Download Climate Protection ActivitiesDocument

BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, there have been a number of initiatives, legislation and other activities
regarding global climate change. Today's discussion will serve to update the Board on activities
in Napa County to date, with a recommendation that the County join ICLEI's Local Governments
for Sustainability Program for an annual membership fee of $1,200. Membership in this Program
will allow the County to benefit from the collective experience of many other jurisdictions who are
also working towards implementing climate protection measures.
HEALTH EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
The health of all individuals is intricately linked with the health of other people, animals and our
environment. The global warming-related impacts identified as most significant to public health in
California include death and sickness related to temperature, air pollution, vector and water-borne
diseases, and wildfires. The magnitude of these health effects in Napa will depend not only on
direct exposures our community may face, but also on the underlying health status, age
distribution, health care access, and socioeconomic status of our residents. As with other
environmental hazards, members of some ethnic and racial minority groups will likely be
disproportionately affected, and some populations such as children and the elderly will be more
vulnerable to the health effects of climate change than others.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND PENDING STATE LEGISLATION
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzeneggar signed an Executive Order (S-3-05) establishing
greenhouse gas reduction targets as follows:



Reduce to year 2000 levels by 2010
Reduce to year 1990 levels by 2020
Reduce to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
AB32
Subsequent to Executive Order S-3-05, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) on September 27, 2006. This legislative action
established mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets to be achieved through a program of
regulatory and market mechanisms. AB32 empowered the Air Resources Board (ARB)
responsible for monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also included a provision
that would allow the governor to invoke a safety valve for up to twelve months in the event of
catastrophic events or the threat of significant economic harm.
AB32 requires the ARB to accomplish the following:
1. Establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions
by January 1, 2008;
2. Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of greenhouse gases by January
1, 2008;
3. Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009 indicating how emission reductions will be achieved
from significant greenhouse gases, including provisions for using both market
mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms;
4. Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and
Technology advancement Advisory Committee to advise the ARB:
5. Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all ARB actions;
6. Adopt a list of discrete, early action measures by July 1, 2007 that can be implemented
before January 1, 2010 and adopt such measures.
1
It should be noted that AB32 does not establish the goal to reduce to 80% below 1990 levels by
2050 that was included in the earlier Governor’s Executive Order.
Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, the ARB is required to
evaluate several factors, including but not limited to:





Impact on California’s economy, environment and public health;
Equity between regulated entities;
Electrical reliability;
Conformance to other environmental laws; and
Ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities.
The ARB recently approved 44 measures defined as early action measures. Cumulatively, these
measures are projected to reduce about 42 million metric tons of annual greenhouse gas
emissions, about a quarter of the total needed to meet AB 32's goal of rolling back emissions to
1990 levels.
The ARB is scheduled to provide guidance and protocols for local government greenhouse gas
reduction in the third quarter of calendar year 2008 (July – September 2008).
SB 375:
Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg) is a follow up piece of legislation that begins the process of bringing
stronger planning and transportation mandates to local government for the purpose of meeting
the green house gas reduction targets of AB 32. If adopted, SB 375 would do this by requiring
the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in consultation with the Air Resources Board
(ARB), to adopt guidelines for travel demand models that are used by the larger regional
transportation planning agencies, require these guidelines to account for the relationship between
land use density and household automobile usage, including the impact of enhanced transit
service levels on vehicle usage, and the amount of new travel and land development resulting
from highway or passenger rail expansion.
Further as currently drafted SB 375 would require ARB, in consultation with the affected
transportation agencies, to set regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets related to the
transportation sector, and establish measures to reduce these emissions. (emphasis added)
Also, it would require regional transportation agencies (such as the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission) to include in their regional transportation plans a "preferred growth scenario,"
consistent with state planning priorities, which includes various land-use elements (such as
accommodation of housing needs and development exclusions for open space and farmlands),
complies with the federal Clean Air Act, includes an inventory of the region's emission of
greenhouse gases from automobiles and light trucks sector, and establishes measures to reduce
these emissions to the target levels developed by the ARB. If the preferred growth scenario is
unable to achieve the ARB emission targets, the transportation agencies are further required to
prepare a supplement report showing how the targets could be achieved through additional
transportation investments, land use incentives, or other programs and incentives.
According to Senator Steinberg’s office, the rationale for this bill is that changes in land use and
transportation policy must be made to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals of
AB 32. The bill is intended to accomplish these objectives by requiring planners to develop and
use sophisticated modeling tools to estimate the impacts of growth policies on vehicle usage, and
implementing a planning framework, along with fiscal incentives, for achieving targeted emissions
reductions.
