a-Future-Shoreline-for-the-San-Francisco-Bay-Strategic-Coastal-Adaptation-Insights-from-Cost-
Estimation.pdf?origin=publication_detail
*** Source: "County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, March 2018," p. 139.
https://seachangesmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-03-12_SLR_VA_Report_2.2018_WEB_FINAL.pdf
* Source: "Public Draft Feasibility Report, SAFER Bay Project Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and
Recreation along San Francisco Bay East Palo Alto and Menlo Park (Task Order 1) October 2016," p. 37/49,
http://www.sfcjpa.org/documents/SAFER_Bay_Public_Draft_Feasibility_Report_Summary_Oct._2016_.pdf
Expected Value of Menlo Park Expenditures on Climate Action Plan + Related Adaptation Measures - 64 Scenarios and Probabilities
From:Gary Latshaw
To:Gilee Corral
Subject:files for item 3
Date:Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:00:21 AM
Attachments:EXEC-2017-000190_7 - DOE Assessment CO2_0.pdf
Env Commission.pptx
Gilee - Please make these part of written communications for item 3.
Thanks, Gary
Departmental Response:
Assessment of the Report of the SEAB
Task Force on CO2 Utilization
Introduction
On June 7th, 2016, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz charged the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board (SEAB) to create a Task Force that would describe a framework for a Department of
Energy (DOE) research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program on carbon dioxide
(CO2) utilization technologies that have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions and/or introduce
negative emissions at the gigatonne (Gt) scale. The Task Force was asked to review current
activities in the DOE, industry, national laboratories, academia, and non-profits, and identify
new opportunities for research and cooperation between different disciplinary groups.
In response to this charge, SEAB created a Task Force, led by SEAB Vice Chairman Arun
Majumdar, composed of 3 SEAB members and 8 other prominent scientists and engineers from
academia and industry. The resulting report was developed through discussion with relevant
DOE programs, including Science (SC), Fossil Energy (FE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), and Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), and through Task
Force deliberations. The report was subsequently reviewed by a second group of 8 experts from
relevant disciplines, including 1 SEAB member, who provided suggestions for the report. The
report was reviewed by the full SEAB and approved at the December 12th, 2016 meeting of the
Board.
The framework developed by the Task Force clearly demonstrates the complexities inherent in
this enormous challenge. In each of the Task Force’s recommendations, fundamental scientific
research is needed in order to make progress, and the report helpfully lays out several of the
most important focus areas in its appendices. Many of the suggested areas for research overlap
with current research directions in SC and applied RD&D programs managed by FE, EERE, and
ARPA-E. Critically, the Task Force has recognized that progress depends not only on
development of new fundamental knowledge and applied R&D, but on an systems-based
approach that integrates the scientific and engineering efforts of all relevant stakeholders,
including the DOE, other Federal agencies, academia, the national laboratories, industry, and
non-profits. While financial support for basic research comes completely from the DOE’s Office
of Science, DOE support for energy technology projects include some level of cost sharing with
the award recipient. Such public-private support for RD&D promotes the systems approach
recommended by the Task Force, ensuring that stakeholders, especially industry, are financially
engaged even in the early stages of technology development, that the research portfolio
remains relevant to stakeholder interests, and that public sector risk is reduced.
Summary of Task Force Report
The rate of global CO2 emissions is approximately 40 GtCO2 per year (GtCO2/yr), approximately
half of which is taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere. The other half, approximately
18 GtCO2/yr, accumulates in the atmosphere, contributing to radiative forcing and global
warming. Reversing the current trend represents a monumental effort in emissions reduction
across the entire energy system and potentially additional net CO2 removal from the
atmosphere, also known as negative emissions. There are increasingly viable technological
options that, if widely implemented, would enable significant emissions reductions from the
electricity sector. The diffuse nature of emissions from the transportation and industrial sectors
make deep de-carbonization significantly more challenging without scientific and technological
breakthroughs.
Given the enormous scale of the problem, the Task Force has developed a framework
encompassing a variety of pathways, each of which could enable emissions reduction and/or
negative emissions through utilization and/or sequestration at the 1 GtCO2/yr scale. Several
technological approaches show promise for enabling GtCO2/yr reductions if a sustained effort is
made in research, development, and demonstration (RD&D). Rather than investigate each of
these options in detail, the Task Force has considered RD&D options within a larger, holistic
framework. This framework recognizes that for every emissions reduction pathway, a decision
must be made on whether CO2 will be captured from the air or from a point source, on a
capture and/or conversion process to convert the CO2 into a form suited to reuse and/or
sequestration, and on whether to use the product or permanently sequester it to remove CO2
from the atmosphere.
