Loading...
09.11.13 EAB Packet CITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: September 11, 2013 TIME: 6 p.m. th PLACE: 1739 Broadway, 4 floor, Park Central 401 Conference Room 1.CALL TO ORDER A.Swearing in of Morgan Lommele, new board member 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 10, 2013 A.The Environmental Advisory Board minutes are scheduled for approval. 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Market Innovation Program Update (Jamie Harkins) B.Debrief of August 19, 2013 Joint Board Workshop 5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8.ADJOURNMENT For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, at the Boulder Public Main Library’s Reference Desk, or at the Planning and Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor. CITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER The board must have a quorum (three members present) before the meeting can be called to order. AGENDA The board may rearrange the order of the agenda or delete items for good cause. The board may not add items requiring public notice. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to address the board (three minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows: 1. Presentations Staff presentation (15 minutes maximum*) Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. Environmental Advisory Board questioning of staff for information only. 2. Public Hearing Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (three minutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time allotted will be determined by the Chair. Two minutes will be added to the pooled speaker for each such speaker’s allotted time up to a maximum of 10 minutes total. Time remaining is presented by a green blinking light that means one minute remains, a yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a red light and beep means time has expired. Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group please state that for the record as well. Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize comments wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. Interested persons can send a letter to the Community Planning and Sustainability staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, to be included in the board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the board meeting. 3. Board Action Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. Motions are generally used to approve (with or without conditions), deny, or continue agenda item to a later date (generally in order to obtain additional information). Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the board. Members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon by the Chair. Board action (the vote). An affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required to pass a motion approving any action. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORYBOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY Any Environmental Advisory Board member, City Manager, or the City Attorney may introduce before the board matters which are not included in the formal agenda. ADJOURNMENT The board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 8 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 8 p.m. except by majority vote of board members present. *The Chair may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her comments. CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: July 10, 2013 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Juliet Bonnell, 303-441-1931 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: MaraAbbott, Tim Hillman, Larissa Read, and Stephen Morgan. Staff Members Present: Jonathan Koehn, Brett KenCairn, Juliet Bonnell 1. CALL TO ORDER M. Abbott The Environmental Advisory Board temporary Chair declared a quorum and the meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. In the absence of a board chair, EAB members decided to rotate chair duties until the end of the L. ReadT. Hillman year. It was determined that will chair the August and September meetings. S. MorganM. will chair the October meeting. tentatively agreed to chair theNovember meeting. Abbott will chair theDecember meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES S. Morgan, T. Hillman On a motion byseconded by, the Environmental Advisory Board L. Read approved (3-0,was absent from June 5, 2013 meeting) the June 5, 2013 meeting minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Nick Francisfrom Phoenix, AZ indicated that he isworking with the Rocky Mountain Institute onacarbon neutrality program for Arizona StateUniversity. He has been studying other cities’ sustainability plans and he is interested in where Boulder is headedand what its plan will ultimately look like. He offeredto gather information and share Phoenix’s resources and approacheswith Boulder.He noted that most cities have a defining characteristic that becomes their priority (e.g. mass transit, carbon neutrality, retrofitting commercial sectors, equity in neighborhoods, etc.) of their plan. He mentioned that one defining characteristic that he has not come across is the idea of integrating school curriculum programswith government/city projects. He felt