Opponents of the bill (including at this time the League of Cities) assert that the bill requires
unworkable new land-use rules that erode local control. They also claim it
2
will create undue complications with respect to housing development, result in costly
reimbursable state mandate for development of models and preferred growth scenarios, and
potentially compromise future transportation funding.
Attorney General Opinions:
Recently at the California State Association of Counties conference, Attorney General Jerry
Brown warned County leaders that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides him
with adequate legal authority to mandate Counties to adopt Green House Gas (GHG) reducing
policies.
Attorney General Brown earlier this year sued San Bernardino County on the grounds that the
General Plan did not address climate protection adequately. This led to a settlement between the
AG’s office and the County. Attorney General Brown’s recent public comments have made it
clear that legal action will follow those Counties that do not address the issue of climate
protection through the existing Environmental Impact Report process involved with local planning
as well as adopting those policies which will reduce production of GHGs such as placement of
any incorporated development near transportation hubs and housing centers.
Although the State Office of Planning and Research has yet to provide guidance on how climate
change should be considered in the CEQA process, planners throughout the state have been
grappling with this issue. Here in Napa County, the General Plan EIR has taken a conservative
approach , providing a very gross calculation of greenhouse gas emissions, and finding the
impacts of even limited growth and development in the County significant and unavoidable. The
EIR also recommends mitigation measures related to automobile trip reduction, preparation of a
detailed inventory of green house gas emissions, and development of a plan to reduce the
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, similar to requirements of AB 32. Other EIRs being prepared
in the County will also address this issue.
STATUS REPORT ON THE BASELINE ANALYSIS AND ACTION PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH
COUNTY OPERATIONS
In December 2006, the Board of Supervisors discussed whether it was advisable to join the
California Registry as an initial response to Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. As mentioned above, AB32 requires the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) to develop regulations that will reduce California greenhouse emission by 25 percent by
2020, using 1990 as the base year. Mandatory caps will begin in 2012. While the Board did not
take this action, it did request that staff return with an agenda item to discuss what further steps
might be taken to be proactive in the County's response to AB32 and, in particular, the
establishment of a baseline year as required by AB 32. Subsequently, the Board hired an energy
consultant, Tim Holmes of Kenwood Energy to assist staff in this effort. Tim Holmes had
previously provided assistance to Sonoma County in the development of its Climate Protection
Action Plan.
In May 2007, the Public Works Department and Tim Holmes provided a presentation to the Board
that focused on general information regarding greenhouse gas emissions associated with County
operations and the development of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Action Plan and Baseline Analysis.
Since then, Public Works and Mr. Holmes, in coordination with Pacific, Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E), have completed the initial collection of data for energy usage of both facilities
and fleet. This has been a complex and time consuming process given the number of County
facilities and data anomalies regarding electric, gas, and gasoline usage. The preparation of the
Baseline Report is now underway. In the report, Public Works will make recommendations as to
the baseline that should be established for AB32 purposes, and will also provide a projection as
to what the County’s carbon footprint for 2010 would be if the County had taken no previous
initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions. This document will also serve as an introduction to
3
the development of the Climate Action Protection Plan. It is anticipated that Public Works will
return in March 2008 with the Baseline Report and recommendations.
In July 2007, the Board was notified that the County joined ABAG’s Energy Watch to identify and
analyze potential energy savings in the operations of County owned buildings. In coordination
with Energy Watch, an action plan is being developed to build upon the County’s previous efforts
of becoming “green” by:
1. Developing an Energy Assessment Report (EAR) that will illustrate and compare County
facilities' energy intensity and consumption. This EAR will ensure that facilities with the
highest potential for energy savings and improvement are prioritized for subsequent
energy efficiency physical audits.
2. Identifying savings opportunities and greenhouse emission reductions through physical
audits to identify energy saving potential for retrofit and recommissioning projects.
In November 2007, Energy Watch completed its EAR, and met with Public Works and Tim
Holmes to discuss quantitative information, the previous work done to date by the County to
provide for energy efficient facilities, and to develop an action plan of where it made sense to
conduct physical audits to identify energy saving potential of the most promising retrofit and
recommissioning projects. As part of this process, it was determined that retro-commissioning
audit interviews should be completed for the Administration and Hall of Justice facilities with
Energy Watch proposing an action plan for physical audits for these and other facilities in
December 2007. It is anticipated that Energy Watch will complete these physical audits by
February 2008, with preliminary recommendations and cost-benefit analyses provided in March
2008.