The approaches described in the Task Force’s five recommendations have a relatively high
degree of confidence in their scalability and represent a significant RD&D opportunity. RD&D in
each of these approaches has the potential to significantly progress the technology. The five
recommendations are summarized below.
Recommendation 1: Systems Modeling. New systems models that go beyond today’s
integrated assessment models and include the non-linear impacts of technological
pathways at the GtCO2/yr scale that are critical for understanding positive and negative
environmental impacts. Such models could predict optimal combinations of emissions
reduction approaches described in the following recommendations and could guide the
development of an RD&D portfolio that provides the maximum potential for reduction and
minimal environmental impact before investing in any one technology or combination of
technology pathways. Given the necessity of private sector investment in scaling up
different technological approaches, new systems models will help explore scenarios and
quantify the risks inherent in the different approaches of Recommendations 2 through 5.
Recommendation 2: Harnessing the Natural Biological Carbon Cycle. Photosynthesis in
plants drives the largest flux of carbon between the land and atmosphere (440 GtCO2/yr).
Manipulating the natural carbon cycle to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere and
store more carbon in the land represents one of the largest opportunities for realizing
negative emissions. This approach has positive potential co-benefits for production of food,
fuels (in the form of biofuel), and fiber, but also a large potential for risk and the
requirement for fastidious management of the resource well after it stops contributing to
atmospheric CO2 reductions. A robust RD&D program in this space should focus on
maximizing photosynthetic efficiency in plants while maintaining or reducing resource
input, understanding the benefits of marine microalgae for land-based energy and liquid
fuels, engineering of the rhizosphere for greater carbon sequestration, and stabilizing soil
carbon through sustainable agricultural techniques.
Recommendation 3: Synthetic Transformations of CO2. Carbon dioxide is a chemical
feedstock capable of being converted into a variety of chemical compounds having
significant commercial value. This includes direct conversion into carbon-based fuels, or
conversion to precursors used to synthesize more complex compounds. This transformation
is driven along one of four pathways and requires significant energy input. An RD&D
portfolio for energy efficient synthetic transformation should focus on discovering new
electro- and photo-electrocatalysts made from earth abundant elements, identifying new
materials that enable lower temperature thermochemical transformations, engineering
organisms that use non-photosynthetic catalysts for CO2 fixation, and designing new
chemical reactors scalable to the GtCO2/yr scale.
Recommendation 4: Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geologic Formations. Geological
storage is the only method of sequestering CO2 that offers GtCO2/yr capacity on the
millennial time scale. The combination of storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and
saline formations provides orders of magnitude more capacity than is needed to realize
negative emissions. However, storage generally has no economic value in the absence of
policy drivers except in the case of enhanced oil recovery, the value of which also depends
on external factors. A RD&D portfolio for geological storage needs to address basic science
(long term fate of geologically confined CO2, CO2 mineralization, and the impact of scale
up), create a robust monitoring system to ensure safe storage, and conduct jointly funded
public-private pilot scale demonstration projects to test co-optimized CO2-enhanced oil
recovery (CO2-EOR) and CO2 storage methods. Finally, a Data Commons should be created
that serves as a shared resource for all stakeholders to use in developing new techniques
and creating models to predict long-time scale behavior of stored CO2.
Recommendation 5: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Other Separation Technologies. CO2
utilization and storage generally require concentrated streams of CO2. This necessitates
separating the CO2 from other gases in a mixture, for example from a power plant or from
the atmosphere. Overcoming the entropy of mixing requires the input of energy. Reducing
the energy, and therefore the cost, of separation and transformation requires a robust
RD&D program for new sorbents having both low binding enthalpy and high binding rate
constants, new non-aqueous liquid solutions (e.g. ionic liquids) or adsorption based solids
(e.g. zeolites and metal organic frameworks) that selectively bind CO2, novel membranes,
and new materials for separating miscible liquids.
Additional Recommendations. The Task Force has identified two topics that are worth deeper
exploration but currently have a lower degree of confidence in their scalability and the RD&D
opportunity. The first topic, direct air capture (DAC), has been estimated to cost about
$600/tCO2. Lowering this cost will require both basic research into new sorbents as well as
RD&D in systems integration. The Task Force notes that DAC would benefit from the RD&D
programs recommended for conversion (recommendation 3) and separations
(recommendation 5). The second, mineralization in oceans, requires RD&D to discover new
methods to induce mineral formation without further acidifying the ocean. This approach is
inherently very risky due to the uncertain response of ocean ecosystems to mineralization at
the GtCO2 scale.
