County-Level Emissions Reduction and Adaptation Policy Alternatives

Prepared for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change

By Michael Bonino-Britsch

Britt Cudaback Tanner Nystrom

Mark Pascoli

Workshop in Public Affairs Spring 2017

ii

©2017 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System All rights reserved.

For an online copy, see

www.lafollette.wisc.edu/outreach-public-service/workshops-in-public-affairs publications@lafollette.wisc.edu

The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a teaching and research department

of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors.

The University of Wisconsin–Madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative-action educator and employer.

We promote excellence through diversity in all programs.

iii

Table of Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Mitigation: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction ........................................................................ 2

Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Model .............................................. 3 Diversified Solar Infrastructure Partnership Initiative .............................................................. 6 Anaerobic Digester Expansion ................................................................................................. 11 Data Collection & Management Strategies - Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory ................ 14 Transportation - Expansion of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Infrastructure............. 16

Adaptation ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Vulnerability & Risk Assessment Planning............................................................................... 19 Urban Heat Island and Stormwater Management via Surface Cooling ................................... 20 BUILD Program Expansion ..................................................................................................... 22 Expanding Green Initiatives at Dane County Regional Airport ............................................... 24

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 28

Points of Contact for Partnership Initiatives ............................................................................ 28 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 29

Coalition Building ..................................................................................................................... 29 References ..................................................................................................................................... 31

iv

Foreword This report is the result of a collaboration between the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change, a division of the County Executive’s Office. Our objective is to provide graduate students at the La Follette School with the opportunity to improve their policy analysis skills while providing Dane County policymakers with policy options for reducing greenhouse emissions and adapting communities to climate change. The La Follette School offers a two-year graduate program leading to a master’s degree in public affairs. Students study policy analysis and public management and they can choose to pursue a concentration in a policy focus area. They spend the first year and a half of the program taking courses in which they develop the expertise needed to analyze public policies. The authors of this report all are typically in the final semester of their degree program and are enrolled in Public Affairs 869 Workshop in Public Affairs. Although learning a set of skills in the classroom is important, there is no substitute for doing actual policy analysis as a means of developing these abilities. Public Affairs 869 gives graduate students that opportunity. This year, workshop students were divided into eight teams. Other teams completed projects for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the City of Madison’s Division of Economic Development, the Aspen Institute’s Financial Security Program, Transition Projects (a nonprofit organization focused on reducing homelessness in Portland, Oregon), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, UNICEF, and a second report for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change. This report provides Dane County with a series of policy options for combating climate change locally and helping area communities adapt to the realities of a changing climate. The policy options detailed in this report are designed to build on Dane County’s ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and speak to the county’s unique challenges and opportunities. Already a national leader in local government efforts to combat climate change, we hope the ideas and analyses presented in this report—coupled with the companion capstone report on best practices for a Climate Action Council—will enable the county to continue to innovate and make progress in this critical area.

Rourke O’Brien Assistant Professor of Public Affairs

Madison, Wisconsin May 2017

v

Acknowledgments Our work would not have been possible without the support and assistance from countless Dane County officials and staff members. We are especially indebted to Dane County Executive Joe Parisi, Nick Bubb, David Merritt, John Welch, and Todd Violante, who devoted their time, energy, and resources to this project, and were instrumental in its initiation and direction. We would also like to recognize Lisa MacKinnon, Daniel Vimont, Jason Stringer, Nick Roecker, Michael Vickerman, Kathy Kuntz, John Haekel, Stephanie Marburger, Professor Gregory Nemet, and Professor Ken Genskow, whose experience and knowledge were invaluable in ensuring this project was a success. We would also like to acknowledge La Follette School of Public Affairs faculty members Rourke O’Brien, Timothy Smeeding, and Michael Collins, our instructors for the course through which this project was completed. We would especially like to express our thanks to Rourke, whose insight and guidance played a crucial role in the development, preparation, and culmination of this paper.

vi

Executive Summary Dane County has historically been a strong leader in environmentally conscious innovation, and currently stands at a unique crossroads for the future of sustainability, renewable energy, and climate adaptation. While the county has made significant progress in adopting greenhouse gas emission reduction and climate change adaptation initiatives, more opportunities remain to expand the county’s green initiatives and to increase its standing as a local and national leader. Our policy team analyzed Dane County climate-related policies and offer recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the region’s climate change resilience. By focusing on mitigation and adaptation strategies, Dane County can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and better adapt to warmer and increasingly unpredictable weather cycles. Often building upon Dane County’s past efforts, our mitigation strategies reduce energy use, increase energy efficiency opportunities, and address emissions in various economic sectors. Recommendations include implementing the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, incentivizing new green building development and energy efficiency upgrades through free market principles. Moreover, we recommend expanding solar power projects, diversifying energy infrastructure, and increasing locally produced power. Dane County also currently operates several anaerobic digesters, and we recommend expanding the anaerobic digester program, diverting harmful emissions while producing more clean energy and other beneficial byproducts. In addition, we recommend that Dane County further develop and expand its compressed natural gas fleet conversion program, reducing transportation-based greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, successful mitigation policy formulation and implementation necessitates centralized and systematic data management, which informed our recommendation to systematize the county’s data collection processes while including regional actors to ensure timely and accurate emissions information. Our adaptation recommendations address general county needs, such as a multi-faceted planning and coalition-building strategy, as well as smaller, easily implementable projects such as green roof incentives for reducing urban heat island effects. A stakeholder planning commission and coalition is critical for successful adaptation strategies and determining the vulnerable portions and potential risks facing Dane County residents. Smaller programs such as Better Urban Infill Development (BUILD) expansion, green roofs, and expanding green initiatives such as apiaries in public spaces are important for immediate progress, but climate change adaptation will take targeted improvements and stakeholder investment. While our recommendations present comprehensive climate change mitigation and adaptation approaches, our analysis is not exhaustive, and Dane County can and must continue allocating resources, researching, and committing to climate initiatives well beyond implementing recommendations included here. To continue its past climate policy leadership and make meaningful progress toward reducing its own climate impact, Dane County must expand its current efforts, implement best practices, and increase collaboration with nonprofit organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and local municipalities.

1

Introduction Located in the state’s south central region, Dane County is a unique blend of Wisconsin heritage and geography. With more than 500,000 residents, Dane is a metropolitan hub as Wisconsin’s second most populous county. Home to the state capital in Madison, Dane County boasts a strong tradition in natural resources and agriculture. Many of the state’s largest bodies of water are in Dane County, which also is one of Wisconsin’s most productive agricultural counties. Given Dane County’s varying geographical traits, discussions regarding climate change and sustainability demand comprehensiveness and practicality, balancing the county's unique characteristics, traditions, and economic interests. Its approaches must not only take steps to prevent exacerbating climate change effects, but must also limit avoidable climate change impacts. Although Dane County has undertaken serious efforts addressing climate change, we identified several dynamic challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adopting adaptation practices. To this end, we not only examined policies already implemented, analyzing County documents and records for areas needing development or expansion, but we also researched and analyzed prospective policies implemented in other jurisdictions that could have a meaningful impact in Dane County. We conducted an analysis of each policy and eliminated options that could not be implemented at the county level, developed a regulatory framework, or presented extraordinary implementation costs. For the remaining policy options, we developed our policy option framework. John Holdren, the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, suggested “What we need is enough mitigation to avoid unmanageable climate change and enough adaptation to manage unavoidable climate change,”1 which informed our framework. Thus, we recommend reassessing climate impacts, environmental impacts, and sustainability through policy options that minimize or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and reduce climate change impact vulnerability (adaptation). We evaluated policy options in the mitigation and adaptation categories on five criteria: 1) the benefits and effectiveness of the policy, which compares the effects of implementation and any ancillary or co-benefits provided to other sectors; 2) the costs associated with implementation, including initial costs, operating costs, and long-term costs; 3) the adverse impacts of implementation, including non-economic and non-quantifiable externalities; 4) the distribution of benefits and costs such as which groups will bear the implementation costs or benefits; 5) the feasibility of implementation, which evaluates any challenges to implementation. Each policy menu option could be feasibly implemented by Dane County, and we are hopeful that by implementing these recommendations, the county can continue its historically strong leadership as an exemplary innovator and green initiatives champion in Wisconsin and the nation.

1. S.C. Pryor (2013)

2

Mitigation: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters’ “Climate Forward Report” identified several ways that public-private partnerships reduce greenhouse gas emissions.2 These priorities and associated implementation barriers informed our greenhouse gas emissions reduction options for the Office of Energy and Climate Change (see Figure 1). The Climate Forward Report focused on four categories: conservation and efficiency, including establishing energy efficiency savings goals, expanding energy retrofits, encouraging benchmarking, and exploring new energy conservation options; energy sources and infrastructure, expanding renewables, embracing solar, expanding smart biomass, developing strategic wind power, and coordinating with utilities on leadership; transportation and creating smarter transportation systems; research and data analysis, using detailed research and analysis and tracking progress.

Figure 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Policy Alignment

Issue Barrier Options to Consider Policy

Private-Sector Energy Conservation & Efficiency

Insufficient Adoption Incentives for Efficiencies or Renewables

Energy Investment Partnerships (EIPs); Low-Interest Loans; Tax Credits & Exemptions

C-PACE Model Implementation

Public Adoption of Renewable Energy Sources & Infrastructure

Insufficient Adoption Incentives; Limited Option Availability; Need for Traditional Energy Sources

Diversification of Energy Source Options; Promotion of Reduced Energy Consumption; Educational Initiatives

Diversified Solar Infrastructure Partnership Initiative

GHG Emissions from Agricultural Sector

Traditional Practices to Overcome, Harmful Methane Emissions, High Upfront Costs of Solutions

Anaerobic Digesters, Altering Livestock Feeding Practices

Anaerobic Digester Expansion

GHG Emissions Inventory & Data Management

Time-Intensive, Complexity, Widely Dispersed Data Management

Annual Inventory Analysis, Less Frequent Updates, Expansion to a Regional GHG Inventory

Regional GHG Inventory

Transportation Emissions Existing Infrastructure and Technology, Alternative Fuel Availability

Expansion of CNG Vehicles and Infrastructure, Regional Transportation Authority System

Expansion of CNG Vehicles and Infrastructure

Source: Authors Based on our findings, we recommend the following items for effectively reducing emissions:

1) Implementing the Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) model to promote private-sector conservation and efficiency through open-market incentives;

2) Leading local solar infrastructure development partnerships by addressing public adoption shortfalls through incentives, option availability, and energy source diversity;

3) Expanding anaerobic digester implementation, diversifying renewable energy while reducing harmful methane emissions and producing beneficial byproducts;

2. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, & Letters (2017)

3

4) Employing historical greenhouse gas emissions inventory, expanding to a regional greenhouse gas inventory; and

5) Harnessing biogas production, systematically expanding compressed natural gas (CNG) hybrid vehicles to county vehicles, other municipalities, and eventually the public at large.

Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Model We recommend Dane County implement the Commercial Property-Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) model, an increasingly prevalent and effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. C-PACE is a financing program that facilitates loan agreements between commercial entities and financial institutions. More specifically, the C-PACE model allows participating financial institutions to compete for commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation improvement contracts, connecting commercial property owners interested in incorporating energy or conservation improvements with participating lenders. Third-party organizations facilitate and oversee agreements between commercial property owners and financial institutions, ensuring mutual understanding and project success. Financial institution lenders allow commercial property owners access to low-cost, long-term loans with no up-front or out-of-pocket costs. This partnership inspires competition for energy efficiency, reduction, and conservation projects, stimulating economic activity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Public entities such as Dane County are generally unsuitable to independently manage and sustain significant costs associated with renewable energy and efficiency initiatives. The C-PACE model addresses these financial barriers by merging public- and private-sector project strengths through public-private partnerships (P3s). While P3s typically occur when a private entity manages project financing in exchange for long-term repayment,3 C-PACE is classified as an Energy Investment Partnership (EIP) P3, which attracts private capital resources for clean energy projects, allowing public entities with resource scarcity to achieve their renewable energy and energy efficiency goals.4 By engaging private capital resources, C-PACE’s EIP framework reduces program implementation production, transaction, and bargaining costs through competition, making otherwise inefficient public programs achievable via free market principles. C-PACE also uniquely tempers the transaction and bargaining costs often associated with P3s through network capital. The C-PACE model has a local and national partner network, allowing C-PACE to effectively reduce transaction and bargaining costs through institutional knowledge and existing formal relationships,5 and by promoting sustainable and fair business practices. The Wisconsin C-PACE Model Implementing C-PACE is among the most feasible options available for Dane County to address greenhouse gas emission reduction. In Wisconsin, 14 counties have adopted the model through

3. Weimer (2016) 4. U.S. Department of Energy (2015) 5. Weimer (2016)

4

PACE Wisconsin, which functions as a statewide resource and facilitator for prospective program participants while also providing a “uniform, statewide approach to offering C-PACE financing to commercial property owners located in member Wisconsin communities.” PACE Wisconsin focuses its efforts on installing commercial property energy and water improvements such as updating technologies (e.g. energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; renewable solar power energy diversification; and low-flow water conservation measures). Commercial property owners work with local contractors to develop projects that qualify for PACE Wisconsin. Project funding is then solicited from an open lending institution and secured through a PACE Special Charge, which repays funds directly to lenders.6 The Wisconsin PACE Commission organizes and oversees PACE Wisconsin and participating counties. The Commission is authorized under Wisconsin State Statutes § 66.0301 to administer Wisconsin PACE through a “joint exercise of powers authority.” The Commission receives network support from the Wisconsin Green Tier Communities, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Wisconsin Counties Association, and Wisconsin State Energy Office to facilitate local government interaction. It also receives direct assistance and expertise for contract implementation from the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation (WECC), a Dane County-based nonprofit organization that originated PACE and initiated C-PACE funding through its subsidiary, Energy Finance Solutions (EFS). EFS functions as the Commission’s program administrator, providing access to information, program guideline enforcement, and Wisconsin’s C-PACE financing payment certification.7 This robust statewide network, coupled with successful implementation in 14 counties, makes C-PACE implementation a primary option for reducing local greenhouse gas emissions in Dane County. Implementation Implementing C-PACE would be relatively simple for Dane County. The first step is identifying interested communities. Given C-PACE’s economic and environmental potential, we expect this phase will be easily completed. The second step requires the Dane County Board of Supervisors to authorize executing the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA). The JPA officially recognizes Dane County as a Commission member and stipulates that agreements between key parties must include Dane County, the Commission, and third-party entities. To this end, County Board of Supervisors support for C-PACE implementation will be critical, not only for passing the JPA, but for completing the third step, which approves a model C-PACE ordinance. Assuming Dane County Board of Supervisors’ support for C-PACE, we expect similar receptiveness to model ordinance passage as with the JPA. Finally, after passing the JPA and model ordinance, interested communities can voluntarily adopt an ordinance allowing C-PACE within their respective jurisdictions. Any interested Dane County communities can sign the approved JPA, allowing building owners to access PACE financing.8 Benefits and Effectiveness Implementing C-PACE in Dane County would have several benefits, including lower energy costs for local businesses, increased property values, reduced greenhouse gas emission

6. PACE Nation (2016) 7. PACE Wisconsin (2016) 8. ibid.

5

contributions, and overall enhanced sustainability. C-PACE presents a growing market, and Dane County’s timely implementation secures economic interests otherwise left uncaptured. Based on the 2016 third-quarter market update, C-PACE had 104 new projects financed and $44.6 million invested. These numbers demonstrate a $19.6 million increase in previous quarter investment and a 380 percent growth increase since 2015.9 The economic implications for C-PACE’s rapidly growing market are notable, and an important consideration for Dane County’s implementation. Direct C-PACE program benefits include general county resident economic prosperity, property owners' increased revenues, increased lending institution business, and improved capital and capital investments for commercial business owners. C-PACE also solves some existing market challenges. First, reasonable rates for long-term financing results in immediate increased business cash flows. Additionally, loan repayment obligation transferability during ownership changes allows continued pursuit of potential projects. Likewise, secured financing and liens also increase likelihood for loan repayment, allowing decreased financing costs and more property options.10 C-PACE also engages the private capital market, inspiring financial diversification. Finally, C-PACE provides Dane County with a mechanism to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other conservation practices without assuming financial risk. Costs We previously introduced transaction and bargaining cost concerns associated with P3s, including legal counsel support, staffing allocation, training resources, educational outreach initiatives, and establishing technical and financial program requirements. These costs often make P3s time- and cost-prohibitive and therefore impractical for implementation.11 With C-PACE, transaction and bargaining costs are significantly reduced. The Wisconsin C-PACE structure and WECC’s EFS marginalize costs that might otherwise exist using a P3, namely authorizing, accommodating, and enlisting private-sector partners. In acting as a program administrator, EFS absorbs these burdensome and costly responsibilities, freeing local governments from financial stressors. A concern likely to materialize through EFS program management is capitalizing on privileged information to pursue independent financial interests. Asymmetric information is a reality as misaligned priorities between public and private parties might occur; however, Wisconsin PACE Commission’s oversight via program monitoring significantly reduces sustained or systemic issues, promoting public accountability and quality assurance. Moreover, the Commission's elected representatives are inherently responsive to public interest, linking project efficiency to the political process and adding an important layer of accountability. Altogether, the C-PACE model minimizes resource allocation for local governments while providing advice, management, and oversight, bringing important benefits to participants while avoiding costs otherwise present in implementing a P3.

9. PACE Nation (2017) 10. Technical Assistance Program (2013) 11. National Association of State Energy Officials (2016)

6

Adverse Impacts The C-PACE model relies heavily on third-party participation and interest. Securing buy-in from large commercial property owners, energy project implementers, real estate lenders, and investors is critical for successful implementation, but there could be external consequences for needing third-party support. First, commercial property owners with properties in multiple jurisdictions could hesitate to use C-PACE because managing jurisdictional incompatibility could present unnecessary and resource-exhausting complexity. Likewise, energy project companies and contractors may lack incentive or ability to market effectively due to jurisdictional inconsistencies. Commercial real estate lenders unfamiliar with C-PACE also might have decreased lending confidence levels, resulting in poor program performance. Finally, institutional investors valuing liquidity and economic portfolio standardization might hesitate to embrace a C-PACE program due to market inconsistency.12 Distribution of Benefits and Costs A Dane County C-PACE program benefits numerous actors, but presents a greater burden on the EFS. Because C-PACE uses the local government tax-assessment infrastructure, coordination and leadership falls on the governing entity to design and implement a complex program while simultaneously maintaining time-intensive relationships, engaging in technical processes, and managing nuanced program structures. These demands have deterred some localities from C-PACE, which resulted in uncaptured project potential.13 The Wisconsin C-PACE model transfers these traditional burdens to the program administrator, and consequently a county-oriented cost-benefit distribution of C-PACE achieves positive outcomes at a minimal cost. Feasibility C-PACE implementation in Dane County is a highly feasible option with significant financial and social benefits, effectively aligning with numerous parties across industries and markets. The primary costs associated with C-PACE are significant financial- and time-resource allocation absorbed disproportionately by WECC EFS. Dane County’s Office of Energy and Climate Change is in an optimal position to coordinate the C-PACE program with WECC EFS. Furthermore, as home to the state capital, Dane County may be well-suited for a Committee leadership role. Diversified Solar Infrastructure Partnership Initiative Solar initiatives present opportunities for Dane County to increase public adoption of renewable energy sources and infrastructure. Renewable technology impacts are captured outside government structure, and therefore should be the driving focus of the county’s future renewable energy initiatives. Recent technological developments and solar implementation diversification allow flexible options to expand public- and private-partner use. As a rapidly expanding market with all-time low customer prices and increased momentum, we present three solar energy options for implementation: commercial solar, utility-led solar, and community solar. Dane County’s notable prior efforts to use solar and reduce government-produced greenhouse gas emissions have positioned the County to lead future external initiatives. For example, in April 12. Technical Assistance Program (2013) 13. ibid.