that this would be an interesting and innovative way to move carbon neutrality forward. J. Koehn noted that the Boulder Sustainability Alliance, comprised of the city, county, CU and N. school district,is an existingvehicle with a MOU designed toaccomplish exactly what Francis was proposing. Craig Schuller, who also worksfor Rocky Mountain Institute, mentioned that he isfocused on buildingsustainability into school curriculabecause achieving our climate goals requires a generational change. He felt that experiential learning for kids is essential and this proposed teaming of the city and schools would providean opportunity for Boulder to be a sustainability beacon nationwide. B. KenCairn noted that different city departments, including OSMP, Parks,Water Conservation, Energy Efficiency, and Zero Wastegroups have beenworking toward coordinating their education and outreach methods and messages.To date, Water Conservation has been the most effective in integrating with school systemsbecause they have an educator who has developed part of a curriculum that can fit into the current school curriculum, requiring no additional school staff time or resources. J. Koehn commented thatBoulder Valley School District (BVSD)has done a great jobof integrating concepts of sustainability in its science program curriculum, but not in a holistic package becauseitis challenged by competing priorities. C. Schuller talked about not adding to curriculum, but instead substituting and modifying currentcurriculum. He proposed incorporating sustainability concepts into existing programs. He gave examples of how to combine and connect all school subjects through sustainability messaging. C. SchullerN. Francis and offeredthemselves as resources to help Boulderimplement positive change bypartnering with schools to work towardsustainability goalsas a community. T. Hillman noted that part of why Water Conservationhas been particularly successful is because they are implemented by the utility and they have the financial resources to help fund sustainability outreach.He mentioned that Xcel has lots of resources that could be tapped into. C. Schuller mentioned that in a study he conducted for the National Wildlife Federation he discovered that students at CU are handing out CFLs to student apartments and this program is sponsored and funded by Xcel. J. Koehn noted that Xcel must meet certain requirements set by the PUC. If they exceed the requirements, then they get a bonus/incentives. C.Schuller noted that finding a donor for these programs is important. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS B. KenCairn provided an update to the board regarding the Climate Commitment TMP. On July 30, 2013aCity CouncilStudy Sessionis being held to provide council with an update on the city’s climate commitment efforts. An RFP for consultants was issued in March. In April, two sets of consultants were chosen. Brendle is leading the efforttochoose a goal and measurable objectivesand strategy.SWCA is building a data management platform to be an on-going repository for city operations and GHG information and to use it for inventory and forecasting. The first step for Brendle was to draft a paper to provide CC with guidance around making sure it had fully considered the establishment of the climate commitment goal, whether it should be climate or carbon neutrality.This goal, captured in a white paperthat will be sent to EAB members next week, will provide the framework for all that the city is working towardand has become a broader document thanoriginally planned. B. KenCairn provided EAB with an overview of the information that will be included in the whitepaper. The whitepaper will providea broad view of the options and range of possibilities that can be used to work toward carbon neutrality.An updated inventory of what other leading cities around the world are doingto achieve carbon neutralityis included.These cities commonly use 2050as an end point and their carbon reduction goalstypically range from80-100%. The whitepaper documents inventoriesbeing used (ICLEI or otherwise)by other cities,total current GHG emissions andhow they breakdown to per resident per capita, the goal the cities are working toward, their timeframes, and whether they are using offsets. Most places that have set a goal of carbon neutrality are using offsets of some sort. Based on what other cities are doing, city staff chose threegoal optionsto frame council’s discussion of carbon neutrality:1.80% reductionbelow 1990 levelsby 2050,2.carbon neutrality by 2050, or 3.carbon neutrality by 2030. Staff analyzed what type of reductions Boulder would need to achieve annually in order to reach each of these goals. In order to reduce 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 a5%annual reduction rate would need to be achieved. To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, a 12%annual reduction rate would need to be achieved and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 an annual reduction rate of25% reduction per year would need to be accomplished.For option 1: by 2020 Boulder wouldneed to reduce by over 500,000 tons or 25% of total reduction, for option 2. 