Tim Holmes will also be preparing a preliminary cost-benefit analysis for further photo-voltaic
system improvements given that the Energy Watch does not include that element within its
funded program.
These efforts are supplemental to previous actions the County has taken to reduce GHG’s, which
include:
1. Designing the new Sheriff Administration Building and Juvenile Justice Center to be
LEEDS certifiable.
2. Implementing Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and Lighting retrofits at
several County owned buildings.
3. Starting a “Greening of the Fleet” program through hybrid purchases and bio-diesel
conversions.
All of the County’s efforts to date have focused on County government operations, which
contribute a small percentage to the county’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. Developing a
comprehensive inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources in the county will require
additional analysis, although the program-level Draft EIR prepared for the General Plan Update in
February 2007 contains a series of rough calculations based on vehicle miles traveled and
household energy use. The Final EIR, which is due to be completed later this month, will include
a similarly rough calculation based on non-residential (commercial/industrial) energy use.
It is anticipated that Public Works will return to the Board in June 2008 with a draft Climate Action
Protection Plan focused on how the County can reduce greenhouse emission for its operations
(that is, facilities, fleet and employees’ travel to and from the workplace). The plan will include
4
increased transparency for the public, with the County regularly reporting its key metrics (energy
use, vehicle miles traveled, etc.).
Results of these analyses point to the need for a more detailed inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions countywide, and this is something which will be completed within the next year if
proposed goals, policies, and action items of the pending General Plan Update are adopted.
(See General Plan Update discussion below.)
CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES RECOMMENDED IN THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
Based on public comments received during the February-June 2007 public comment period,
including comments from the Gasser Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological
Diversity, and others, the General Plan Update has been revised to include a number of
suggested goals, policies, and action items related to global climate change. Suggested goals
include the following:



Promote policies to ensure the long term sustainability of Napa County, including its
environment, economy and social equity;
Reduce emissions of local greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change and;
Promote the economic and environmental health of Napa County by conserving energy,
increasing the efficiency of energy use, and producing renewable energy locally.
Suggested policies focus on ensuring that the County takes a leadership role in improving
emissions from its own operations, gathering updated information and responding accordingly,
and partnering with the private sector. Policies include the following:
Policy CON-65: The County shall support efforts to reduce and offset GHG emissions and strive
to maintain and enhance the County’s current level of carbon sequestration
functions through the following measures:
a) Study the County’s natural, agricultural and urban ecosystems to determine
their value as carbon sequesters and how they may potentially increase.
b) Preserve and enhance the values of Napa County’s plant life as carbon
sequestration systems to recycle greenhouse gases.
c) Perpetuate policies in support of urban-centered growth and agricultural
preservation preventing sprawl.
d) Perpetuate policies in support of alternative modes of transportation,
including transit, paratransit, walking, and biking.
e) Consider GHG emissions in the review of discretionary projects.
Consideration may include an inventory of GHG emissions produced by the
traffic expected to be generated by the project, any changes in carbon
sequestration capacities caused by the project, and anticipated fuel needs
generated by building heating, cooling, lighting systems, manufacturing or
commercial activities on the premises. Projects shall consider methods to
reduce GHG emissions and incorporate permanent and verifiable emission
offsets.
f)
Establishment of partnerships with experts, trade associations, nongovernmental associations, and community and business leaders to support
and participate in programs related to global climate change.
5
[Implemented by Action Item CON CPSP-1 and 2]
Policy CON-66:
The County shall promote the implementation of sustainable practices and
green technology in agriculture, commercial, industrial, and residential
development through the following actions:
a) Project Construction
1) Utilize recycled, low-carbon and otherwise climate-friendly building
materials such as salvaged and recycled content materials for building,
hard surfaces, and landscaping materials;
2) Minimize, reuse and recycle construction-related waste; and
3) Utilize alternative fuels in construction equipment and require
construction equipment to utilize the best available technology to
reduce emissions.
b) Education and Outreach
1) Assure that County Staff is trained to provide guidance, if requested, to
residents and agricultural, commercial, and industrial users on
sustainable practices and green technology;
2) Cooperate with and develop partnerships with public, private, and nonprofit groups to further the knowledge and implementation of
sustainable practices; and
3) Encourage residential, commercial, industrial, processing, and
agricultural projects to develop methods to reduce and capture CO2
produced and emitted and to sequester that which is captured.
