Summary
of June 8, 2000
Public
Advisory Committee Workshop Atlanta, GA
Jan Berry, Tom Elmore, Cindy Gibson, Jake Gilmer, Alan Jones, Krishnan Kandasamy, Leslie Montgomery, Danny Orlando, Ira Silverburg, Kevin Snape, Mark Steele, and Linda Thomas
Jay Hall and Will Schroeer
Lynorae Benjamin, Steve Horton, John Marsh, and Alan Powell
The meeting was called to order on June 8, 2000 at 10:00 A.M. in the Macon Room of the Sam Nunn Federal Building in Atlanta, G.A.
Will Schroeer briefly described the Demand Management research proposal and the four-phase approach that will be used. In Phase I, ICF will broadly screen existing technologies or policies (strategies) that have the potential to reduce emissions by the efficient use of energy and transportation. Each strategy will be ranked in terms of its ability to reduce air emissions and its market penetration by the years 2010 and 2040. In Phase II, ICF will quantify the economic and emission reduction potential of each of the most promising energy efficiency and transportation strategies. The evaluation will focus on estimating the reductions in emissions associated with each of the strategies in 2010 and 2040. In Phase III, ICF will refine the analysis model used in Phase II and produce to a state-by-state set of emission management strategies and companion implementation strategies. In Phase IV, ICF will estimate the emissions reductions based on the most likely implementation strategy for the years 2010 and 2040.
He stated that today’s workshop is part of Phase I and that
its purpose is to develop consensus on
the top 20 strategies or technologies in energy efficiency and transportation,
which ICF will evaluate for emission reduction potential.
Jay Hall explained how ICF would establish the baseline of energy use and emissions for residential (single-family, multifamily, and manufactured) and commercial (office, retail, education, warehouse, and light industrial) building sectors and the assumptions they would use in the analysis. Assumptions include: 1.) number of buildings/commercial floor space based on population, 2.) one prototype building based on building types and location, 3.) fuel mix based on average per sector, and 4.) technology penetration rates based on average of end-use technologies. He also noted that there are many types and levels of emissions data that ICF can produce and that they needed to know:1.) what pollutants should they analyze for reduction potential and 2.) in what format should the emission data be reported? Tom Elmore noted that the RFP stipulated the following emissions be analyzed: NOx, SOx, VOC’s, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Jake Gilmer agreed to set up a conference call between ICF and the Emissions Subcomittee to determine the emission data format.
Mr. Hall presented twenty potential technologies that could increase energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, as follows:
Residential Buildings |
Commercial Buildings |
|
1.
Duck Tightening |
1.
Building Baseline or Energy Audit |
|
2.
Air Sealing and Weatherization |
2.
High Efficiency Lighting Systems |
|
3.
Increased Attic Insulation |
3.
Lighting Motion Detectors |
|
4.
High Efficiency A/C Equipment |
4.
Envelop Improvements |
|
5.
High Efficiency Heating Equipment |
5.
High Efficiency Fan, Pump, & Motors |
|
6.
High Efficiency Windows |
6.
High Efficiency A/C Equipment |
|
7.
Water Heating System Improvements |
7.
High Efficiency Heating Equipment |
|
8.
High Efficiency Appliances |
8.
Commissioning |
|
9.
High Efficiency Lighting |
9.
Control Strategies |
|
10.
Cool Roofs |
10.
Cool Roofs |
|
|
11.
Combined Heat & Power Systems |
|
|
12.
Photovoltaics |
The committee discussed each of the technologies and noted that several additional options should be considered: on-demand water heaters, low-fall dams, thermostat replacement, passive solar construction, ground-source heat pumps, microturbines, photovoltaic shingles, fuel switch programs, and use of recycled materials. Jay Hall agreed to integrate the additional proposals into the list that he presented and categorize then by each topic area. Kevin Snape volunteered to provide information to ICF on low-fall dam technology.
The committee also emphasized that that the strategies should be evaluated based on emissions reduction as a primary consideration and energy efficiency as a secondary consideration. They also requested that ICF present the analytical results of Phase II in a matrix format that enables the members to compare the cost and benefits of each technology or strategy.
Will Schroeer explained how ICF would establish the baseline of transportation emissions and the assumptions they would use in the analysis. ICF modified the precision of the SAMI emissions data by reducing vehicle classes from eight to two and road types from twelve to three. Growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was estimated using VMT from the Federal Highway Administration, MSA population growth, national population growth, and VMT estimates from the State of Georgia. Vehicle emissions baseline will be from the SAMI “on the books” emissions inventory.
Mr. Schroeer presented fourteen potential technologies and policies that could reduce transportation related emissions. These were chosen based on the criteria that they be demand-oriented, incentive-based, technically feasible, and likely to affect emissions. Below are the strategies presented:
Presented Transportation Strategies |
|
1.
Increase Parking Pricing |
|
2.
Increase Gas Tax |
|
3.
VMT-Based Auto Insurance |
|
4.
Transit-Oriented Development |
|
5.
Road Pricing |
|
6.
Employer-Provided TDM Programs |
|
7.
Reduce Transit Fares |
|
8.
Improve Transit Service |
|
9.
Vehicle Efficiency Taxes or Feebates |
|
10.
Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
|
11.
Educate Public Regarding SOV Alternatives |
|
12.
Provide AFV Infrastructure |
|
13.
Vehicle Retirement or Buyback Programs |
|
14.
Increase Ridesharing-Oriented Infrastructure |
Mr. Schroeer asked the committee to prioritize the list and reduce the number to ten strategies. After much discussion, the committee decided to revise the list as follows:
· Combine Strategies 3 and 5
· Combine Strategies 4 and 10; add Traffic Calming
· Combine Strategies 7 and 8; add Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
· Combine Strategies 9 and 12; add AFV Adoption
· Remove Strategy 11; part of Phase III Market Penetration
· Remove Strategy 13
· Add Inspection and Maintanence (I &M)
· Add Clean Diesel Fuel Technology
The revised list is made up of the following ten strategies:
Transportation Strategies to Evaluate |
|
1.
Increase Parking Pricing |
|
2.
Increase Gas Tax |
|
3.
VMT-Based Pricing |
|
4.
Transit, Bike, & Pedestrian-Oriented Development |
|
5.
Employer Provided TDM Programs |
|
6.
Lower Transit Fares & Improve Service |
|
7.
Aggressive AFV Program |
|
8.
Increase Inspection & Maintenance (I&M) 9.
Increase Ridesharing-Oriented Infrastructure |
|
10.
Clean Diesel Fuel Technology |
Mr. Schroeer informed the committee that he would soon be attaching stringency levels with some of the strategies and he would like to receive input from the committee by a conference call. A call was scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2000 at 2:00 P.M. to discuss the levels at which the strategies should be analyzed (i.e., magnitude of gas tax or transit fare reduction).
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 P.M.