7

2017, Dane County Executive Joe Parisi announced a large-scale solar initiative at the Dane County Regional Airport, using 30 non-aeronautical acres and generating more than six megawatts of power. The airport initiative is just one example of Dane County’s continued leadership in renewable energy, and with more than $2 million allocated for solar energy development in its 2017 budget,14 the county is positioned to lead commercial solar, utility-led solar, and community solar initiatives. Ultimately, we suggest that the Office of Energy and Climate Change pursue countywide adoption of these three platforms through a collaborative partnership with public and private entities. Background on Solar Options The solar industry is expanding rapidly, netting positive economic effects while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Based on current estimates, experts anticipate that the solar industry will triple in size over the next five years.15 Much of the market’s recent growth is from decreased pricing for solar installations, which fell over 60 percent in 10 years and allowed the industry to expand. In 2016, the solar industry provided an estimated 209,000 jobs in the United States – more than double the jobs in 2010 – spanning more than 9,000 companies nationwide. Projections estimate solar will continue to grow, employing about 360,000 workers by 2021.16 Much of the solar industry’s growth can be attributed to its production capacity and reliability, outperforming both wind and natural gas in electricity generation.17 Solar expansion in underdeveloped markets also presents opportunities for exploration and growth. Residential solar dominated recent industry growth, but industry projections indicate commercial, community, and off-site procurement markets will drive near-term growth. Most importantly, although growth has slowed, utility solar maintains its foundational position as the “backbone of the U.S. solar industry” and continues to be an essential player in solar expansion.18 Although Dane County emerged as a solar initiatives leader, Wisconsin still lags in national achievements. Comparatively, Wisconsin ranked 35th in 2015 and 37th in 2016 for state solar installation rankings, while Minnesota ranked 28th and 12th, respectively.19 Given projected continued market expansion and previous marginal adoption levels among government external entities, Dane County has another opportunity to lead public and private partners toward solar expansion. Implementation Implementation of commercial solar, utility-led solar, and community solar initiatives relies on networking and coordination, and the Office of Energy and Climate Change presents the County with a focal point for outreach efforts. Based on academic findings on P3s, we suggest the following framework for Dane County to lead solar initiatives going forward: strong and sustained leadership, trust-building through mutually agreed-upon goals and expectations, sustained momentum through partner “visionaries” and “champions,” performance assessment

14. Press Release, Office of the Dane County Executive (2017) 15. Press Release, Solar Energy Industries Association (2017) 16. Solar Energy Industries Association (2017) 17. Green Tech Media (2017) 18. Solar Energy Industries Association (2017) 19. Green Tech Media (2017)

8

through a consistent communication platform, and use of “success to breed success.”20 This framework ensures sustaining success-proven principles of communication, openness, planning, ethos, and direction.21 Dane County’s first step is to identify key parties and desired participants. Active participants are essential to initiative successes; however, the county must take care in identifying critical participants (see Appendix A for potential partners) and determining which will assume leadership positions and roles. After identifying key participants, the county must develop one-on-one professional relationships and begin initial communication with select partners. Early, candid conversations with respective parties will ensure interest alignment, negotiation information gathering, and trust building. This step is also essential to incentivize entities that may not have an immediate interest in network participation. We suggest building network legitimacy early through collaboration with naturally aligned parties, then targeting other potential participants after network capital is established. In addition, the county must clearly define partner goals for solar energy development by identifying common interests and addressing conflicting priorities. Likewise, the county must establish a networking agreement, including regular meetings for the structured normalization of goal-oriented communications, either in a one-on-one or group setting, that bring together participants to ensure goal continuity. Finally, the county must prioritize short-term achievements that align with long-term goals to build confidence and momentum. Using “success to achieve more success,” Dane County can accelerate early relationship building, gain political capital, and incentivize potential partner participation. For example, commercial solar would be relatively quick and easy win, allowing for more challenging future endeavors such as utility-led solar with more complex relationships and negotiation. Benefits and Effectiveness of Commercial Solar Commercial solar presents opportunities for facilitating business adoption of solar technology, offsetting long-term business costs, and capturing additional revenue. Through the C-PACE program, Dane County companies can capitalize on previously impractical technologies due to declining prices. Since 2012, commercial prices for solar energy have fallen by 58 percent, dropping by 16 percent in 2016 alone.22 The recent price declines allow engagement with commercial high-energy-consuming industries with significant property investments, such as healthcare and higher education facilities with solar energy supplementation proposals. Long-term projections forecast that commercial solar will make up approximately 20 percent of the entire market.23 As such, commercial solar presents one option to decrease long-term energy costs while simultaneously reducing county emissions. Benefits and Effectiveness of Utility-Led Solar Utility-led solar is an essential component for sustainable, long-term solar initiatives. Electricity production contributes more than 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions—more than any other economic sector—but utility companies are also the largest financial investors in renewable

20. Young, Charles Keith (2010) 21. Trafford, Sue and Tony Proctor (2006) 22. Solar Energy Industries Association (2017) 23. Green Tech Media (2017)

9

energy. Since 2014, utility solar represented more than 60 percent of the entire solar energy market.24 Electric utilities alone are projected to contribute approximately $2 trillion to energy infrastructure and technological developments over the next 20 years.25 Long-term projections continue to forecast utility solar as the primary contributor to the entire solar energy market.26 As such, utility-led solar is an essential component of renewable energy planning and should be a focus for Dane County. Dane County’s three primary utility providers have already shown interest in developing partnerships to incorporate solar initiatives. As part of its Energy 2030 Initiative, Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E) began a Shared Solar program, allowing consumers to “add solar-generated electricity to their individual energy mix.” 27 Alliant Energy also incorporated solar into their energy portfolio, embracing new and innovative methods for incorporation. In 2016, Alliant opened a “solar learning laboratory” in Madison to enable the discovery of “the many ways solar energy and renewable technology can be used in the Midwest setting.” 28 Likewise, in January 2017, Wisconsin Public Power Incorporated (WPPI) Energy sought to diversify its energy portfolio by agreeing to purchase output from the state's largest solar facility near the city of Two Rivers.29 Benefits and Effectiveness of Community Solar Community solar is another energy initiative worthy of county-level promotion and facilitation. Community solar is a subsection of the larger residential market, including property owners who engage in independent purchasing. Long-term projections forecast residential solar will make up approximately 25 percent of the entire solar market.30 Community solar is increasingly popular, allowing populations with limited abilities or motivation to acquire solar-derived energy. Consumers can buy or lease an existing system share to supplement their energy needs, generating electricity credited directly to the participant’s electricity bill.31 Contributions to community systems assist in promoting renewable energy use without the burden of expensive technology management or invested capital. Community solar is a flexible option allowing entities to independently host projects. Utilities, businesses, local governments, and community groups can promote shared solar projects while the systems are outsourced or maintained by the hosting entity, allowing for flexibility in solar energy system placement options, such as on public or private buildings and land.32 The flexibility of community solar opens the door for a space rental market, which can even further serve to offset pricing and provide financial stimulus to local communities.

24. Solar Energy Industries Association (2017) 25. Wood, et al. (2016) 26. Solar Energy Industries Association (2017) 27. Madison Gas and Electric Company (2017) 28. Alliant Energy (2017) 29. Wisconsin Public Power Incorporated (2017) 30. Green Tech Media (2017) 31. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2017) 32. ibid.

10

Costs Solar energy benefits do not come without costs. Solar energy production currently uses federal subsidies to ensure competitive pricing, which could consequently lead to biased program efficiency and suitability analysis. Removal of government funding programs could therefore affect the solar production industry, challenging solar program sustainability. The three federal policies most commonly associated with the rapid growth in the solar industry are the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. ITC provides up to a 30 percent tax credit for energy project expenditures, MACRS offers a “five-year recovery period” for equipment investments on renewable energy, and ARRA encourages energy companies to develop renewable energy technologies.33 These policies target market failure but are often criticized for creating artificial market forces typically associated with infrastructure development. State-level policies and involvement can also increase overall costs and are an important consideration for economic analysis of solar energy viability. Policies designed to increase solar production and consumption such as mandates, tax incentives, feed-in tariffs, and net metering present additional cost implications. Most notable criticisms include asymmetric wealth transfer.34 Inequitable wealth transfer concerns arise because solar infrastructure requires significant financial capital, preventing low-income populations from reaping the benefits. Of course, to lead or even participate in a partnership also requires time and personnel resources. Dane County will initially assume a notable burden to employ this option; however, it will also likely find interested third parties to shoulder costs upon initiation. Ultimately, Dane County has an opportunity to shape long-term relationships and energy-infrastructure agreements while avoiding or tempering the costs associated with inefficiency, inequity, and implementation. Adverse Impacts Impacts of solar energy alternatives must also be included when considering suitability. One immediate concern is the effect on critical infrastructure reliability. Criticisms of solar energy’s impact on energy-grid sustainability originate from an assumption that solar will disrupt the existing energy market, leaving it vulnerable to power use shifts and driving up costs for non-solar users. Current technological limitations in energy production and battery storage limit the use of solar energy. Power companies maintain conventional generators to supplement gaps in alternative source energy production, including solar. This process of offsetting production-consumption gaps is known as baseload cycling. Baseload cycling has significant associated costs; financial costs are ultimately passed on to consumers while higher levels of carbon emissions are absorbed by society.35 Transition to solar power and other renewable energy sources changes the dynamics of energy reliability. Change in reliability naturally creates an element of risk. The impacts of solar energy adoption are essential for the county to consider when facilitating public-private partnership initiatives. As such, utility providers are essential partners for the county to make renewable energy initiatives successful. Fortunately, Dane County energy providers already participate in renewable energy infrastructure development. Through structured relationships and collaborative initiatives, the county can balance energy

33. Hansen, Simmons and Yonk (2016) 34. ibid. 35. ibid.

11

stability and solar infrastructure to meet goals of greenhouse gas reduction. Distribution of Benefits and Costs As referenced in the cost section above, solar infrastructure partnerships present inequity concerns and place an initial burden on county implementers. Despite being tax-paying contributors, non-solar users, specifically those who do not possess the financial resources to invest in renewable capital, have limited access to reap the benefits of solar programs.36 This asymmetry in cost-benefit advantages those who already have resources, potentially furthering inequity. As such, initiatives should seek to prioritize fairness through thoughtful and collaborative P3s. To offset their costs, the county should anticipate upfront investment but prioritize responsibility transfer to alleviate long-term burdens. Feasibility Solar infrastructure partnership is a feasible option for Dane County’s implementation. Diverse solar options available to public and private entities create significant opportunities for financial and social benefits. Engagement with utilities is critical to solar energy’s future in Dane County, therefore, any unaligned political or economic priorities need to be identified and negotiated early on. Additionally, historic political challenges to align solar power adoption efforts with the overarching authorities of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) are likely to continue. Expanded network development and PSC engagement are necessary steps to continued solar initiative success. Overall, the costs associated with solar are significant, but through education, planning, and coordination the Office of Energy and Climate Change can help guide partners toward reliable and sustainable solar energy investments. Anaerobic Digester Expansion Dane County contains a unique mix of urban and suburban areas coupled with a robust agricultural industry. With over 500,000 residents, Dane County is the second most populous county in Wisconsin,37 and with roughly 135,000 dairy cows, the county ranks third out of state’s 72 counties in cattle and calves inventory.38 In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this creates the need for the county government and all residents to make an impact on many fronts. Much of the focus on addressing climate change impacts is on human activities, such as energy consumption and vehicle emission. Another major aspect of greenhouse gas emissions comes from human’s practices with regards to raising livestock, particularly in the release of harmful methane gas (CH4) into the atmosphere. Though the lifespan for methane to remain in the atmosphere is shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), methane is far more efficient at trapping radiation. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane is more than 25 times more harmful than CO2 over a 100-year period.39 The relative harm of methane as a greenhouse gas and the size of the dairy industry in Dane County create a need and an opportunity for the county government to make an impact by addressing agricultural emissions.