Cross-cutting Issues. The Task Force identifies several cross-cutting issues that underpin the
above recommendations. First and foremost, any and all technological approaches to capture,
separate, transport, convert, or sequester CO2 require the input of energy. It is
counterproductive if the source of this energy is not derived from carbon neutral or carbon free
sources. An extensive RD&D program that strives to dramatically reduce the cost of clean
energy remains a critical piece of a negative emissions program. Second, in order to quickly
drive down the cost of negative emissions technology, basic science, systems engineering,
economics, and policy must be integrated with significant feedback mechanisms built into the
system. Third, the GtCO2/yr scale will inevitably have impacts, intentional or otherwise, on the
biosphere. This necessitates a parallel RD&D effort and widespread monitoring of the climate
and biosphere. Fourth, community workshops will be critically important in formulating the
RD&D efforts for each recommendation. Finally, technology development and implementation
at this scale requires a large, skilled workforce. Investments in education will be critical to
meeting this need.
DOE Response to Task Force Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Systems Modeling.
The Office of Science will continue to prioritize fundamental research focused on obtaining a
mechanistic understanding of how biological systems — both plant and microbial — interact
with biotic and abiotic factors to affect carbon cycling and storage at the ecosystem scale.
Quantitative and predictive models reflecting key parameters of nutrient use, plant-microbe
interactions, plant architectures, and biogeochemical cycling that successfully scale from the
molecular to the ecosystem level will be developed through field experiments, in-situ sensor
and genomic technology development, and cyberinfrastructure to facilitate data analysis and
multiscale modeling. Scientific workshops and joint principal investigators’ meetings will be
organized to bring different research communities together to discuss technical challenges and
opportunities and develop a common vocabulary.
The Office of Fossil Energy will continue to support development of models for its energy
technologies, including advanced cycle fossil power plants, carbon capture, carbon storage, CO2
utilization, industrial CO2 management, and CO2-EOR. These models will be used to explore and
optimize scenarios for deployment of multiple technology solutions, provide predictions of
carbon management potential, and be paired with technology-specific lifecycle analysis and
techno-economic modeling. An integrated representation of infrastructure and integration
including CO2 pipelines and transportation, CO2 markets, as well as policies and regulations will
allow the implications of different scenarios to be explored. Technology modeling will continue
to be integrated with R&D programs to promote deep systems understanding, cost and risk
analyses.
The Office of Science efforts above will seek to combine the latest scientific information on
carbon fluxes in natural and managed ecosystems with integrated assessment models,
ultimately providing a systems-level model of the global carbon balance at different degrees of
spatial and temporal resolutions. The Office of Fossil Energy will also identify opportunities to
enhance representation of emerging technologies and system interactions in integrated
assessment models. Office of Science computing facilities will continue to provide key
infrastructure and data analysis capabilities as integration of multiple models requires
increasing resolution and compute power. Engagement of and collaboration with the relevant
research communities will be important in determining their computational needs and
requirements.
Recommendation 2: Harnessing the Natural Biological Carbon Cycle.
The United States has vast terrestrial resources (over 520 million hectares of crop, range and
forestland) that are a strategic asset essential for sustainable economic growth. Advances in
technology have resulted in a ten-fold increase in crop productivity over the past hundred
years at the cost of declining soil quality. This progress has incurred a soil carbon debt
equivalent to 65 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2. The soil carbon debt has also
increased the need for costly nitrogen fertilizer, which has become the primary source of
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, a potent greenhouse gas. The soil carbon debt also impacts
crop water use, increasing susceptibility to drought stress, which threatens future
productivity. Given the scale of domestic (and global) agriculture resources, there is
tremendous potential to reverse these trends by harnessing the photosynthetic bridge
between atmospheric carbon, plants, microbes and soil. Efforts in several DOE programs are
currently tackling this challenge.
Research in SC on natural, model, and engineered plant species is greatly expanding
fundamental understanding of plant growth as well as photosynthetic efficiency, and carbon
capture and adaptation in both plants and microbes. Approaches range from basic biochemical
and biophysical studies of photosynthesis and carbon dioxide reduction to genomics-enabled
breeding and biodesign to engineer new or improved traits for growth under varying
environmental conditions. Scientific user facilities such as the Joint Genome Institute and the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory currently offer enabling tools and technology to
the broad research community. Similarly, high-resolution imaging capabilities at SC synchrotron
and neutron sources facilitate analytical characterization of key photosynthetic processes,
apparatus, and subcellular components.