54% or over a million tons by 2050,and for option 3.1.7 million metric tons or 82% of total. These goals will be extremely difficult torealize because they requiresignificant reductions.According to the 2010-11 Climate Action Plan Boulder wasonly able to achieve42% of its Kyoto goal which was 7% below 1990 levels. Brendle did an analysis of what Boulder’sexisting programsshould be able to accomplish. They determined that by 2020 current programs could create an annual reduction of about 135,000 tons. There is a significant gap between what current programs are capable of versus what they are actually accomplishing. The consultants are working on creating strategies to improve the effectiveness of Boulder’s programs to support the community’sgoals. B. KenCairn emphasized that setting along-term goal is important asare the shorter term objectivesthat will keep us on the trajectory of aggressive carbon reduction. He asked whether this approach should be incremental with an annual goal or step-wise with a more decadal approach. He noted that significant changes need to be made in the earlier years in order to set us B. KenCairn upto reach long-term goals.noted that modernizing our utility model is important and integral to succeeding in our goals. He mentioned that appealing to people in a moral/fear- based notion of what is going to happenis not effective. GHG reduction needs to be translated to personal and relevant criteria for peoplein order for them to understand and take action. SWCA hasdevelopeda data management platform thatIT isnowtesting.The consultant-created platform for GHG inventory should be ready to use by the end of August 2013. B. KenCairn mentioned that in looking at what other communities have done: 1. Nobodyhas gotten close to hitting their original goals and 2. Most plans have focused on individual behavior change, but in order to truly effect change, they need to focus more on system change and making GHG reduction the easier choice.In framing why we’re doing this, we need to think about how this provides the best economic vitality and path for our community. It lowers B. KenCairn operation costs and new technologies create jobs. requested the EAB’s immediate comments and additional feedback once they receive the final white paper. Board comments: S. Morgan suggested readingthe revised version ofHot, Flat and Crowded. He suggested working in conjunction with the federal governmentthrough Jared Polis on this issue. Technology is a huge step and municipalization can actually stimulatethe economy. He mentioned that creativity will aboundin reaching these goals and that the economy and policies will move this forward. In the telecommunications world a tremendous amount of innovation and success has been achieved and can be achieved in technologies related to carbon reduction as well. L. Read complimented the progress that has been made already. She suggested that certain elements that weren’t included in Table 3should be clarified prior to bringing this item to council.She agreed that this isn’t a linear process and liked the idea of breakingobjectives down into smaller increments.She mentioned that the city should be extremely transparent and clear about any carbon off-setting that is being done. T. Hillman noted that the information that has been gathered is really exciting. He suggested that our metrics measure how much of the carbon economyBoulder is supporting and focus on havingmore people doing morework in a low carbon economy. He felt that we need to speak in these terms on a more regular basis. He thought our focus should be on growth in the low carbon economic sector. He felt that the bag ordinance would make a difference and mentioned that SmartRegs has achieved great results anddriven positive change in rental housing, a market that is difficult and has not been changed elsewhere.He is wary of relying on technology becauseso much change is based on behavior change. He noted thatour travel-behavior is not sustainable (e.g. even if we were all driving electric carswe wouldn’t be able to sustainour current driving behaviors). M. Abbott thought itwas important to think about long-term, big picture carbon reduction, but also emphasized the need for annual check-ins to ensurewe’re staying on track toward our goals. She thought we continually needed to ask where we are and why and analyze what we’re projecting moving forward toward the next year. She was impressedwith the amount of information staff compiled and presented. She felt that things should be economically relevant and that we need to demonstrate how money will be saved/made, not how the environment will be saved. She suggested framing carbon reductionaround itseconomic benefits. S. Morgan commented that ifpolicy is implemented well, it will be economically effective. He stated that technology is really important. Climate commitment ideas have improved greatly and they embodyall of our community values. He encouragedstaff to continue making this goal as simple as possible and be able to present this to the “average” member of the public. B. KenCairn mentioned that staff is working with Vermillion to create a story-board to simplify this project and its message to the public. He informed the EAB about DaveGrist’s blog posts called Utilities