36. Hansen, Simmons and Yonk (2016) 37. 2016 Wisconsin Demographics 38. USDA: Wisconsin 2015 Agricultural Statistics 39. EPA overview of GHG emissions

12

Background Dane County has already positioned itself as a leader in reducing agricultural emissions with two large anaerobic digester projects (one near Waunakee and the other in Springfield). In the county’s existing digesters, animal waste from nearby farms is fed into the digester where natural processes utilizing microorganisms breakdown the organic materials, leaving methane gas which can be utilized as a biogas.40 It is estimated that each of the county's digesters will reduce the equivalent of 9,400 tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.41 Not only does the process prevent harmful methane gas from escaping into the atmosphere, reducing the negative impacts of agricultural practices, but the anaerobic digestion process leads to additional benefits. The process produces a digestate that can be used for animal bedding and/or fertilizer. In Dane County, an additional process removes phosphorous from the digestate to reduce the harm caused by runoff into the county’s waterways. Nearly 80 percent of the phosphorous entering lakes, creating algal bloom, in Dane County comes from agricultural runoff.42 The county has also recently developed plans to implement a nutrient concentration system (NCS) at its Springfield digester. The NCS will further improve the digesters' phosphorus removal capabilities, capturing 90 percent to 100 percent of the phosphorus from the effluent.43 Finally, the biogas produced can be used as an alternative fuel. It can be fed back into the electric grid, used to create power for engines, heat, or electricity on site. The biogas can also be treated to create compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquified natural gas (LNG) for use in vehicles.44 Implementation Dane County’s efforts in implementing an expansion of anaerobic digesters will best be served as a consultant, mediator, and monitor. The county’s experiences with its two existing digesters will prove invaluable and will ease the transition of additional dairy farms in setting up, maintaining, and running future digesters. Dane County and other members of the Council on Climate Change could work with dairy farms to identify ideal projects. Given the large upfront costs, we expect most, if not all, future digesters will best be established as an integrated system of multiple farms. Both of Dane County’s current locations utilize animal waste products from three separate farms, but it is possible that any number of nearby entities could share future locations as determined feasible. Dane County can assist farms in evaluating the ideal size and location of future digesters. It also can use its experience to assist new participants in the logistics of handling the inputs and outputs of the anaerobic-digestion process. In addition, Dane County could use the relationships established through the Council on Climate Change to identify potential corporate sponsors of future anaerobic digesters. For example, Gundersen Health System in western Wisconsin sponsored an anaerobic digester and made a pledge to replace its energy with renewable energy. We would expect more companies to follow this lead in improving their environmental stewardship. A key point will be to emphasize that the company did not do this for public relations or to appear green, but saw a financial return on investment as well.

40. EPA: Basic information about anaerobic digestion 41. Wisconsin DNR (2013) p. 8 42. VanEgeren 2017 43. US Biogas LLC (2013) 44. EPA: Basic information about anaerobic digestion

13

Benefits There are many benefits of proper anaerobic-digester implementation. First, the anaerobic-digestion process diverts and then uses harmful methane gas, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. Second, the county’s existing digesters also process the waste to remove much of the phosphorus – a primary contributor to algae growth in Dane County’s lakes and waterways. It will be especially important for future digesters and farms located near waterways to include this phosphorus-removal process. Third, the process produces high-quality compost and fertilizer that can be returned to the farms or used in landscaping and public works projects to benefit erosion control, water absorption, and reduced use of petroleum-based fertilizers. Lastly, the anaerobic-digestion process produces biogas that can be used to power the farms, potentially fed back in to the electrical grid, and further reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Costs The initial costs in building anaerobic digesters, as the county knows well, can be very high depending on the system selected. The county’s upfront costs have been estimated at around $12 million. According to the state of Michigan, initial costs are expected to be between $150 to $500 per dairy cow and $80 to $300 per swine.45 The county can help farms determine which type of digester is most appropriate for each operation. Although not currently available under the existing Wisconsin PACE financing option, we would hope that anaerobic digesters could become an option under PACE in the future. However, these costs should be offset by energy savings with typical payback periods of approximately 10 years. Under our recommendation, the county’s primary costs will be time spent helping farms establish networks to build digesters, assisting those networks in establishing routines and proper use and maintenance, and potentially monitoring existing digesters to ensure that they are being properly used and maintained. We would hope that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would assist or even supplant the county's role in monitoring and inspecting digesters to avoid any leakage or mishandling of input or output. Adverse Impacts One potential unanticipated positive impact of expanding the anaerobic-digester program is the potential for collaboration among farms and their communities. This approach has the potential to create a mutually beneficial system for all stakeholders: farmers can reap the benefits of improved fertilizer, power generation, and improved environmental stewardship; the community can benefit from improved water and air quality and potentially benefit from excess power generated by the digesters. On the other hand, potential negative impacts are possible pollution and public backlash if the digesters are not properly operated and maintained. News of a leak or an explosion at a digester can potentially derail further expansion and could possibly lead to decisions to shut down existing digesters. 45. MDARD FAQs p. 6

14

Distribution of Benefits & Costs Successfully expanding anaerobic digesters throughout the county will benefit all stakeholders: farms will benefit from the energy production and compost byproduct while the community at large will benefit from improved water quality and excess energy generated. The financial costs of establishing the anaerobic digesters will primarily be borne by the farms and any government or corporate sponsors. Many parties will experience the costs related to time and effort, and Dane County will need time to work closely with the new digesters to ensure proper implementation. The farms will certainly experience new time and effort costs for reconfiguring current processes, may need to invest in new equipment to transport the input and output, and will need to invest in an infrastructure to use and/or store the energy produced. Feasibility We see this recommendation as feasible, but not without coordinated efforts and potential roadblocks along the way. Dane County's current digesters have been financed through Purchase Power Agreements with a local utility company, but there is the potential that these will not be extended. If this occurs, new financing options will be needed. There is also a risk of state intervention in regulations that deter building of new digesters. Lastly, there is a risk of pushback from the farms because they may not see the need or the potential benefits, and without the farms, expansion will not be possible. Data Collection & Management Strategies - Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the primary goal in slowing down climate change impacts, but to be able to do so, it is critical to have a thorough understanding of factors contributing to emissions. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lists two broad reasons for why it is important to conduct greenhouse gas inventories: for scientific understanding and for policy formulation and implementation.46 The inventories enhance scientific understanding by improving climate model inputs and improving our understanding of the link between environmental pollution and pollution sources. Thorough inventories aid in effective policy formulation and implementation in a variety of ways: first, they help identify sectors, sources, and activities responsible for emissions; second, they aid in understanding and identifying emissions and removal trends, helping policymakers develop cost-effective mitigation policies and monitor progress towards goals; and third, the inventories inform the public.47 Background Dane County has completed greenhouse gas inventories in the past, but these have primarily focused on its government operations. The latest effort in 2016 expanded the focus to include all activities within county borders. These efforts have been noteworthy and commendable, and the county can attest to the challenges in thorough data collection. However, the efforts are essential for the county to be able to set and reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. 46. Krug (2015) 47. ibid.

15

Implementation Expanding upon relationships built through the Council on Climate Change, Dane County should build from past experiences in developing greenhouse gas inventories to include all activities within the county. The county should also focus efforts to include participants from other counties in the region to develop a Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory similar to the 2010 Chicago Regional GHG Inventory, which included the seven counties including and surrounding the city of Chicago. Efforts to collect and calculate the emissions in each participating county should be handled separately, but it will be important for the methodology to remain constant. It is important for the county and its partners to establish systems to calculate each entity's emissions. Emissions from the following sectors should be included: building energy; on-road transportation; off-road transportation; solid waste; stationary, industrial and product use; wastewater; water; and agriculture. Emissions calculations should also include impacts of activities within the geographical boundaries and emissions outside of the boundaries resulting from activities within (such as electricity used although the generation occurs elsewhere). The inventory should be updated on a regular basis, realistically every 10 years, with updated methodology and with attempts to adjust prior inventories if the new methodology results in large changes. This way, the participating counties will have data to compare and track progress toward emissions reductions. Benefits There are many direct and possible benefits stemming from a thorough regional GHG inventory. The counties will have the ability to compare progress within boundaries over time, evaluate performance among other counties and regions, and identify trends. The thorough understanding will give the participants the ability to manage what is measured, to evaluate performance across the eight sectors, and to develop an understanding of the scope, scale, and source of emissions. The participants will then be able to target efforts to address emissions reduction. The coordinated inventory efforts should also allow for improved coordinated efforts in emissions reduction. Costs The costs of performing a thorough regional inventory, both financial and time costs, will be substantial. At the very least, the first regional inventory report will likely require outside consultants, and it may be beneficial to have them assist with future analyses to ensure the use of the most up-to-date methodology. These costs will be shared among participating counties though, and the inventory analysis hopefully can be completed in-house after learning the process. The time costs of the first analysis will also likely be the largest, but we would hope that each participant would put procedures in place to reduce these costs for the future inventories. As Dane County is aware, it can prove quite challenging to gather emissions data from various sources within the county government, let alone independent actors. It will be important to institute routines and systems throughout all sectors to allow for simplified collection in the future, and the participants should designate ultimate responsibility to a small number of people. Adverse Impacts Dane County’s experience with GHG inventory collection will prove invaluable, and the county should expect to assume a leadership role in the regional inventory. This leadership role could