Several current SC-sponsored research programs are seeing success leveraging new science to
modify plants and confer enhanced efficiency and resilience. Other SC research programs
supporting biochemical and biophysical research on photosynthetic antenna complexes are
providing fundamental insights on how these natural complexes work and how they may be
redesigned to enhance light capture. Synthetic pigment-protein molecules that are based on
knowledge derived from the natural complexes are already being used to test hypotheses
about efficient photon capture and excitation distribution in natural photosynthesis. Such
synthetic pigment-protein molecules could one day be used to expand the spectral range of
sunlight that can be captured by natural photosynthetic organisms and/or artificial
photosynthetic systems. Fundamental biochemical research and genetic engineering
approaches have enabled accelerated recovery from photoprotection mechanisms, which has
been proven in field studies to increase plant productivity by enhancing photosynthetic
efficiency. New efforts to leverage advances in tunable, synthetic pigment design, catalytic
function and regulation, and genome editing and engineering may reveal novel biological and
bioinspired systems with synergistic capacity for improved light and carbon capture. Joint
scientific workshops and principal investigator meetings will facilitate information exchange
and build new research collaborations with combined strengths in the physical and genomic
research communities.
ARPA-E recently launched the Rhizosphere Observations Optimizing Terrestrial
Sequestration (ROOTS) program with the selection of 10 projects that seek to develop
advanced technologies and crop cultivars that enable a 50 percent increase in soil carbon
accumulation while reducing N2O emissions by 50 percent and increasing water productivity
by 25 percent. Development of new root-focused plant cultivars could dramatically and
economically reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations while improving productivity,
resilience and sustainability.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is sponsoring a Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) funding opportunity directed at optimizing biomass carbon conversion
efficiency through arrested methanogenesis and carboxylate upgrading. EERE is also working to
establish and sponsor additional efforts to optimize biomass carbon conversion efficiency
including strategies that employ thermocatalytic, biocatalytic or unique combined processes.
These novel biomass conversion strategies would leverage carbon-free energy resources to
achieve 100% biomass carbon conversion efficiency thereby providing complimentary biomass
conversion optimization technologies to those being developed to optimize biomass
generation. This idea, initially proposed at the DOE’s Big Ideas Summit in April, is continuing to
see development by SC and EERE.
The Office of Fossil Energy is sponsoring research that uses organisms to convert CO2 to
harvestable biomass, oils, or other high value products such as pharmaceuticals and
nutraceuticals. This research builds on the fundamental knowledge and tools developed by SC
and the EERE biomass program. Existing applied R&D in FE is focused on supporting feasibility
and engineering design studies on how to efficiently integrate algae based photo bioreactor
and pond systems into coal based power plants at scale. Some of the work has focused on
genomic research to identifying strains of organisms which are resistant to trace contaminants
present in coal power plants and characterizing the biomass to make a variety of bio-products.
Further research will be necessary to validate these new strains of organisms and the processes
innovation proposed for power plant integration.
The oceans offer a unique opportunity to sidestep many of the challenges associated with
terrestrial biomass production systems, particularly the growing competition for land and
freshwater resources. ARPA-E has recently released a FOA for the Macroalgae Research
Inspiring Novel Energy Resources (MARINER) program that intends to develop the critical tools
that will allow the nascent macroalgae industry in the United States to leverage this
tremendous resource and grow into a world leader in the production of marine biomass. The
program focuses on developing advanced cultivation technologies that enable the cost and
energy efficient production of macroalgal biomass in the ocean at a scale suitable as feedstock
for the production of fuels and chemicals. Specifically, the program is interested in new designs
and approaches to macroalgae cultivation systems, with harvesting and transport being an
integral component. These new systems may leverage new material and engineering solutions,
autonomous and robotic operations, and advanced sensing and monitoring capabilities. To
further accelerate the development and deployment of such systems, the program focuses on
the development of computational modeling tools and ocean-deployable sensor platforms, as
well as advanced macroalgal breeding tools. ARPA-E expects that the MARINER program will
support development of technologies that will accelerate the deployment of advanced ocean
farming systems capable of delivering renewable biomass feedstock at a cost competitive with
terrestrial biomass feedstocks.
Recommendation 3: Synthetic Transformations of CO2.
