San Jose GHG Inventory Model

Elizabeth Bernal & Emmanuel Assa

Agenda

● Project Overview

● San Jose’s Sustainability Goals

● Review of AECOM Report

● Review of Other Cities’ GHG Inventories

● Discussion and Takeaways for San Jose

● Our Model: a summary

● Our Plan Going Forward: The Next Two Quarters

● Questions?

Project Overview

● Collaboration between Stanford and San Jose● Work together to create a model of city GHG emissions that will benefit San

Jose for years to come and serve as a model for other cities● Goal: Create an GHG emissions dashboard for the city to better visualize city

emissions and inform policy choices.● Our first steps:

○ Reviewing San Jose’s sustainability goals○ Study of San Jose and benchmark cities’ current progress○ Designing a model base for data collection

San Jose Sustainability Goals

San José has a vision for both a smart city and a green city

● San José Green Vision → Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP)● Smart City Vision● USA Sustainable Cities Initiative - UN Sustainable Development Goals

We see our project contributing to these initiatives by helping track and model emissions to inform policy within the city. Specifically, to aid the city in creating a new ESP in the beginning of 2017.

Previous Work: AECOM 2014 Report

Goals of the Report: ● Inventory of San Jose GHG emissions in 2014● Visualize consumption via graphs and charts

Methodology● Breaks down data by source: Transportation, Buildings, Potable Water, Wastewater

Treatment, and Solid Waste

Data Sources● Report collects data from PG&E, various city departments, and larger government

entities (e.g. the Association of Bay Area Governments)

Sectorization of Emissions

1. Energy type--electricity and natural gas2. Mobile sources

a. On-road vehiclesb. Off-road vehicles and equipment

3. Wastewater treatment4. Solid Waste5. Potable Water (negligible)

San Jose Emissions Inventory Summary● Community inventory total: 7.47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide

equivalent (MMT CO2e)○ More than half comes from vehicle use within the city○ ⅓ comes from community energy use

■ Together, these two sectors are 90% of total emissions○ Waste emissions are the other 10%

● 2008 Inventory: 7.61 MMT CO2e/yr○ Transportation emissions increased 16%, as a result of population and employment growth○ Energy emissions decreased by 33% through implementation of energy efficiency programs

and use of cleaner electricity sources.

AECOM Key Findings

1. GHG emissions have decreased by approximately 2% community-wide since 2008.

2. This level indicates that the city has been able to accommodate residential and employment growth more efficiently.

3. Fewer emissions have been generated per unit of growth.4. Based on this progress, the city is on track to meet its own and the State’s

GHG emission reduction target for 20205. Transportation a potential focus point for future policy

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: San Francisco (I/II)City Goals● The SF Climate Action Plan presents estimates of San Francisco’s baseline greenhouse

gas emissions inventory and reduction target and describes recommended emissions reduction actions by sector

● Emissions reduction goal of 20% below 1990 levels

Methodology● Sectors included: transportation, community energy use, solid waste, municipal

operations

Data Sources● PG&E, California Energy Commission, CA Dept of Transportation, Metropolitan

Transportation Commission, Bay Area Rapid Transit, Caltrain, Dept of Motor Vehicles, NorCal and Altamont Landfills, SF Department of Environment, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, Muni, SF Purchasing and Planning Departments

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: San Francisco (II/II)

Strengths

● Extrapolates existing data effectively to fill holes left by unavailable data.

● Comprehensive and vast use of data sources from both the public and private sector

● Able to disaggregate data according to consumption based sectors

Weaknesses

● For our project, some of the methods necessary to estimate data will not be available.

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: Los Angeles (I/II)City Goals● Reduce L.A.’s greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2025, 60% by 2035, and 80% by

2045 using the 1990 baseline.● pLAn presents a vision for long-term outcomes over next two decades in 14 key aspects

of environment, economy, and measures of social equity.

Methodology● Sectors included: energy (residential, commercial, industrial, other), transportation

(on-road, railways, harbor craft, off-road), and waste (solid and water waste)

Data Sources● Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Climate inventory with AECOM

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: Los Angeles (II/II)

Strengths

● Integrates the three main goals of the city

○ Environment○ Economy ○ Social equity

Weaknesses

● Very little methodology included● Policy suggestions and goals are

plentiful, however not very data driven

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: New York (I/II)City Goals● Main goal is “80x50,” an overall goal of reducing New York’s energy consumption by

80% of 2005 levels by 2050

Methodology● Two initial sub-inventories: city-wide (includes everything) and government (only includes

public emissions)● Divided emissions into stationary, transportation, and waste sources● Also broke down data by fuel/energy type (electricity, natural gas, etc.)