16

lead to added efforts on the county’s part, but could also lead to ancillary benefits as the other participants begin to realize the benefits of participation and understanding. Distribution of Benefits & Costs All participants will share the large upfront time and financial costs, but they should also all share in the benefits such a thorough inventory can bring. After participants begin taking strategic action to address issues and improve their GHG emissions, the benefits will be realized by residents in all counties. Feasibility The challenge to the feasibility of a regional GHG inventory will be to get as many neighboring counties involved as possible. It will be important to avoid any gaps in the region with the non-participation of a small few. The current political climate could make this challenging, but the potential benefits are too large to ignore. Transportation - Expansion of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Infrastructure In total, the U.S. transportation sector – which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight – produces nearly 30 percent of all U.S. global-warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.48 Advances have been made in engine technology and the fuels used, but there is a long way to go. Tackling the issues around transportation emissions will be especially challenging in the United States because the overwhelming majority of people have become accustomed to driving their own vehicles, and the nation’s infrastructure has been built over the past 70 years in response to these trends. Improving engine technology has only marginal benefits in reducing GHG emissions. Efforts in recent years have focused on improving and developing new fuels to power vehicles, and engineers and scientists have experimented with many possibilities. However, natural gas is the cleanest-burning alternative transportation fuel available today that can economically power most vehicles. Whether in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG), natural gas is a proven alternative fuel that significantly improves local air quality and reduces greenhouse gases.49 Background Within Dane County government, enviable efforts have been undertaken to transition the entire county fleet to operate on CNG fuels by 2023, all of which is produced by county government operations. It is an example that should be replicated by municipalities across the nation. CNG burns much cleaner than traditional gasoline, reducing GHG emissions by roughly 29 percent.50 CNG represents the best available option for a potential large-scale expansion in reducing traditional gasoline consumption. However, Dane County vehicles represent a small fraction of vehicles on the road, not to mention the overall contributions of GHG emissions from various modes of transportation.

48. Cars and Global Warming 49. NGV America 50. ibid.

17

Implementation Expansion of Dane County’s current CNG infrastructure will need to be methodical and should proceed strategically over time. In our recommendation, the fuel provided will be generated within the county, and the expansion of potential available fuel will depend on the size and speed of CNG generation at existing and future landfills and anaerobic digesters. The first step the county should complete is full transition of its fleet (where possible) to CNG hybrids and satisfying the fuel needs. After CNG generation exceeds the county’s needs, it could coordinate within the network of the Council on Climate Change to supply fuel for other municipalities and/or companies as they transition their fleets to CNG hybrids. At this stage, the county should strategically expand the network of fueling stations to provide fuel to additional fleets. Concurrently, the infrastructure to capture the CNG from digesters and landfills along with the infrastructure to supply fueling stations will need to be built. When the supply of CNG is large enough to steadily supply these fleets, the county can begin to open the market to the public. Benefits The environmental benefits of expanding the transition of vehicles to CNG fuels will be significant. CNG fuel burns much cleaner than traditional gasoline, and the methods currently being used to generate the CNG fuels are diverting harmful methane gas from entering the atmosphere. As the supply of CNG continues to be generated by county-related operations, the county has the potential to receive financial benefits from selling the fuel to other municipalities and/or company fleets. As other digesters and landfills begin to expand their supply, these benefits will diminish, however. Costs The expansion of the CNG fueling infrastructure will be costly. However, with proven success at the early stages of the CNG fueling model, we anticipate that a private company can be found to take on the majority of the expansion costs. Adverse Impacts At the early stages, as Dane County shares their experience in CNG generation and fleet transition with other municipalities, we anticipate benefits to relationships and enhanced cooperation. The supply of CNG will need to be extremely reliable to avoid any frustrations and potential damage to these relationships. It would be wise for the county to couple this fuel expansion with an expansion in outside fuel generation so that other municipalities have the potential to become self-sustaining. Distribution of Benefits & Costs As described, the benefits of this methodical expansion will be realized well beyond Dane County as other municipalities are able to reliably generate their own cleaner and reliably cheaper fuel source. The cost savings can be transferred to other segments of operations or used to reduce residents' tax burdens.

18

Feasibility We believe that this recommendation is feasible, but it will take time for the model to fully develop. Given this extended timeframe, there are risks to the introduction of new fuel and combustion technologies, economic shocks, and political interference that could complicate the path to realize the full potential. Adaptation An effective response to climate change will also require adaptation, which is “the adjustments that societies or ecosystems make to limit the negative effects of climate change or to take advantage of the opportunities provided by a changing climate.”51 While there will be many synergistic opportunities between mitigation and adaptation strategies, opportunities will differ between the two.

Figure 2. Adaptation Policy Alignment

Issue Barrier Options to Consider Policy

Infrastructure and Human Vulnerability

Insufficient Knowledge Energy Investment Partnerships (EIPs); Low-Interest Loans; Tax Credits & Exemptions

C-PACE Model Implementation

Urban Heat Island and Storm Water Management

Insufficient Knowledge Diversification of Energy Source Options; Promotion of Reduced Energy Consumption; Educational Initiatives

Diversified Solar Infrastructure Partnership Initiative

Municipal Resilience to Climate Change

Technical Knowledge and Cost Anaerobic Digesters, Altering Livestock Feeding Practices

Anaerobic Digester Expansion

Agricultural Resilience Population Growth and Food Needs

Annual Inventory Analysis, Less Frequent Updates, Expansion to a Regional GHG Inventory

Regional GHG Inventory

This is indicative of the reality that mitigating emissions has been defined as a public good, while adaptation is a private good that will benefit only counties investing in and reaping the benefits from the policy.52 Coordinating policy responses between the two policy goals is important because certain policy options can negatively affect mitigation goals or reduce adaptive capacity of certain municipalities. Adaptation approaches should drive policy because climate change effects the built environment. Planning for unpredictable weather events now will ultimately reduce the costs Dane County will have to face later in the forms of storm surges, floods, or heatwaves. Ultimately, through the implementation of no- or even low-regret policies,

51. EPA. (2017) 52. Hasson, Löfgren, Visser, (2010)

19

we expect Dane County to reap benefits that will protect and improve the quality of life. The menu options that we intend to explore are:

1) Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Planning 2) Urban Heat Island and Storm-Water Management 3) BUILD program expansion 4) Expanding Green Initiatives at Dane County Regional Airport

We should note that coalitions are an important component of many of these policy options. While this is being covered by another La Follette School group, we would be remiss to not point to our own analysis that shows how coalition building can be an effective asset multiplier. Our analysis is included in Appendix B. Vulnerability & Risk Assessment Planning Implementing a vulnerability and risk assessment serves as the bedrock of adaptation strategies. This assessment collates all available information of the specific climate change impact on Dane County and the effects on health, education, and economic systems. The assessment of vulnerable systems and the risks they entail need to be understood before engaging in policies to address those risks. This recommendation entails working with nonprofit organizations, government entities, and university researchers to understand the area's vulnerabilities and the level of risk those vulnerable areas face. Benefits and Effectiveness Vulnerability and risk assessment planning provides deeper understanding of vulnerable areas that need to be addressed in future infrastructure planning and development. After vulnerable areas are identified, the risk involved in doing nothing can be assessed by estimating the consequence of adverse climate change impacts times the probability of that act happening. These assessments increase effectiveness with limited resources, focusing them on the most important areas. Dividing the assessment by geographic vulnerabilities and by economic and health-related reasons allows for greater equity in the eventual planning process.53 The process of creating a risk and vulnerability assessment should involve engaging community stakeholders. This creates new networks that will increase the region’s capacity to respond to and solve problems. Costs While a vulnerability and risk assessment is not a static examination, the upfront costs are dependent on Dane County’s priorities. Some considerations that will drive up the cost include time available, planning areas to assess, who will perform the assessment, the budget for outside consultants, what models to develop, if any, and which scenarios necessitate consideration. Adverse Impacts The adverse impact of this is that it requires time and money that could be used in other climate

53. Rosenzweig, (2010)

20

change capacities. Researching effected areas reduces resources and pushes back timelines. Distribution of Benefits and Costs As a planning tool, the assessment does not immediately distribute costs and benefits. Gathering stakeholders and experts to assess how the county should allocate resources can create conflict. However, without an understanding of the region’s vulnerabilities and risk factors associated with those vulnerabilities, Dane County will not effectively plan for the future. Feasibility/Implementation While the Climate Change and Emergency Preparedness report by the Climate Change Action Council is a good starting point, a broader assessment of the vulnerabilities and risks facing Dane County should be a priority. Including stakeholders throughout the county, including UW-Madison, local municipalities, and businesses, can increase the scope and scale of understanding and ensure buy-in when the assessment is used in a planning capacity. The King County guide to climate adaptation for local governments advocates extensively for an assessment.54 Continuous study of vulnerabilities and risks reflects the changing state of weaknesses in the region. For implementation models, Wisconsin’s BRACE program, run by the Department of Health Services, assists local agencies with planning for climate change.55 Dane County, for example, through the Public Health Department, Public Works Department, and the Land Information Office could work with local municipalities to identify county-specific climate change affects and create a plan to mitigate long-term impact. Identifying locations where the expected increase in flooding or increase in mosquito-borne disease would have the largest impact and working proactively to negate these affects should be a high priority.56 Urban Heat Island and Storm-water Management via Surface Cooling The implementation of green roofs and parking lots is a cost-effective way to manage storm-water runoff and increased temperatures in urban areas known as the Urban Heat Island effect. By constructing these projects in high-impact areas or incentivizing their construction through grants to municipalities, Dane County can build long-term resilience to climate change. Managing the rise in extreme heat and flooding will have to be at the forefront of Dane County’s adaptation efforts in the mid- to long-term future. As noted in the Climate Change and Emergency Preparedness report, the average daily temperature in Wisconsin is expected to increase six to seven degrees Fahrenheit by 2050.57 Extreme heat days also are expected to triple during this same time from 12 days over 90 degrees to 36 days.58 Urban areas are five to nine degrees warmer on average than rural areas because of how built environments trap heat locally.59 This should be of the utmost concern because the death toll from extreme heat days in