for Dummies that provide simple and easy to understandutility information. The Edison Institute also published a report called Disruptive Technologies. The Climate th Commitment Framework is adding a 7pillar called community design to work towardmore walkable communities. S. Morgan stated that our values support CO2 reduction and it’s disappointing that we’re not making the changes we hoped toin the timeframe we set. He noted that policy is important and essential tomaking changes. B. KenCairn reiterated that individual choices are important, but broader choices and policy- driven changesare essentialand the next step in making realprogress toward our goals. J. Koehn noted that this is always going to be a difficult issue. We have an infrastructure in place and aremaking changes piecemeal. It is challenging to balance policy, regulation, and individual behavior. S. Morgan commented thatif carbon reduction isn’t accomplished, we will be dead andthis idea isn’t fully accepted or believed. The consequences are huge if these goalsaren’taccomplished. C. Schuller agreed that increasing community walkability is very important. Technology and behavior are both key in reaching carbon reduction goals. Boulder has a great climate and community consciousness for making these positive changes. T. Hillman suggested acting locally. He noted that the local approach has been successful in promoting food issues, economic issues, etc. He suggested “marketing”theseenergy efficiency issuesfrom a local approach. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A.None 6. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY J. Koehn provided the board with an EAB member recruitment update.The new member willbe appointed at the August 6 City Council meeting. L. Read informed the board and staff that she is interested in participating in other task forcesor committees if the opportunity arises. S. Morgan mentioned that he sits onthe Solar Grants Committeeand indicated that he could use some help. The current applications are difficult to decipher and the applications are in the process of being standardized. Hardly anyapplications are being submitted, so there is a need to better promote the Solar Grantsprogram. J. Koehn informed EAB thatstaff has been writing acouncil memo regarding municipalization for aJuly 23 City CouncilStudy Sessionwhich will be sent to EAB. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK The next EAB meeting is scheduled for August 7, 2013. 8. ADJOURNMENT Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Approved: _________________________________________________________ Chair Date MEMORANDUM To: Environmental Advisory Board From: Department of Community Planning and Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Susan Richstone, Deputy Director Jamie Harkins, Business Sustainability Specialist Brett KenCairn, Senior Environmental Planner Date: Sept 11, 2013 Subject: Market Innovations Program Development Update The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an update on the Market Innovations program development and collect input from the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) on several items. Specific topics include: 1.Update on Boulder Chamber co-sponsorship of program; 2.Overview of Community Working Group role and timeline (attached); 3.Draft list of potential Working Group members (attached); and 4.EAB designation of a representative to the Working Group. Market Innovations Community Working Group Role & Timeline A key aspect of developing the Market Innovations program is to engage individuals from our community with expertise and experience in new technology and business development in helping to guide both the proposal solicitation and selection process. Specifically, the proposed tasks for this group include the following: Meeting 1 (late September, approximately 3-4 hours) This meeting will focus on the following tasks: Answer any questions about the background of the program and stated priorities of City Council and EAB for its development Finalize the objective and scope of the program based on City Council and EAB input Develop and finalize the evaluation criteria used to score applicants Develop application requirements Develop a program oversight plan and reporting requirements Provide suggestions on groups/organizations/networks to send program announcement to – mid/late October Program Launch Proposals Due – late November Meeting 2 (early December, approximately 2 hours) This meeting will focus on the following tasks: Discuss proposals received and review individual scoring (completed prior to meeting) Determine what proposals will receive an interview with the working group Applicant Interviews – early/mid December Meeting 3 (mid December, approximately 2 hours) This meeting will focus on the following tasks: Review interview scoring and overall results Select winning proposals to be recommended to City Council On-going tasks for 2014 Periodic evaluation of project progress (based on oversight/reporting plan) Evaluate annual performance of selected proposals Suggest changes/improvements based on lessons learned for next grant cycle The working group members’ commitment at this time is only for the first