Data Sources● Prominent sources include New York MTA, ConEdison, National Grid, Department of

Sanitation, the Port Authority, NY Dept. of Environmental Protection

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: New York (II/II)

Strengths● Sector and fuel source breakdown● Tracking over time component● Detailed and data-driven

Weaknesses● Current policies mostly limited to

public buildings

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: Boston (I/II)

City Goals● Long term: “80x50” goal of reducing emissions by 80% of 2005 levels by 2050● Short-term: “25x20” goal of reducing emissions by 25% of 2005 levels by 2020

Methodology● Divided emissions into Residential, Commercial/Industrial, and Transportation sectors● Also divide by fuel/energy type (electricity, natural gas, methane, etc.)● Often estimated using proportions when direct data was not available

Data Sources● Private companies like NStar and National Grid, state data from EIA of U.S. Census

adjusted by Boston’s relative size, and direct data from city departments and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

GHG Inventories in Peer Cities: Boston (II/II)

Strengths● Results traced over time● Provides detailed methodology for

calculations /estimates

Weaknesses● A large amount of data is estimated● Lack of detail due to lack of

substantial data

Comparison of Emission Reduction GoalsCity Most Recent

Inventory and YearFirst Emissions Reduction Target

Second Emissions Reduction Target

Third Emissions Reduction Target

San Jose 2008: 7.62 MMT CO2e/yr

Reduce to 1990 level by 2020, 15% below 2008

Through 2040, retain 2020 level

80% below 1990 levels by 2050

San Francisco 2002: 9.8 MMT CO2e/yr

20% of 1990 level by 2012

80% below 1990 levels by 2050

--

Los Angeles 1990: 36.2 MMT CO2e/yr

45% of 1990 level by 2025

60% of 1990 level by 2035

80% of 1990 level by 2050

Boston 2013: 6.1 MMT CO2e/yr (18% lower than 2005)

25% of 2005 levels by 2020

80% of 2005 levels by 2050

--

New York 2014: 49.1 MMT CO2e/yr

80% of 2005 levels by 2050

-- --

Takeaways for San Jose

● Goal Reflection○ San Jose’s goals are on-track with its size and growth○ With the addition of specific benchmarks, San Jose is well-positioned for a sustainable future○ AECOM emissions inventory uses comprehensive, clear, and concise methodology

● Potential improvements○ Closer alignment with UN Sustainability goals, as this is an opportunity to stand out

internationally○ Make sub-goals specific to the needs and visions of each department.○ More alignment with other city goals such as affordable housing, public transportation, high

density housing and growth, etc.

Our Proposed Model: Overview

● Taking the best and pushing it one step further● Adjusted breakdown sectors: consumption focus

○ Residential, Commercial/industrial, and public consumption

● Data Gathering○ Re-tracing AECOM’s steps, with additional specificity○ Putting data into visualization-friendly spreadsheet

● Adding an extra dimension: Geospatial view○ By overlaying a map of San Jose with our data, we can further break down emissions○ Ability to isolate zones for policy efforts

Our Proposed Model: Key Qualities

● Visual○ Our model will convey the results of our inventory in a colorful and visually appealing way○ It will allow the City to communicate more effectively both across departments and with the

community

● Interactive○ People will be able to easily adjust the model in order to visualize effects that policy changes

would have on city emissions

● Geospatial○ By breaking down San Jose into different zones, we can isolate specific areas for improvement

(e.g. Residential or commercial area-specific policy decisions)

Looking Ahead: Plan for the Next Quarters

● Winter Quarter○ Continue Collecting data○ Use methodologies gathered to create the model

■ Use GIS to create a dashboard that will model emissions by location and sector in the city.■ Hopefully create a feature where inputs can be changed to estimate how specific

reductions driven by policy and planning will impact emissions level.

● Spring Quarter○ Finalize the model.○ Use it to inform sustainability goals and future policy decisions.

Questions?