54. USA. King County Washington. (2007) 55. United States. Wisconsin Department of Health Services 56. ibid. 57. United States. Dane County Climate Change Action Council. (2012) 58. ibid. 59. "C40 Good Practice Guides: New York

21

Wisconsin is greater than every other natural disaster combined.60 With heat-related deaths considered preventable by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dane County can undertake various policy options. With the uneven distribution of impact falling on poor and elderly communities, the implementation of surface-cooling programs, such as painting roofs white, implementing green roofs, or installing green parking lots can reduce ambient air temperatures by two to four degrees effectively and cheaply.61 This would be done in conjunction with vulnerability and risk assessments to identify locations with the greatest need. Variation in precipitation will also increase across Dane County. While this may lead to extended dry periods during summer months, the county will be at risk of extended rain periods that lead to flooding.62 The installation of green parking lots, by retrofitting current lots or building new lots as the region grows, can be a tool to lower urban heat island effects and manage stormwater through a variety of techniques. While reducing the total amount of manmade lots would reduce runoff and the opportunity cost of driving, changing the materials and design of parking lots to be consistent with green lots is the next best alternative. Benefits and Effectiveness The most significant benefit is the increased livability and healthier populations that benefit from cooler cities. By painting roofs white, incentivizing rooftop gardens, or installing green parking lots, Dane County can reduce ambient air temperatures by two to four degrees, which reduces heat-induced mortality.63 For example, a 10 percent increase in surface reflectivity leads to a decrease in deaths during a heat event of up to 6 percent.64 Surface cooling can improve air quality, energy efficiency can increase as air-conditioning usage decreases, and the total reduction of peak energy demand can be achieved. The implementation of green parking lots, which include permeable pavements and new design considerations, would reduce water pollution and the amount of stormwater by increasing the greenspace in each lot or by changing the toxic materials sitting on the surface of the lot.65 Costs The cost of the program depends entirely on the structure and scope of implementation. Low-cost information programs that encourage businesses to undertake these efforts on their own have been implemented in cities with a high private willingness to undertake these projects. However, this requires a high degree of public communication. Melbourne, Australia, has implemented a public campaign that has led to more than 50 green walls and 100 green roofs just through education and technical-assistance programs.66 If there is a larger demand, financial incentives can come into play that would raise the cost of the program. While regulatory approaches can be considered, there are second- and third-order effects for smaller buildings that may reduce the efficacy of the program. These programs, while having a wider reach, would cost $10 to $12 more per square foot compared to a black roof with an annual maintenance cost of 20 60. "Daniel Vimont Interview." Interview by authors. March 9, 2017. 61. C40 Good Practice Guides: New York 62. United States. Wisconsin Department of Health Services (2016) 63. C40 Good Practice Guides: New York 64. ibid. 65. EPA Green Infrastructure 66. C40 Good Practice Guides: New York

22

cents to 30 cents more than a black roof.67Also, costs for green roofs decrease as the size of the roof increases. The cost of green parking lots depends entirely on the site, but increasing the use of swales, bioretention areas, and vegetated filter strips by retrofitting existing lots can reduce runoff pollution and stormwater at the same price as conventional piping, gutters, and drains.68 The cost of permeable parking lots are generally higher than conventional parking lots; a square foot of conventional concrete costs between 50 cents and $1, while permeable concrete costs $1.50 to $5.75.69 Permeable lots also require more exacting maintenance to ensure that the surface does not get clogged. This costs approximately $200 dollars per acre per year.70 Adverse Impacts The adverse impacts also depend on the program chosen. If all new buildings have green roofs or parking lots, the increased cost might be prohibitive. If all county buildings must be retrofitted, the cost for Dane County would increase considerably. However, if the program is educational in nature, the potential adverse impacts would be very small. Distribution of Benefits and Costs The distribution of the costs and benefits depends on the implementation of a surface greening program. If an educational program is chosen, the requirements for Dane County involvement would be much lower than a program that requires financial incentives or pays for retrofitting of county buildings. Over the course of a 50-year lifespan, the cost of installation and maintenance of green roofs can cost up to $18 per square foot per year, but the energy savings, air quality improvements, and heat island reductions equal up to $57 per square foot per year.71 Feasibility/Implementation Implementing this program would have highly variable cost depending on the program type chosen; it would have both individual benefits captured by those who invest in it and spillover effects for the community at large. Public Works would most likely have authority for building new roofs or parking lots or retrofitting old roofs and parking lots. It should be noted that not the entire roof or parking lot must be rebuilt to see changes in storm runoff or urban heat effects. Changing the built environment through an education campaign, indirect incentives, or direct spending is the first step in adapting the built environment to climate change. Better Urban Infill Development (BUILD) Program Expansion The Better Urban Infill and Design (BUILD) program administered by the Dane County Planning and Development Department provides 50/50 matching grants to municipalities for promoting sustainability through infill development. The grants help communities by defraying the cost of planning consultants for such projects as infill development planning; facilitating

67. GSA (2016) 68. EPA Green Infrastructure 69. ibid. 70. ibid. 71. GSA (2016)

23

visioning sessions and design charrettes, and preparing pre-development analyses such as market studies; etc. The maximum grant amount is $25,000, and the total available for the program in 2017 is $50,000; a typical grant is $15,000.72 Community matching amounts may not be in-kind services. Dane County budgets BUILD funds on an annual basis. While this program has been effective in enabling local municipalities to support specific planning projects, we support the expansion of the program guidelines to include green infrastructure or climate action plans for any willing municipalities. By expanding BUILD's guidelines, Dane County would reduce the cost and technical barriers that prevent local municipalities from creating these plans. To keep this within the existing BUILD framework, the green infrastructure or climate action plans would need to focus on being actionable planning documents for municipalities. Benefits and Effectiveness The key benefit to broadening BUILD program guidelines would be the increase in technical planning documents guiding decision-making throughout the region. The importance of professional planning for climate action plans cannot be understated; the quality of plans can vary from less-regarded motivational plans to the technical, planning documents that we recommend.73 Increasing the number of planning-focused climate action plans in Dane County increases the area's resilience and creates a policy innovation hub. Evidence shows that policy innovations that fit specific community needs and trends occur in geographic clusters.74 The cluster of climate action plans would help create a network of dedicated people who would ensure compliance and spread innovative practices. Costs The cost of this expansion is expected to be minimal for Dane County. Broadening BUILD program guideline ensures that we are not asking for new resource allocation but instead we are reallocating current planning resources. This program expansion allows greater flexibility to municipalities. Adverse Impacts The inclusion of climate action plans for eligibility would crowd out infill development plans that would otherwise be eligible for funding. This could be mitigated by increasing the amount of money available to the BUILD program. Distribution of Benefits and Costs The benefits to expanding these planning grants far outweigh the costs. While the larger cities in Dane County already have some versions of climate action plans or green infrastructure planning in place, we expect smaller municipalities to be the main beneficiary. Although this may change as municipal plans need updates, we are certain that all municipalities that want to begin the necessary plan should have the opportunity.

72. Better Urban Infill Development 73. Bassett, Shandas (2010) 74. ibid.

24

Feasibility/Implementation Expanding the program to include climate action plans or green infrastructure planning would be a highly realistic option for the Dane County. Removing barriers to cost or technical expertise for municipalities that may want to develop climate action plans or update older ones creates value for Dane County. BUILD expansion also can be blended into other proposals, such as forming a coalition where Dane County and municipalities share best practices for climate action plans. Expanding Green Initiatives Dane County has placed a significant emphasis on promoting sustainability in its long-term planning processes, including its “triple bottom line” approach, which considers the economic, environmental, and social well-being to evaluate its organizational success in planning for sustainability.75 An easy way for the county to prioritize sustainability is by expanding its green initiatives, specifically using available public lands and space for climate-adaptation projects such as pollinator-protection programs. Pollinators are significant contributors to the national economy, contributing more than $24 billion, while honeybees account for more than $15 billion alone.76 Native habitats, ecosystems, and food-production systems depend on pollinator support and health for sustainability. However, over the past few decades, we have seen significant declines in many pollinator species. In bees specifically, there has been drastic population reduction via colony-collapse disorder, a phenomenon causing catastrophic, unexpected loss of bees in a hive. Continued losses of pollinator populations, and bees specifically, could have serious consequences for food sustainability, agricultural production, and general environmental health in Dane County.77 We therefore recommend implementing pollinator-protection programs, and more specifically, creating apiaries on county land parcels. Apiaries, where honeybee hives are kept, are an easy, low-cost way for Dane County to adapt to the changing climate landscape by reversing pollinator trends and restoring pollinator populations. Apiaries could easily be implemented on any county land parcel with minimal zoning requirements such as parcels alongside county highways or could be incorporated as part of an urban heat reduction plan by putting apiaries on county building rooftops. We see a significant opportunity to capitalize unused space by implementing an apiary at the Dane County Regional Airport. Much of the airport’s approach to climate change focuses on greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution mitigation, with far less emphasis on adaptation. For example, the 2014 Dane County Regional Airport Sustainability Plan Highlights alluded to “non-aeronautical land development,” but these efforts were largely geared toward economic self-sufficiency.78 Given federal regulations that limit non-aeronautical airport land use and the airport’s historic interest in non-aeronautical land development, Dane County should undertake plans using airport land for