Policy CON-67:
The County shall promote and encourage “green building” design,
development and construction through the achievement of Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards set by the U.S. Green
Building Council, the Green Point Rated system standards set by the
Builditgreen.org, or equivalent programs. Actions in support of this policy shall
include:
a) Auditing current County practices to assess opportunities and barriers to
implementation of current sustainable practices.
b) Amending the County Code as necessary to remove barriers to and
encourage “green” construction.
c) Developing new County buildings as “green buildings,” utilizing sustainable
construction and practices.
d) Encourage all new large development projects and major renovation of
existing facilities to be based on Green Building Council standards utilizing
sustainable construction and practices to achieve a minimum LEED rating of
Silver, or comparable level on the Green Point Rated system per standards
set by Builditgreen.org or other comparable updated rating systems.
e) Support state and federal incentive programs that offer rebates and costsharing related to the implementation of “green building” standards and
LEED certification.
6
[Implemented by Action Item CON CPSP-3]
Policy CON-68:
The County shall promote research and the development and use of advanced
and renewable energy technology through the following actions:
a) Use expedited permit processing or other incentives as promotion
mechanisms.
b) Assist in securing grants to support the implementation of photovoltaic,
wind, and other renewable energy technologies to provide a portion of the
County’s energy needs.
c) Encourage the use of renewable energy resources in residential,
commercial, industrial, and agricultural projects and uses.
[Implemented by Action Item CON CPSP-4]
Policy CON-69:
The County shall provide incentives and opportunities for the use of energyefficient forms of transportation such as public transit, carpooling, walking, and
bicycling. This shall include the provision and/or the extension of transit to
urban areas where development densities (residential and nonresidential)
would support transit use, as well as bus turnouts/access, bicycle storage, and
carpool/vanpool parking where appropriate.
Policy CON-70:
The County shall seek to increase the amount of energy produced through
locally available energy sources, including establishing incentives for, and
removing barriers to, renewable and alternative energy resources (solar, wind)
where they are compatible with the maintenance and preservation of
environmental quality. [Implemented by Action Item CON CPSP-4 and 5]
Policy CON-71:
Encourage the use of bio-fuels and geothermal energy resources where viable
and environmentally sustainable.
Policy CON-72:
Seek to reduce the energy impacts from new residential and commercial
projects by applying Title 24 energy standards as required by law and providing
information to the public and builders on available energy conservation
techniques, products and methods available to exceed those standards by
15% or more.
Policy CON-73:
The County shall monitor the ecological effects of climate change in Napa
County over time, including sea level rise, effects on water resources, local
microclimates, native vegetation, agriculture, and the economy. Consistent
with the principle of adaptive management, the County shall adapt policies and
operations to address identified effects as feasible.
Policy CON-74:
The County shall evaluate new technologies for energy generation and
conservation and solid waste disposal as they become available, and pursue
their implementation as appropriate in a manner consistent with the principle of
adaptive management. This evaluation shall include review of promising
technological advances which may be useful in decreasing County greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, increasing renewable energy that is generated locally,
and review of the County’s success in meeting targets for GHG emission
reductions. [Implemented by Action Item CON CPSP-4]
Implementation actions related to these goals and policies are as follows:
7
Action Item CON CPSP-1. The County shall develop a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
inventory measuring baseline levels of GHGs emitted by County
operations through the use of electricity, natural gas, fossil fuels in
fleet vehicles and County staff commute trips, and establish
reduction targets. [Implements Policy 65]
Action Item CON CPSP-2. The County shall conduct a GHG emission inventory analysis of all
major emission sources in the County by the year 2008 in a
manner consistent with Assembly Bill 32, and then seek reductions
such that emissions are equivalent to year 1990 levels by the year
2020. [Implements Policy CON 65]
Action Item CON CPSP-3. Conduct an audit within the next five years of County facilities to
evaluate energy use, the effectiveness of water conservation
measures, production of GHGs, use of recycled and renewable
products and indoor air quality to develop recommendations for
performance improvement or mitigation.
