DATA DRIVEN DESIGN AT A CITY SCALEUrban Land Institute’s Regional Council of Mayors ◦ May 8, 2017

Rick Carter, FAIA, LEED AP Fellow ◦ Senior Vice President, LHBBecky Alexander, AIA, WELL AP ◦ Architect & Researcher, LHB

BUILDINGS AND LIGHTING

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTLAND USE TRANSPORTATION

METRICS

ENERGY (IN BTUS): electricity, natural gas, and district energy consumed citywide (subdivided into residential and commercial/industrial)

WATER (IN GALLONS): potable water consumed citywide (subdivided into residential and commercial/industrial)

WASTE (IN POUNDS): citywide municipal solid waste managed via recycling, composting, combustion, and landfilling (prorated from countywide data)

TRAVEL (IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED): on-road distance traveled within city limits

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (IN TONNES CO2E): citywidegreenhouse gas emissions associated with each of the four indicators

DEMOGRAPHICS

All data is reported both as a total as well as in units/capita. Residential data is reported in units/household, and Commercial/Industrial data is reported in units/job

AREA

City Area (sf)

WEATHER

Heating Degree DaysCooling Degree DaysPrecipitation (in)

COST (IN DOLLARS): cost estimates associated with each of the four indicators

COMMON METRICS

TOTAL ENERGY USE(kBtu/capita/day)

ENERGY USESAINT LOUIS PARK – WEATHER NORMALIZED

Commercial/Industrial Residential

Electricity Natural Gas RII Average

Electricity Natural Gas RII AverageRII Average

279 274 280 276 282

263 260 259 256

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

kBtu

/per

son/

day

182 200 201 189 196 185 179 180 182

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

'07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15

kBtu

/job

/day

COM./IND. ENERGY

215 221 222 221 224 206 214 215 206

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

'07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15

kBtu

/hou

seho

ld/d

ay

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY

232245

293

328

288

233

168

220 227

334

214

265 276 270255 259 258

300284

319 328 336 337

438

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Min

neap

olis

Sain

t Pa

ul

Roch

este

r

Dul

uth

Bem

idji

Rich

fiel

d

Hop

kins

Sain

t Lo

uis

Park

Sain

t A

ntho

ny

Edin

a

Falc

on H

eigh

ts

Map

lew

ood

Whi

te B

ear

Lake

Coon

Rap

ids

Oak

dale

Bloo

min

gton

Burn

svill

e

Shor

evie

w

Eaga

n

Eden

Pra

irie

Min

neto

nka

Woo

dbur

y

Rose

mou

nt

Lake

Elm

o

RII AVERAGE, 266

KBTU/HOUSEHOLD/DAY – 2007-2013 AVERAGE

CENTRAL/STAND-ALONE CITIES

253INNER-RING SUBURBS

253OUTER-RING SUBURBS

292

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE

TOTAL POTABLE WATER USE (gallons/capita/day)

WATER USESAINT LOUIS PARK

Commercial/Industrial Residential RII Average

125

116 121

109 107

111

98 92 94

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

gallo

ns/p

erso

n/da

y

46 54 52 48 46 45

38 40 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

'07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15

gallo

ns/j

ob/d

ay

COM./IND. WATER

165 148 157 137 137

148 134

120 126

020406080

100120140160180

'07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15

gallo

ns/h

ouse

hold

/day

RESIDENTIAL WATER

55

33

5863

4844

49

7570 72

96

3741

67

95

74

8577 76

90

48

99

87

9994

4234

0

25

50

75

100

125

Min

neap

olis

Sain

t Pa

ul

Roch

este

r

St.