The Office of Science is supporting research at multiple scales in photo-, electro-, and
biocatalysis relevant to CO2 conversion. This includes research by single-investigators and small-
teams via the core research programs, and large, multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional
collaborations in several Energy Frontier Research Centers and the Fuels from Sunlight Energy
Innovation Hub. Multidisciplinary chemical and biochemical approaches are revealing catalytic
mechanisms of water splitting and CO2 reduction that is increasing our fundamental
understanding of natural photosynthesis and establishing a foundation for enhancing natural
photosynthetic efficiency and for developing artificial photosynthetic systems. Other basic
research is providing insights into the conversion of CO2 to products such as carbon monoxide,
formate, alcohols, methane, and even higher hydrocarbons. All of these products either have
significant economic value currently or have value as precursors to other high value chemical
products. This research continues to provide foundational knowledge broadly applicable to CO2
reduction as well as other electrochemical reactions, including proton and dinitrogen reduction
reactions that are necessary for several novel hydrogen and ammonia production processes,
respectively.
This in-depth understanding of mechanisms and structure/function relationships is providing
the insight needed to develop biomimetic catalysts and to improve biological and synthetic
systems. Foundational studies of electron transfer processes in biological and chemical systems
are also providing clues in how to reduce overpotentials in electro- and photoelectrochemical
systems, generate low-potential reductants via electron bifurcation, and exploit the property of
catalytic bias observed in some enzymes. Other research efforts are examining the fundamental
electrochemistry of materials as well as the chemical transformations of materials in
operational environments.
Critically, the DOE is also supporting R&D across the Department to develop new methods that
will cost-effectively scale to meet current and future demand for CO2-derived products. Three
of the recently announced projects in the ARPA-E program Renewable Energy to Fuels through
Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) program are developing scalable electrochemical
technologies for converting CO2 into energy-dense carbon-neutral liquid fuels using electrical
energy from renewable sources. EERE is sponsoring a SBIR funding opportunity directed at
identifying novel non-photosynthetic strategies to reduce carbon oxides from waste gas
streams or atmospheric carbon dioxide. Proposals are being accepted for biological, non-
biological, or unique combined strategies that can reduce the carbon oxides to fuels, products,
or relevant chemical intermediates.
CO2-derived products at the industrial scale that are cost effective and energy efficient requires
that chemical precursors be available at similar cost and scale. For synthetic transformation of
CO2, this means providing a suitable reductant that can be produced from clean energy sources
at sufficient scale. Hydrogen (H2) is one option that is already widely used in the chemical
industry for CO2 reduction and many other critically important chemical transformations.
Today, over 90% of the H2 produced in the US per year comes from natural gas. The EERE-
sponsored H2@Scale initiative is developing new methods for the production of clean, low cost
H2 from domestic renewable and nuclear power. Developing low cost, high efficiency, and low
emission methods for H2 production would be enabling for synthetic transformations of CO2.
Building on the foundational science supported by SC, EERE is also exploring renewable
hydrogen production from several water splitting pathways through the HydroGEN Consortium.
Established in 2016 as part of DOE’s Energy Materials Network, HydroGEN is a consortium of six
DOE national laboratories that will address advanced water splitting materials challenges by
making unique, world-class national lab capabilities in photoelectrochemical, solar
thermochemical, and low- and high-temperature electrolytic water splitting more accessible to
academia, industry, and other national labs.
R&D and associated efforts sponsored by FE is targeting reduced barriers to CO2 use in the
production of low carbon products and in offsetting the cost of Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) technologies. The goal is to identify and mature opportunities that could enable more
near-term and rapid deployment of CCS. FE funded projects since 2010 have focused on
chemicals, fuels, polymers, cement/aggregates, and products from algae. Currently, project
selections are being made from a recent FOA that covered mineralization concepts, biological-
based concepts, and novel physical and chemical processes.
Fossil Energy is supporting R&D efforts in electrocatalysis and photoelectrocatalysis and actively
seeks to identify such catalysts made of abundant elements and having low overpotentials. In
separate work on fuel conversion, FE supports R&D involving thermochemical redox reactions
for relaying oxygen and producing hydrogen at temperatures in the vicinity of 1000°C. Many FE
projects are considering novel reactor designs and systems architectures, including modular
systems that can facilitate early adoption and more quickly demonstrate a positive operational
track record.