Update the audit
periodically and review progress towards implementation of its
recommendations. [Implements Policy 67]
Action Item CON CPSP-4. Map Napa County’s biomass, wind, geothermal, solar photovoltaic,
solar thermal, biofuel, landfill gas and other potential renewable
energy sources and partner with other organizations and industry
to disseminate information about the potential for local energy
generation. [Implements Policy CON 68, 70 and 74]
Action Item CON CPSP-5. The County shall quantify increases in locally generated energy
between 2000 and 2010, and establish annual numeric targets for
local production of “clean” (i.e., minimal GHG production) energy
by renewable sources, including solar, wind, biofuels, waste, and
geothermal. [Implements Policy CON 70]
Action Item CON CPSP-6. The County shall periodically review and update the County Code
to be consistent with requirements of CARB and the BAAQMD.
[Implements Policy CON 75, 78, 82 and 85]
All of the above goals, policies and action items are subject to change prior to adoption of the
General Plan Update, and County staff would welcome input from the Board.
ACTIVITIES OCCURING IN OTHER AREAS
The Green Business program, an Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) sponsored
program which was reintroduced to Napa County by the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) in 2006, continues to garner significant interest from local businesses who
want to improve and be recognized for the activities which go beyond compliance. These
businesses pledge to be in regulatory compliance, and then move beyond that by implementing
various activities from a standard checklist of energy and water conservation measures, solid
waste reduction, and pollution prevention activities. To date about a dozen businesses have been
certified by the program (recently certified businesses include eco-Organize, Green Method
Construction, Charter Oak Bank, the offices of the Napa Valley Vintners, and Edwards
Engineering), with many others in the process. The Department has been working closely with
the Napa Valley Vintners (NVV) to develop the Green Business program for wineries, and
recently our first winery (Chateau Boswell) achieved certification. Many other wineries are in line
for certification in the coming year.
8
The Board has authorized DEM to assist in funding (up to $20,000) NCTPA’s hiring of a staff
member to more fully run and expand the Green Business program, and NCTPA reports that they
are working on recruiting for this position. Once on board DEM will turn over the Green Business
program to NCTPA, while continuing to manage the winery portion of the certification process.
Napa Valley Vintners (NVV), Napa Valley Grapegrowers (NVG) and Napa County Farm Bureau
(NCFB) have been integrally involved in the “Napa Greens” program (aka “Fish Friendly Farming”
in other jurisdictions) where green business and environmental considerations are the central
focus in the development of local farm plans. The Agricultural Commissioner has worked in a
regional way with the Agricultural Commissioners in Mendocino, Solano and Sonoma Counties to
incorporate these county agencies and the statewide laws and regulations they enforce, into the
framework for development of local farm plans under the Napa Greens or FFF program.
In addition to their participation in the Napa Greens program, the Napa Valley Vintners have
begun a scientific evaluation of the impacts of climate change on their industry. The following are
excerpts from an NVV article which describes this project and can be found on their web-site at:
http://www.napavintners.com/:
“One morning in July 2006, newspapers across the nation read that the global wine industry is
doomed. A widely-reported study from Purdue University, funded by NASA and published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, asserted that global warming will reduce
viable wine grape acreage in the United States by more than 80%, and make it impossible to
grow high-quality wine grapes in many of the currently outstanding wine regions by the end of this
century.
While the news was titillating and made for dramatic headlines that Napa's famed wine industry
was doomed, the headlines belie the fact that there is a lot that is unknown about climate change
as it affects the wine industry and particularly, Napa Valley. While most agree that reduction of
greenhouse gases and curtailment of global warming should be the cornerstone of forwardthinking business and environmental policy, winegrowers in Napa Valley are poised to look at not
only what they can do within their own environment, but also how they can help shape future
policy world-wide because of their high-profile agricultural product. If as the headlines imply,
Napa's wine industry is the canary in the coal mine, no one can look at the Napa Valley wine
industry and think, "boy those guys are in bad shape," just as the coal miner doesn't look to the
canary gasping for air and say, "tough break for that canary." Perhaps individuals can look at the
signs to see what can be done to shape a responsible future.
To that end Napa Valley Vintners (NVV), the non-profit trade association with nearly 300 winery
members in Napa, have created a Climate Change Task Force, working with noted geophysicists
from Scripps Institute of Oceanography and their own pool of vineyard owners and managers to
learn what is really happening in Napa Valley to date and then project a more accurate model for
how they might adjust farm practices to maintain Napa's leadership role in viticulture and
winemaking.
They engaged the scientists at Scripps specifically because they deal with the ocean's effect on
this specific climate, the single-most important influence on weather in Napa. None of the studies
to date have factored in the unique micro-climates of Napa when projecting climate models.