Clou

d

Dul

uth

Bem

idji

Rich

fiel

d

Hop

kins

Sain

t Lo

uis

Park

Sain

t A

ntho

ny

Edin

a

Falc

on H

eigh

ts

Map

lew

ood

Whi

te B

ear

Lake

Coon

Rap

ids

Oak

dale

Bloo

min

gton

Burn

svill

e

Shor

evie

w

Eaga

n

Kass

on

Eden

Pra

irie

Min

neto

nka

Woo

dbur

y

Rose

mou

nt

Elk

Rive

r

Lake

Elm

o

RII AVERAGE, 63

GALLONS/CAPITA/DAY – 2007-2013 AVERAGE

CENTRAL/STAND-ALONE CITIES

49INNER-RING SUBURBS

67OUTER-RING SUBURBS

85

RESIDENTIAL WATER USE

MN AVERAGE*, 68

US AVERAGE*, 98

*State and national data for 2005 from U.S. Geological Survey

TOTAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED(VMT/capita/day)

VEHICLE TRAVELSAINT LOUIS PARK

26.3 25.3 25.7 25.9 25.8 25.8 25.3

24.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

VMT/

pers

on/d

ay

17 19 1922 22 21

28

18

26

10

29

17

2725 24 25

40

26 25

31

9

26

37

2523

34

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

Min

neap

olis

Sain

t Pa

ul

Roch

este

r

St.

Clou

d

Dul

uth

Bem

idji

Rich

fiel

d

Hop

kins

Sain

t Lo

uis

Park

Sain

t A

ntho

ny

Edin

a

Falc

on H

eigh

ts

Map

lew

ood

Whi

te B

ear

Lake

Coon

Rap

ids

Oak

dale

Bloo

min

gton

Burn

svill

e

Shor

evie

w

Eaga

n

Kass

on

Eden

Pra

irie

Min

neto

nka

Woo

dbur

y

Rose

mou

nt

Elk

Rive

r

Lake

Elm

o

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELEDVMT/CAPITA/DAY – 2007-2013 AVERAGE

RII AVERAGE, 23.1

MN AVERAGE, 29.7US AVERAGE, 26.6

CENTRAL/STAND-ALONE CITIES

18.7INNER-RING SUBURBS

25.5OUTER-RING SUBURBS

29.6

TOTAL WASTE PRODUCTION(pounds/capita/day)

WASTESAINT LOUIS PARK

Recycled

Incinerated

Landfilled

RII Average

REGIONAL INDICATORS AVERAGE7.5

6.86.4 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1

5.9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

poun

ds/p

erso

n/da

y

TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS(tonnes CO2e/capita/year)

USAVERAGE (2011) – 17.3WORLD AVERAGE (2011) – 4.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

tonn

es C

O2e

/per

son

7-YEAR TRENDSGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Waste Air Travel RII AverageEnergy Vehicle Travel Wastewater

6%

1%

67%

25%

1%

REGIONAL INDICATORS AVERAGE

TONNES CO2E/CAPITA/DAY - 2012

CENTRAL/STAND-ALONE CITIES

74%INNER-RING SUBURBS

64%OUTER-RING SUBURBS

61%

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

AVERAGE % OF GHGEMISSIONS FROM ENERGY

ENERGY

VMT

WASTE

AIR TRAVEL

WASTEWATER

GHG EMISSIONS FROM:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Min

neap

olis

Sain

t Pa

ul

Roch

este

r

Dul

uth

Rich

fiel

d

Hop

kins

Sain

t Lo

uis

Park

Sain

t A

ntho

ny

Edin

a

Falc

on H

eigh

ts

Map

lew

ood

Whi

te B

ear

Lake

Coon

Rap

ids

Oak

dale

Bloo

min

gton

Shor

evie

w

Eaga

n

Eden

Pra

irie

Min

neto

nka

Woo

dbur

y

Rose

mou

nt

Lake

Elm

o

REGIONAL INDICATORS INITIATIVE | NEXT STEPS

Support integration of energy plans into 2040 Comprehensive Planning process for Twin Cities metro area cities:• Develop tools to assist cities in comprehensive planning