75. Dane County Regional Airport (2014) 76. White House (2014) 77. ibid. 78. Dane County Regional Airport (2014)

25

apiary use. Airports around the world have had many successes implementing land-use projects that promote sustainability and climate adaptation, and airports in Chicago, Seattle, and Montréal all have implemented apiaries on non-aeronautical land.79 Given Dane County’s geographical and economic dichotomy, establishing apiaries on county land parcels and potentially at the Dane County Regional Airport is an important commitment to its agricultural interests and economy. Benefits and Effectiveness Pollinators are economically and ecologically vital, and the significant increase in colony collapse disorder is posing serious threats to sustainability and food security. Although Dane County boasts significant economic interests in dairy and livestock industries, its agricultural interests also include small- and large-scale crop producers that grow fruits, vegetables, grains, and forages – all benefiting directly from pollinator populations. Increased pollinators not only preserve agricultural and economic sustainability by strengthening pollinator populations, habitats, and health, but ensure sustainability in crop pollination, and ultimately prevent reliance or over-reliance on commercial beekeeping, a cost felt directly by farmers and producers. Costs Apiary implementation costs will be contingent on the magnitude of the green initiative implemented, and specifically the size of the apiary installed. There are three types of costs associated with establishing an apiary: housing, maintenance and care, and the bees themselves. Housing costs are minimal, ranging between $10 and $20 per box with additional costs for box frames. Bee prices range from $30 to $50 per pound. Maintenance costs depend on the county’s desired source for care. Some airports have opted to outsource apiary care to organizations specializing in apiaries, while others have created new apiary care positions within their respective airport agencies.80 These costs will be multiplied based on the land size designated for apiary use and the number of bees being housed. Adverse Impacts Adverse impacts will be minimal aside from the start-up cost for implementation and the potential for increased bee-sting incidents in the area surrounding the airport. Other adverse impacts could include ecological oversaturation of bees in the region and the potential for harming local apiaries or businesses specializing in apiaries or the honey industry. Increased pollinator populations could also result in increased bee-sting incidents and higher potential for interactions with people allergic to bees. Distribution of Benefits and Costs Given the negligible costs for implementing an apiary program on highway roadsides, non-aeronautical airport land, or rooftops, an apiary could potentially be cost-neutral or even present economic gains for the county, contingent upon the size of the apiary and the amount of honey produced. The county would incur all costs associated with apiary establishment and maintenance, regardless of whether the county chooses to outsource maintenance or hire 79. Beurteaux (2017) 80. Beurteaux (2017)

26

beekeeping personnel, but it could also see benefits in reduction of electricity costs if implemented on county building rooftops as part of an urban heat reduction plan. In addition to benefits to the county, local farmers and producers would likely see the direct benefits from having sustained pollinator populations in the region. Feasibility Creating an apiary is logistically, economically, and politically feasible for Dane County. Apiary creation on county land parcels or building rooftops will require no new zoning, will have negligible harm, and given the negligible costs for implementation, has the propensity to be cost-neutral or even present economic gains. We also anticipate there will be strong support from the local beekeeping community. The county could receive negative feedback from constituency groups or taxpayers concerned about increased bee-sting incidents, but we estimate these concerns will not be widely held. Moreover, given that the state of Wisconsin via the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has recently reaffirmed its commitment to pollinator protection, creating an apiary would be congruent with state efforts.81

81. Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. (2017)

27

Conclusion Our policy analysis identified nine distinct policy options that, if implemented, allow Dane County to expand on past success in climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives. Five recommended policy options allow Dane County to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build on the past successes, while the other four present options to consider for adaptation initiatives necessary to plan for the inevitable impacts of climate change. Our recommendations to adopt each policy were based on an assessment of benefits, costs, adverse impacts, distribution, and feasibility. Based on this assessment, we found each to present unique benefit. The C-PACE model incentivizes commercial property owners to invest in efficiency and renewable energy upgrades, which in turn reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The solar infrastructure partnership initiative provides direction for collaboration with utilities and commercial entities, further diversifying renewable energy options available to the public. Anaerobic digester expansion reduces harmful agricultural emissions while creating renewable energy alternatives and other beneficial by-products. A regional greenhouse gas inventory helps identify emission trends, improves emission reductions, and informs future policy development. The expansion of CNG fuel infrastructure incentivizes greater private and commercial use of cleaner-burning, alternative-fuel transportation options. Vulnerability and risk assessment planning ensures that Dane County will take an informed and proactive approach toward climate change adaptation strategies. Expansion of the BUILD program further incentivizes property improvements that are necessary in preparation for impacts of climate change. Urban heat island and stormwater management investment will deal with the most potent impacts of climate change to Dane County, while expanding green initiatives in Dane County land parcels ties together the urban-rural dichotomy that defines Dane County. These policy recommendations present Dane County with valuable options to pursue their goals of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The options we suggest are comprehensive but not exhaustive; each has value independently but should adopted concurrently, and should be a precursor to future initiatives. Dane County already is a state and national leader in green initiatives, and this sustained pursuit of progress will certainly continue to provide a framework for others to emulate. As such, our recommendation is that Dane County consider adopting all policy options recommended here. Adopting all options presented establishes a holistic approach to mitigation and adaptation strategies. Through their example, Dane County can then influence other communities to adopt similar policies and work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for climate change.

28

Appendix A Points of Contact for Partnership Initiatives

Name Organization Position Contact Information Specialization Area Jason Stringer WECC Sr. Manager

Clean Energy Finance

jstringer@weccusa.org O: (608) 729-6854 C: (949) 394-3133

C-PACE Implementation

Nick Roecker WECC Product Manager

nroecker@weccusa.org (800) 969-9322

C-PACE Coordination

Jon Hochkammer

Wisconsin Counties Association

Outreach Manager

hochkammer@wicounties.org (866) 404-2700

C-PACE / General County Programs

Curt Witynski League of Wisconsin Municipalities

Assistant Director

witynski@lwm-info.org Wisconsin PACE Commission

Allen Buechel Wisconsin PACE Commission

Chair executive@fdlco.wi.gov (920) 929-3155

Wisconsin PACE Commission

Steve Gerrish Wisconsin PACE Commission

Vice Chair sgerrish@co.chippewa.wi.us O: (715) 828-1669 W: (715) 726-4597

Wisconsin PACE Commission

Maria Redmond Wisconsin State Energy Office

Director maria.redmond@wisconsin.gov (608) 266-1521

Government Energy Initiatives / C-PACE

Amber Gray Wisconsin State Energy Office

Energy Finance Manager

amber.gray@wisconsin.gov (608) 261-8421

Clean Energy Loan Programs / C-PACE

Deb Nemeth Wisconsin Green Tier Communities

Executive Director

dnemeth@1kfriends.org (608) 259-1000

Local Government Coordination / C-PACE

Curt Witynski Wisconsin Green Tier Communities

Assistant Director

witynski@lwm-info.org (608) 267-2380

Local Government Coordination / C-PACE

Tyler Huebner RENEW Wisconsin Executive Director

tyler.huebner@renewwisconsin.org (608) 255-4044 extension 1

Renewable Energy Initiatives

Michael Vickerman

RENEW Wisconsin Program and Policy Director

mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org (608) 255-4044 extension 4

Renewable Energy / Solar Initiatives

Steve Steinhoff Capital Area Regional Planning Commission

Deputy Director steves@capitalarearpc.org (608) 266-4593

Transportation Initiatives Planning

Lisa MacKinnon Dane County Board Sustainability and Program Evaluation Coordinator

MacKinnon@countyofdane.com County Government Program Coordination

Kathy Kuntz Cool Choices Executive Director

kkuntz@coolchoices.com O: (608) 443-4271 C: (608) 722-5452

Incentives Program Implementation

Jonathan Patz UW–Madison Global Health Institute

Director patz@wisc.edu (608) 262-4775

University Initiatives and Coordination

Daniel Vimont UW–Madison Atmospheric & Oceanic Scienes

Associate Professor

dvimont@wisc.edu (608) 263-3420

Climate Variations / Local Impacts

Rourke O’Brien UW–Madison La Follette School

Assistant Professor

robrien@lafollette.wisc.edu (608) 262-3908

Policy Development / University Liaison

Gregory Nemet UW–Madison La Follette School

Associate Professor

Gnemet@lafollette.wisc.edu (608) 265-3469

Public Affairs & Environmental Studies

29

Appendix B Coalition Building The creation of a regional climate change coalition, either inter- or intra-county, should also be a high priority for Dane County. Having a coalition allows for the pooling of limited resources, the ability to leverage expertise and input from a variety of non-governmental and governmental sources, and creates a framework to develop coordinated plans to mitigate and adapt to climate change.82A coalition creates a stronger sense of mission and support for new measures and creates a multiplier effect for policies that are put in place by all the localities. Gathering leaders from across all sectors, gaining input, and identifying regional priorities will help Dane County increase regional support for new climate change initiatives.83 Benefits and Effectiveness Implementing a coalition will allow Dane County to take the lead among the various sustainability measures happening with businesses, nonprofit organizations, and municipalities in Dane County and southern Wisconsin. The core benefit is the potential for coordination that occurs within a coalition; having multiple stakeholders at the table can unify resources and build new partnerships. The Capital Region Climate Change Collaborative has advanced an urban/rural connection that “protects the supply of water, clean air, recreational opportunities and more”84 along with the agriculture economy in more rural areas. Engaging all sides enables greater coordination and collaboration to create more sustainable and economically viable communities. Costs The cost of a coalition depends entirely on the management structure and administrative choices made during formation. If Dane County wants to be the undisputed leader, it could act as the main funding source for administrative purposes and start a pooled fund for implementing agreed-upon projects. This may undercut the program's collaborative aspect but ensure there is a consistent coalition leader. A more diversified pool of funding based on membership, similar to the Sacramento-area collaborative, would focus on initial funding provided by Dane County and then annual dues for members depending on nonprofit status and size. This would allow for a more diverse funding stream for administrative costs and resilience-building projects.85 Adverse Impacts The potential adverse impacts of establishing a coalition are minimal. As a forum to discuss climate change issues facing the region, this policy is meant to create networks and bring stakeholders to the table. A potential adverse impact would be the deterioration of relationships between stakeholders if the coalition does not bring results, although that would not be a predicted consequence of the creation of the coalition itself. 82. Lessons in Regional Resilience - Georgetown Climate Center 83. About | Climate Readiness Collaborative | Sacramento, CA 84. Current Initiatives| Climate Readiness Collaborative | Sacramento, CA 85. About | Climate Readiness Collaborative | Sacramento, CA

30

Distribution of Benefits and Costs A distribution of benefits and costs is difficult to measure when it comes to creating a coalition. Some of the most basic benefits are stakeholder engagement, a policy-planning arena, engaging with state and federal policymakers as a unified group, and sharing funding to enable cross-jurisdictional projects.86 Each of these benefits depends entirely on who is involved in implementing the strategies and are flexible based on the coalition's perceived need. In addition, pooling resources allows smaller municipalities to achieve greater results, and creating tangible benefits for the region can inspire more action on this effort.87 On the cost side, it depends entirely on administrative model and relationships among coalition members. The work involved in creating a coalition would require upfront costs and hours of legwork to determine the right model for Dane County. Feasibility/Implementation The overarching flexibility in the formation of a coalition is important to its feasibility. Dane County can determine how loose or rigid the coalition’s charter can be, who to include in the membership structure, and how to fund the coalition and its resulting projects. A coalition would fill a gap of regional planning for climate change and create a marketplace for ideas and collaboration that could expand into larger efforts across not just Dane County but across southern Wisconsin.