Ongoing EERE investments through the Advanced Manufacturing Office, such as the Institute
for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, along
with recent investment additions such as Reducing Embodied energy And Decreasing Emissions
(REMADE) are helping to create pathways for industrial products to be sourced from non-
petroleum sources and for reclamation of carbon from products at the end of their life cycle.
For example, plant fibers can be used as an alternative to petroleum sources to produce high
value carbon fiber as a commercial product. Technologies like these essential sequester CO2 in
long-lived fiber-based commercial and industrial products. Recycling these and other materials
at the end of their life-cycle using technologies developed from EERE resources such as the
REMADE institute rather than placing them in landfills, where they can decompose and release
CO2 back to the atmosphere, or burning them can also enhance long term sequestration of CO2
within useful products.
The Office of Science is currently planning several workshops relevant to synthetic
transformations of CO2. Three Basic Research Needs workshops on catalysis, hydrogen, and
solar energy will be updated with new workshops and reports over the next year or two. As
appropriate, these workshops will be joint efforts with EERE, FE, and ARPA-E. Critical
information about current technological barriers within these areas will be provided by EERE,
FE, and ARPA-E, providing important foundational knowledge for the identification and
prioritization of basic research challenges and gaps. The Office of Science will also conduct a
roundtable-type workshop on research gaps in catalysis in early 2017. Fossil Energy, EERE’s
Bioenergy Technology Office, and SC have also been working together to engage with the
National Academies on a deeper study of CO2 utilization R&D areas that would serve to
continue where the SEAB study left off on this and other topics. Finally, EERE is sponsoring a
workshop at the 2017 International Solar Fuels Conference in San Diego looking at the state-of-
technology and research paths forward for non-photosynthetic carbon reduction.
Recommendation 4: Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geologic Formations.
The Task Force emphasizes the important connection between enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and
CO2 sequestration (CCS) technologies as a means of reducing the overall cost of large-scale CO2
storage in geologic formations, a strategy that is likely essential to achieving negative carbon
emissions. Office of Science research is providing the basic science knowledge that underlies
the reservoir engineering necessary to achieve the goals laid out in the Task Force report.
Through the Subsurface Science, Technology and Engineering R&D (SubTER) Crosscut, efforts
from SC are tightly coupled to ongoing efforts in DOE’s applied energy programs, in particular
the Oil and Gas and Carbon Storage programs in the Office of Fossil Energy (FE). Effective
reservoir management and monitoring activities (including optimizing the connection between
CO2-EOR and CCS) requires a fundamental understanding of multiphase fluid flow and of the
connection between injection rates and the state of stress in crystalline basement rocks that
potentially triggers induced seismicity, as well as of the behavior of CO2-H2O films that govern
wellbore and caprock integrity.
Through the core SC Geosciences program and three CCS-focused EFRCs, supported research
activities include the development of novel full-waveform seismic inversion techniques capable
of imaging the evolution and mobility of multi-phase fluids in response to changes in stress; the
influence of chemical reactions in altering the state of permeability of subsurface formations;
and biomineralization processes that impact caprock and well sealing, the rheological behavior
and stress response functions, and time-dependent permeability of materials under extreme
conditions in the cores of major fault zones. The programs are also strongly invested in
fundamental science underlying the distribution and dynamics of multiphase fluid mixtures in
geomaterials, as well as the phase equilibria, crystallization sequences, and kinetics of
carbonate cements that alter the permeability of caprock over geological time scales.
Office of Fossil Energy is supporting research for risk assessment quantification for geologic
storage operations including migration through geologic strata, well bores, faults, and fractures;
effects and mitigation of induced seismicity due to pressure perturbations in the subsurface;
geochemical changes affecting permeability and porosity; as well as developing monitoring and
simulation tools to quantify storage performance and fluid migration. In addition the program
is working to develop field test sites for storage in different classes of geologic formations; test
innovative injection control schemes to maximize storage efficiency; and characterize future
commercial storage facilities throughout the United States. All of this is done with the intent of
archiving the data collected form this research in a central database such as the Energy Data
Exchange system.
Going forward, DOE will be enhancing and integrating these efforts, in part through the SubTER
Crosscut that continues through FY 2022. As an example, SC, FE, and the EERE-Geothermal
Technology Office are jointly working with the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources of the
National Academy of Sciences to organize a workshop defining the current state-of-the-art in
imaging state-of-stress and wellbore integrity associated with H2O-CO2 injection into the crust.
DOE is also active in the international Carbon Capture Innovation Challenge, for which a
technical workshop will be hosted by the U.S. in the summer of 2017. The workshop will
convene top experts to discuss breakthrough opportunities and find international RD&D
synergies in carbon capture, geologic storage, and CO2 utilization.