annual cycle of the program. The structure and purpose of the working group in future years will depend on an evaluation of the first year of program activities and results. Market Innovations Potential Community Working Group Members Chris Shapard Executive Director, Colorado Cleantech Industries Association (Ex-officio member of Gov's Venture Capital Investment Advisory Committee) Ray Johnson Director of Commercialization, CU Cleantech "Fostering the commercialization of clean technologies" With over 20 years of high-tech and clean-tech industry experience, Ray Johnson is recognized as a successful entrepreneur, mentor, advisor and technology company executive with a proven track- record of launching, financing, developing, marketing and building technology companies from inception to successful global ramp and then profitable exit. (or) Steve Herschleb NVC Program Manager, CU Cleantech Steve is an engineer and developer, and currently serves as the venture fellow for Access Venture nd Partners in Westminster, CO. He’s also a 2 year MBA student at the Leeds School of Business at the University of Colorado with a focus on entrepreneurship and renewable energy. Steve recently managed the inaugural CU Cleantech New Venture Challenge, a U.S. Department of Energy sponsored regional $100,000 cleantech business plan competition. Prior to grad school, Steve worked in new product development as a software, hardware, and systems engineer at several major automotive suppliers in the Detroit, MI area. Ann Livingston Energy and Sustainability Consultant, Livingston SEAS Current work includes Interim Executive Director at the Colorado Green Building Guild, leadership role at Avant Garde, a residential energy services company. Formerly Director of Market Development for Snugg Home, Inc. (home energy assessment software) Peter Roshko Boulder Ventures Mr. Roshko has over 29 years of venture capital and investing expertise focused on early stage information technology companies. Prior to joining Boulder Ventures, he ran a technology hedge fund, Granite Investments, which focused on fundamental analysis and a value oriented approach to public market technology investing. Eric Gricus Program manager & Client Development, Innovation Center of the Rockies During his MBA studies, Eric focused on both Entrepreneurship and Marketing and gained real world experience at CTEK, a local business incubator that specialized in Angel funding. He also worked for the University of Colorado’s Technology Transfer Office, where he completed feasibility studies for a variety of different technologies and advised others who were ready to meet the local business community. Since graduating from the MBA program, Eric has worked as a consultant assisting local start-ups with market feasibility assessments, marketing plans, business concept refinement and planning, business strategy formulation and investor pitch preparation. At the Innovation Center of the Rockies, Eric oversees the admissions process for early stage companies, works with faculty research teams, and prepares companies for their financing efforts. Reuben Samuels Munger Founder, Vision Ridge Partners Vision Ridge Partners advises and invests in transformative growth companies with a focus on sustainability. (Clean energy investments in renewable energy, green building, future utility business models and advanced transportation sectors) Coreina Chan Project Manager and Senior Consultant, RMI (Buildings Practice) Coreina is currently focused on accelerating deep energy-saving retrofits in the nation’s existing commercial building portfolio sector. She has helped design teams in a wide range of project types to establish efficiency and design goals, and to ensure effective, integrated design processes. Coreina joined RMI in 2007. She is a key contributor to RMI’s 2012 Portfolio Energy Retrofit Challenge, which partners the Institute with leading building portfolio owners (like AT&T) and applies RMI’s deep energy retrofit process to define energy saving opportunities and cost effective retrofit strategies at the portfolio scale. Sharon King Executive Director, Boulder Small Business Development Center In the past 9 years, Sharon and the Boulder SBDC have worked with over 3,500 Boulder County businesses -- to help established businesses grow and new ventures launch. The SBDC is a non-profit economic development organization providing support through workshops, specialized business consulting and connection to resources, including financing. Steve Berens Cleantech Fellows Institute Runs the Cleantech Fellows Institute, is a successful entrepreneur with numerous cleantech start-ups. Works closely with CU Deming Center. Chris Wand Does a lot of work at CU Deming Center. Also a successful entrepreneur including early investor with Service Magic, Rocky Mountain Venture Capital Assoc., Foundry Group, Mobius Venture Capital Brian Armstrong Point B Capital Managing partner at a Seattle Venture Capital firm with an office in Denver, evaluates cleantech deals daily. Travis Robinson The Kitchen Group Infinity Energy, H2 Energy. Early stage start-ups with marketing and finance background. Possible Representative from NREL Environmental Advisory Board member