86. Synthesis - Georgetown Climate Center 87. Synthesis - Georgetown Climate Center

31

References “2014 Dane County Regional Airport: Sustainability Plan Highlights.” Accessed March 15,

2017. https://www.msnairport.com/documents/pdf/Highlights.pdf “About | Climate Readiness Collaborative | Sacramento, CA.” Local Government Commission.

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://climatereadiness.info/about-us/capital-region-climate-readiness-collaborative/.

“Adapting to Climate Change. EPA.” January 20, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2017.

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/adapting-climate-change. Alliant Energy. Clean Energy Future: Solar. 2017.

http://www.alliantenergy.com/AboutAlliantEnergy/EnvironmentalCommitment/CleanEnergyFuture/030293?WT.mc_id=solar (accessed April 9, 2017).

“Basic Information about Anaerobic Digestion (AD)." EPA. October 03, 2016. Accessed April

13, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/basic-information-about-anaerobic-digestion-ad.

Bassett, Ellen, and Vivek Shandas. "Innovation and Climate Action Planning." Journal of the

American Planning Association 76.4 (2010): 435-50. Web. “Better Urban Infill Development.” Build Home. Dane, n.d. Web. 04 April 2017. https://build-

plandev.countyofdane.com/. Beurteaux, Danielle. “Now Cleared for Landing at Airports: Bees.” New York Times. Web.

Accessed March 1, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/science/now-cleared-for-landing-at-airports-bees.html?_r=0

“C40 Cities.” C40 Cities. Accessed March 4, 2017. http://www.c40.org/. C40 Good Practice Guides: New York - NYC “CoolRoofs Programme.” C40. Accessed March

16, 2017. http://www.c40.org/case_studies/c40-good-practice-guides-new-york-nyc-coolroofs-programme.

“Car Emissions and Global Warming.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed April 14, 2017.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-global-warming#.WPRAIbgrL94.

City Light Financial Incentives.” Seattle City Light financial incentives. Accessed March 16,

2017. http://www.seattle.gov/light/business/incentives/default.asp. “Daniel Vimont Interview.” Interview by authors. March 9, 2017.

32

“What Is Green Infrastructure?” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. “Fact Sheet: The Economic Challenge Posed by Declining Pollinator Populations.” Accessed

March 13, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/fact-sheet-economic-challenge-posed-declining-pollinator-populations

“Frequently Asked Questions about Anaerobic Digesters.” Anaerobic Digesters. Accessed April

21, 2017. http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1599_44958---,00.html. “Good to know: Green building incentive strategies.” U.S. Green Building Council. May 02,

2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.usgbc.org/articles/good-know-green-building-incentive-strategies-0

“GHG Inventory Guidelines.” IPCC - Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/.

“Green Roofs.” GSA Home. GSA, 06 Sept. 2016. Web. Accessed April 4, 2017. https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/166443

Green Tech Media. Solar Market Insight Report: 2016 Year in Review. 2017.

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2016-year-review (accessed April 9, 2017).

Hansen, Megan E., Randy T. Simmons, and Ryan M. Yonk. The Unseen Costs of Solar-

Generated Electricity. Condensed Report, Logan: Utah State University, 2016. http://www.usu.edu/ipe/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/UnseenSolarCondensed1.pdf (accessed April 9, 2017).

“Home.” Envision: America. Accessed March 10, 2017. http://www.envisionamerica.org/. Krug, Thelma. “GHG Inventories: Their Importance to Monitor Progress in Climate Change

Mitigation.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. March 16, 2015. Accessed April 12, 2017. www.iges.or.jp/files/research/alliges/pdf/.../7_e_Naha_Inventories&Mitigation_TK.pd…

“Lessons in Regional Resilience - Georgetown Climate Center.” Georgetownclimatecenter.org.

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.georgetownclimate.org/reports/lessons-in-regional-resilience.html.

Moran, Jenna. “Connected Counties: Tech Innovations in Transportation.” Connected Counties:

Tech Innovations in Transportation. May 10, 2016. Accessed March 8, 2017. http://www.naco.org/resources/connected-counties-tech-innovations-transportation.

Madison Gas and Electric Company. Green Power Tomorrow. 2017.

https://www.mge.com/environment/green-power/gpt/index.htm (accessed April 9, 2017).

33

National Association of State Energy Officials. Accelerating the Commercial PACE Market:

Statewide Programs and State Energy Office Participation in Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing. Account of Work Report, Arlington: National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), 2016. https://naseo.org/data/sites/1/documents/publications/CLEAN_Master%20NASEO%20PACE%20Memo%202016-5-18%20FINAL.pdf (accessed April 9, 2017)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Energy Analysis: Voluntary Green Power Procurement.

April 4, 2017. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/green-power.html (accessed April 9, 2017). “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” EPA. April 14, 2017. Accessed April 14, 2017.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane. PACE Nation. "C-PACE 2016 Market Update." pacenation.us. 2017. http://pacenation.us/wp-

content/uploads/2017/01/Market-update-Q3-2016.pdf (accessed April 9, 2017). PACE Nation. PACE in Wisconsin. 2016. http://pacenation.us/pace-in-wisconsin/ (accessed

April 9, 2017). PACE Wisconsin. PACE Wisconsin. 2016. http://www.pacewi.org/ (accessed April 9, 2017). “Presidential Memorandum -- Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees

and Other Pollinators.” Accessed March 12, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b.

Press Release, Solar Energy Industries Association. U.S. Solar Market Insight. March 9, 2017.

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight (accessed April 9, 2017). Press Release, Office of the Dane County Executive, Joe Parisi. County Executive Parisi: Dane

County Regional Airport Eyed for Massive New Solar Development. April 20, 2017. https://www.countyofdane.com/press/details.aspx?id=4018 (accessed April 30, 2017).

Reviva Hasson, Åsa Löfgren, Martine Visser, Climate change in a public goods game:

Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation, Ecological Economics, Volume 70, Issue 2, 15 December 2010, Pages 331-338

Rosenzweig, Cynthia. “Framework for City Climate Risk Assessment - World Bank.” Accessed

March 16, 2017. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/Rosenzweig.pdf.

S.C. Pryor, Climate Change in the Midwest, (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2013), vi.

34

“Smart City Challenge.” Transportation.gov. January 20, 2017. Accessed March 10, 2017. https://www.transportation.gov/smartcity.

Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). Solar Industry Data. 2017.

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data (accessed April 9, 2017). “Sustainability: U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards.” Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. Accessed

February 21, 2017. http://www.usdairy.com/sustainability/us-dairy-sustainability-awards. “Synthesis - Georgetown Climate Center.” Georgetownclimatecenter.org. Accessed March 16,

2017. http://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/report/GCC-Lessons-in-Regional-Resilience-Synthesis-Jan_2017.pdf

Technical Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Energy. “Commercial PACE: Updates from

the Field & New Resources for Design and Implementation.” www.energy.gov. March 19, 2013. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/comm_pace_updates_field_resources_prog_design_implementation.pdf (accessed April 9, 2017).

“United States Department of Agriculture.” USDA - National Agricultural Statistics Service Wisconsin County Estimates. Accessed April 10, 2017. https://www.nass.usda.gov/ Statistics_by_State/Wisconsin/Publications/County_Estimates/.

United States. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Division of Public Health. DHS. State of Wisconsin, n.d. Web. <https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/document/p01447.pdf>.

United States. Dane County Climate Change Action Council. Dane County Climate Change

Action Council. By Charles Tubbs. Dane County, n.d. Web. <http://fyi.uwex.edu/climate/files/2012/06/Dane-County-final-reportMM10-3-13.pdf>.

USA. King County Washington. Preparing for Climate Change a Guidebook for Local,

Regional, and State Governments. September 2007. http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/king_county_wa.pdf.

U.S. Biogas LLC. “Springfield Community Digester Nutrient Concentration System Feasibility

Report.” News release, October 8, 2013. www.madsewer.org. U.S. Department of Energy. “Energy Investment Partners: How State and Local Governments

Are Engaging Private Capital to Drive Clean Energy Investment.” www.energy.gov. December 2015. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/01/f28/Energy%20Investment%20Partnerships.pdf (accessed April 9, 2017).

VanEgeren, Jessica. “Manure digesters seen as best hope for curbing lake pollution, but

drawbacks remain.” WisconsinWatch.org. January 31, 2015. Accessed April 13, 2017. http://wisconsinwatch.org/2014/04/manure-digesters-seen-as-best-hope-for-curbing-lake-pollution-but-drawbacks-remain/.

35

Weimer, D.L., Vining, A.R. “Government Supply: Drawing Organizational Boundaries.” In

Policy Analysis, 309 - 312. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, & Letters. Options for Action. 2017.

https://www.wisconsinacademy.org/climateforward/options-action (accessed April 9, 2017).

“Wisconsin Counties by Population.” Wisconsin Outline. Accessed April 10, 2017.

http://www.wisconsin-demographics.com/counties_by_population. Wisconsin DNR. SCR. Environmental Analysis and Decision on the need for an Environmental

Impact Statement. “Wisconsin Pollinator Protection Plan.” Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer

Protection. Web. Accessed March 3, 2017. https://datcp.wi.gov/Documents/PPPComplete.pdf.

Wisconsin Public Power Incorporated. WPPI Energy to Purchase Output from Wisconsin's

Largest Solar Facility. January 30, 2017. https://wppienergy.org/News/NewsItem?item=47 (accessed April 9, 2017).

Wood, Lisa, et al. Recovery of Utility Fixed Costs: Utility, Consumer, Environmental and

Economist Perspectives. Technical Report, Berkeley: Berkeley Lab, 2016. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1005742_1.pdf (accessed April 9, 2017)