Recommendation 5: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Other Separation Technologies.
Separating the CO2 from mixtures for storage or further conversion demands a large fraction of
the overall energy and operating cost of chemical processes. Fundamental principles of
thermodynamics and reaction kinetics underlie the challenges impeding such advances.
Enhancing partition coefficients via novel liquid absorbents or solid adsorbents, advanced
selective membranes and polymers, and hybrid liquid-porous systems offer opportunities for
lower-cost, higher-capacity separations.
The Office of Science is currently pursuing many of these opportunities in both core research
activities and Energy Frontier Research Centers. Well-represented areas that could be applied
to separation processes include molecular binding energies, molecular dynamics, transport in
macrostructures, molecular recognition principles, and the relationships between molecular
and material structures and their binding properties. Polymeric, inorganic, biomolecular, and
hybrid organic-inorganic membranes, all strengths of the SC research program, are enabling for
the design of separation media for some gas mixtures. Areas in which SC-supported research
could be strengthened to better address the recommendation include competitive binding and
selectivity in complex mixtures, design of membranes for complex liquid mixtures, separations
for dilute streams, and more generally the combined application of multiple specialized fields of
knowledge in the context of novel separation mechanisms. Basic research in the separation of
salts and ions using solvent extraction methods has the potential to reduce the energy intensity
of other separations such as sea-water desalination or metal extraction from minerals, thereby
reducing CO2 emissions.
The Office of Fossil Energy is moving toward large scale demonstration of advanced carbon
capture technologies that can reduce the cost of carbon capture significantly below the current
state-of-the-art solvent based technologies. Research over the past several years has
developed over a dozen novel separation technologies, including non-aqueous solvents, solid
sorbents, and novel membranes. These 2nd generation technologies are expected to be ready
for commercial demonstration by 2020. In 2017, the FE is starting a program to leverage
national laboratories capabilities to begin scaling transformational technologies developed by
the EFRC and others. A program focused on materials discovery using advanced computational
capabilities, leveraging the lab and industries investment in advanced manufacturing, and
establishing a partnership with industry on process design and integration will accelerate the
pace at which novel materials come to the market.
The Office of Science will continue to sponsor workshops that include separation topics and/or
that will identify molecular and materials research priorities relevant to separations. Going
forward, there is a need to focus on achieving deeper understanding of separation processes at
the interfacial, transport, molecular, atomic, and electronic levels, as well as on the design of
separation media, in order to significantly move forward the field of separations of complex gas
or carbon-containing mixtures. The Office of Science will explore opportunities to enhance and
integrate these activities.
Additional Recommendation: Direct Air Capture and Mineralization in Oceans.
Direct Air Capture. There is currently no large scale RD&D programs in direct air capture (DAC)
of CO2 from the atmosphere that are sponsored by the DOE. Several recent studies referenced
in the Task Force report have estimated the cost to be approximately $600/tCO2, if not higher.
In the absence of other drivers, reducing this price necessitates scientific and/or technological
breakthroughs. As noted by the Task Force, many of the most important science drivers
described in response to recommendation 5, including developing novel liquid absorbents and
solid adsorbents, membranes, and hybrid systems, would contribute to developing low cost
DAC and are being addressed through current Office of Science and Fossil Energy-sponsored
research. This research agenda has significant potential benefits for areas with much greater,
and more immediate, economic impact than DAC, including waste water treatment, sea water
desalination, and mineral extractions, among others. Advances in these areas could help drive
down the cost of DAC. Addressing the complex engineering issues inherent in DAC at the GtCO2
scale through targeted RD&D will be predicated on breakthroughs that bring the cost and
energy intensity of separation down substantially.
Mineralization in Oceans. The DOE recognizes oceans as an important component of the Earth
system, including understanding how the carbon and water cycles interact with regional and
global climates. The Office of Science’s Earth System Modeling program includes ocean
research activities focused on enhancing and analyzing models of sea ice physics, ocean mixing,
circulation dynamics, and larger scale oscillations such as El Nino. These research activities
focus on numerical methods, model integration, and analysis. The development of models that
accurately represent the complex behaviors of the ocean are a critically important component
to any future RD&D effort that targets the oceans for long term CO2 sequestration.