– Case studies– A wedge diagram tool– Energy planning templates

• Provide workshops on energy planning tools to local governments in the Twin Cities area

Expand program to be statewide: • Develop an online database for expanded and ongoing tracking• Provide data and support to cities across the state• Identify trends and advocacy opportunities

http://www.regionalindicatorsmn.com/energy-planning

• Bemidji• Bloomington• Burnsville• Coon Rapids• Duluth• Eagan• Eden Prairie• Edina• Elk River• Falcon Heights• Hopkins• Kasson• Lake Elmo• Maplewood• Minneapolis• Minnetonka• Oakdale• Richfield• Rochester• Rosemount• Shoreview• Saint Anthony• St. Cloud• St. Louis Park• St. Paul• White Bear Lake• Woodbury

CITIES

PARTNERS

DATA SOURCESPUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIESAnoka Municipal UtilityBeltrami Electric CooperativeCenterPoint EnergyConnexus EnergyDakota Electric AssociationDuluth Comfort SystemsDuluth Steam CooperativeElk River Municipal UtilitiesGreat River EnergyHennepin Energy Recovery CenterMinnesota Energy ResourcesMinnesota PowerMinnesota Valley Electric CooperativeNRG EnergyOlmsted County Waste to Energy FacilityOtter Tail Power CompanyPeople’s Energy CooperativeRochester Public UtilitiesSt. Paul District EnergyUniversity of Minnesota (Southeast Steam)

Western Lake Superior Sanitation DistrictXcel Energy

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTDuluth Port AuthorityHennepin CountyMetropolitan Airports CommissionMetropolitan Council of the Twin CitiesMinnesota Department of AdministrationMinnesota Department of Employment and Economic DevelopmentMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesMinnesota Department of TransportationMinnesota Pollution Control AgencyRochester International AirportU.S. Energy Information AdministrationUniversity of Minnesota

OTHERDegree Days.netICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability

http://www.regionalindicatorsmn.com/

REGIONAL INDICATORS INITIATIVE

A challenge, assistance & recognition program for accelerating

sustainability actionswww.MnGreenStep.org

31 out of 53 RCM Cities are GS Cities

www.MnGreenStep.org

9 Apple Valley9 Arden Hills9 Burnsville9 Coon Rapids9 Crystal9 Eagan9 Eden Prairie9 Edina9 Falcon Heights9 Fridley9 Golden Valley

9 Hopkins9 Inver Grove

Heights9 Lake Elmo9 Mahtomedi9 Maple Grove9 Maplewood9 New Hope9 Oakdale9 Richfield9 Rochester

9 Rosemount9 Roseville9 Saint Louis Park9 Saint Paul9 Shoreview9 Shorewood9 St. Anthony9 Victoria9 White Bear Lake9 Woodbury

Developed by and for Cities

• 2007: “Green” Star City concept emerges @ CERTs, GPI, Hunt Utilities Group

• 2008: Legislature asks for a report

• 2009: Advisory & technical committees convened

• 2010: Program launch @ League of MN cities conference

• 2012, 2016: Awards from Environmental Initiative & University of MN

• 2016: Step 4 city performance metrics

“Good, better, best” completion

guidance

Reports from cities

Free expert assistance

• Most all of GreenStep’s 170 actions are city investments like Jordan’s, ordinancechanges, and collaborative work with businesses & citizens

• But comp plans give cities a once-in-10-year chance to lay the foundation for plans such as:• Energy plans• GHG plans• Resiliency plans

GreenStep Partners

Main Partners:• League of Minnesota Cities• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency• MN Environmental Quality Board• Great Plains Institute• Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs)• Minnesota Department of Commerce• Izaak Walton League – MN Division• Urban Land Institute – MN, & Regional Council of Mayors• Preservation Alliance of Minnesota

www.MnGreenStep.org

Celebration of Partnership

Environmental Initiative Annual Awards 2012

GreenStep Has Broad Uptake

• 109 cities; 3 tribes• 50% support GS with

a commission

• 42% of MN’s population

• Big (290k) & small (260) population

• Urban and rural

• 3,200 best practice actions recorded

www.MnGreenStep.org

GS city participation by city size

> 25,000

35 TOTAL CITIES IN MINNESOTA above 25,000 people

107 TOTAL205 TOTAL508 TOTAL

Best Practices (14 of 29)