There is some suggestion that Napa Valley might actually become cooler as interior valleys
warm, because of the influence of fog from the Pacific. As Mark Twain wrote in the 19th century,
"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco," which is because the warmer it
is in California's Central Valley, the cooler it is along the coast. Fog is what moderates this
region's climate so dramatically in the growing season famous for warm days, influenced by
interior heat and cool nights, brought about by the proximity to the coast. Of note, the two
warmest years on record have been 1998 and 2005, which were two of the coolest growing
9
season in Napa Valley, so it seems there is much more to learn regarding climate modeling as it
affects California's coastal microclimates.
The process is underway to more fully understand what vintners and growers need to be
prepared for in the short and long term to maintain their industry. The philosophy is somewhat
dated, but absolutely still applies, "Act Locally, Think Globally."…”
Stanford University Doctoral Candidate, Kim Nicholas Cahill is the researcher directly involved
with this scientific endeavor. Recently, Kim was invited to attend the Great Wine Capitals Global
Network international conference in Porto, Portugal, where she gave an update on her research.
While there, Kim discovered collaborative potential with the Italian delegation from Tuscany and
Florence and even worked with Italian researcher, Gaetano Zipoli, Research Manager, CNRIBIMET, Florence on the next steps in their collaborative research plans.
Several local wineries (Saintsbury, Frog’s Leap and Shafer Wineries, to name but a few) have
gained attention for their adoption and installation of photo-voltaic cell technologies for energy
production at their facilities. It has been said that more of these technologies are being installed in
Napa County than anywhere else in the nation. This is a trend expected to continue as local
producers strive to lead the way on sustainable issues.
While not directly related to County Greenhouse Gas reduction, there are significant legislative
and non-governmental organization (NGO) activities at the local, State and Federal level to move
forward the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). The concept of EPR is that
manufacturers and distributors who create products, particularly those that are hazardous in their
disposal (such as electronics, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, mercury thermometers, and others)
should bare the responsibility for disposing of these items. When this responsibility is placed on
these producers, it has been found that the producers quickly move to make the products more
recyclable and/or less hazardous by design. These activities result in more efficient products, and
fewer GHG emissions. The direct benefit to the County is that the waste disposal costs for these
products, which is currently borne by local governments, rightly gets shifted back to the private
sector and specific consumers. Some information on recent EPR activities is attached.
The Gasser Foundation has launched an effort whereby the Foundation will direct its philanthropy
to support the environmental sustainability of the Napa Valley. Its “Sustainable Napa Valley
Initiative” (working title) will promote:
• reduced emission of greenhouse gases;
• use of renewable energy sources;
• energy efficiency in building construction and business operations;
• use of recycled products in construction and operations of homes, businesses, and
schools;
• water conservation; and
• healthy indoor environments.
The Gasser Foundation will achieve this mission by:
 committing its financial and intellectual capital,
 serving as a leader in the creation of cost effective, innovative sustainable strategies, and
 increasing public awareness of environmental issues.
As mentioned above, NCTPA is in process of hiring an Analyst level Extra help position to help
implement the Green Business Program and is also applying for grant funding from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District Grant funds for the creation of a Climate Protection Circuit Rider.
The Circuit Rider Position would work with all NCTPA member Agencies to augment their climate
protection efforts and the analyst position will be working on the implementation of the Green
Business Program.
10
NCTPA has also begun running Bio-Diesel in one of its routes on a pilot basis and will be
expanding that usage shortly.
It is clear that portions of the private sector are very interested in voluntarily moving beyond
compliance into the areas are resource conservation, efficiency, and environmental excellence.
DISCUSSION OF COOL COUNTIES INITIATIVE
The Cool Counties initiative based its goals upon the Governor’s 2005 Executive Order.
Specifically the Cool Counties initiative calls upon Counties to work to reduce emissions within
the geographical boundary of the county to 80 percent below current levels by 2050. This goal
sets a standard that is higher than that required under AB 32. The Board’s direction to date has
been to develop a Climate Action Plan that will comply with AB 32. It is unknown at this time as to
the short-term costs of implementing a Climate Action Plan, but it is certain that the short term
costs of implementing a more aggressive plan that would comply with the Cool Counties initiative
will be greater. If the Board chooses, staff could analyze the impact of the Cool Climate goal
when it returns in June with the Climate Action Plan for AB 32. This may help the Board make an
informed decision on the initiative. Because of the larger financial commitment in upcoming years
staff does not recommend endorsing the Cool Counties Initiative at this time.
11