DOE scientific workshops and principal investigators’ meetings that cover relevant topics will be
organized to include various ocean research communities to discuss technical challenges and
mutual opportunities. These meetings are expected to help improve model parameterizations
based on field observations collected by other agencies, and reduce uncertainty in describing
how the oceans interact with other components of the Earth system across a variety of scales.
Field-scale experimental activities, including ocean mineralization approaches described in the
Task Force report, are currently outside the mission scope of the Department.
Conclusion
Considered together, the RD&D programs described in the responses to the Task Force’s
recommendations represent a significant effort to develop both the multi-disciplinary
foundational knowledge and early-stage technology necessary for a CO2 utilization and/or
sequestration program at the gigatonne per year scale that could realistically realize dramatic
reductions in, or negative, CO2 emissions across the entire energy sector. The new science and
technology derived from these RD&D programs will also pay dividends by helping increase
efficiencies, lower production costs, reduce energy and water consumption, reduce emissions,
and increase product yields across a multitude of sectors. As such, these RD&D efforts
contribute to both the economic and national security of the United States.
It’s important to consider the crosscutting issues identified by the Task Force. The capture,
separation, transportation, conversion, or sequestration of CO2 requires the input of energy. In
the case of CO2 emissions reduction, sourcing the energy for these processes primarily from
non-renewable sources would be counterproductive. The DOE’s diverse energy technology
RD&D portfolio has contributed to reductions in the cost of renewable energy. The DOE will
continue to support a robust clean energy RD&D portfolio to continue this trend. Collaboration
among DOE programs, through topical crosscuts like SubTER, and among the DOE, national
laboratories, academia, and industry, are helping to create an integrated system that can drive
down costs for the technologies necessary to realize significant emissions reductions or
negative emissions, as well as the clean energy technology that will power those activities.
Implicit in these discussions is that international cooperation is essential for research
development and implementation of energy efficiencies within a global market, and for
realizing the subsequent and associated emissions reductions and/or negative emissions.
Developing a robust, internationally recognized observation network ensures that all parties are
meeting commitments to emissions reduction and supports international efforts in earth and
climate monitoring that are necessary to understand the global environmental impacts of any
effort at the 1 GtCO2 scale. This international challenge is as important, and possibly as difficult,
as the technical challenges described above. The DOE can leverage its existing relationships
with international partners through meetings and technical workshops to meet the technical
and sociopolitical targets necessary to realize a 1 GtCO2/yr goal.
A few Thoughts on the
Climate Action Plan 2.0
Gary Latshaw, Chair of the Cupertino Sustainability Commission
October 15, 2020
Importance of Accuracy and References in
Report
•Numbers should be rounded off to the appropriate number of
significant figures
•Sources of numbers should be well documented
•Probable error should be stated
•Any incomplete information and assumptions should be clearly stated
•Phrases such as “50% reduction” should be clear so reader knows the
reference point
Implementation Efforts should be
commensurate to the GHG Reduction
•High Value Targets
•Converting all buildings (residents, office spaces, industrial, etc.) to zero emissions
•Most likely Electric Facilities
•Partially Propane or Hydrogen?
•Facilitating the conversion from Gas/Diesel to Electricity or hydrogen
•EV charging stations
•Converting Municipal Buildings, Equipment, and Vehicles to 100% zero emissions
•Food Consumption
•Plant-based diets
•Avoiding Red Meet
•Collection of Freon
Outlier Projects
•White Roofs, pavement
•Use of adding Carbon to soil to minimize need for fertilizer?
•Black Carbon from Fireplaces has a stong global warming potential
and is very harmful
•More Trees?
•More of another plant?
Outlier Projects from Others*
•A “5-minute city” approach to zoning implemented in Copenhagen,
Denmark that drastically reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
made the city more walkable.
•A carbon fee on buildings recently implemented in New York City
•An announced plan to end the flow of natural gas in the City of
Arcata, California and now being considered by Palo Alto.
•2030 Climate Action Plan –Prepared by the Environmental Quality Commission; Adopted by
City Council July 2020 (Resolution No.6575)
Science Facts
•Methane/natural gas –is a dangerous climate pollutant
•Methane has a half-life of ~10 years
•GWP in 20 years of 80
•Reduction in Methane will result in quick response
•Nitrous Oxide (from fertilizer) has a half-life ~ 100 years
•GWP in 20 years of ~300
•Various forms of Freon have half-life of 100’s of years
•GWP in 20 years of ~1,000’s
•GWP HFC -134a (hydrofluorocarbon) ~3800 for 14 years
•Calculations of ”natural” solutions to carbon capture are controversial because of the multiple unknowns