• Living Streets• Mobility Options• City Fleets• Demand-Side Travel Planning

• Public Buildings• Private Buildings• New Buildings• Lighting & Signals• Building Redevelopment

• Comp Plans• City Growth• Mixed Uses• Auto-oriented Development• Design for Natural Resource Conservation

Best Practices (con’t)

• Sustainable Purchasing• Urban Forests• Stormwater• Parks & Trails• Water & Wastewater Facilities• Septic Systems• Solid Waste Reduction• Local Air Quality

• Benchmarks & Community Engagement• Green Business Development• Renewable Energy• Local Food• Business Synergies• Climate Adaptation & Community Resilience

Program Elements

Best practices: 29BP actions: 170Action rating: at 1,2,3 Stars [good, better, best]

# of cities @ recognition levels: • 31 @ Step 1: join• 50 @ Step 2: complete any 4/6/8 BPs [varies by city category]• 23 @ Step 3: complete 16 BPs with a few high priority ones• 6 @ Step 4 : report city performance metrics• 2 @ Step 5: show metric improvement

City categories [capacities]: A, B, C

www.MnGreenStep.org

Measuring Impact:Regional Indicators Initiative

Measuring Impact: Step 4/5 Metrics

www.MnGreenStep.org

Metric #4: Infrastructure for Walking & Biking

� % of housing within 1 mile of a bike route� WalkScore for your city or downtown� Miles of new or reconstructed

sidewalks & trails last year

Philipp MuessigGreenStep Cities Program Coordinatorat the MPCA ¾ Click “Contact” on GreenStep home page

Questions, Comments

www.MnGreenStep.org

Regional Council of Mayors

May 8, 2017

• Protect reliability, jobs and community investment

• Add cleaner natural gas-powered generation

• Leverage affordable, renewable energy

• Reduce emissions• Commitment to carbon-free

nuclear

Our Plan

Sherco 2 Monticello Sherco 3Prairie Island 2

2023 2026 2030 2033 2034 2037 2040

Sherco 1 Prairie Island 1 A.S. King

Baseload Fleet TransitionGuided by Resource Plan

• New wind acquisition

– 1,550 MW

– Ownership of 1,150 MW—Steel for Fuel

– Federal production tax credit

– Cost-competitive with natural gas

– Cost-effective renewables

Economic Value of Wind Energy

Steel for FuelWind displaces other resources

Production Cost by Resource Type

$15

$45$25 $25

$65$75

$40$25

$55

$35 $35

$75

$150

$45

Dollars per MWh

NewWind

NewUtility-Scale

Solar

Coal Combined-Cycle

CombustionTurbine

Biomass& CommunitySolar Gardens

Nuclear

Coal15%

NaturalGas22%

Nuclear28%

Wind25%

Solar8%Other

2%

20302015

Coal34%

NaturalGas15%

Nuclear28% Wind

14%Other9%

Upper Midwest Energy Mix

Thank you

CALL TO ACTION

City OperationsCommunityBeyond

Incorporate climate planning into your comprehensive plans and develop a separate climate action plan.

Pursue community-wide programs and policies.

Advocate for state-level action.

QUESTIONS?

Rick Carter | Senior Vice President, LHBBecky Alexander | Architect & Researcher, LHB Philipp Muessig | Program Coordinator, Minnesota GreenStep Cities, MPCAPJ Martin| Director of Resource Planning, Xcel EnergyKevin Schwain | Director of Product Strategy and Development, Xcel EnergyMark Donahue | Vice President & General Manager, Mortenson