Title
Questions and Answers on Ann Arbor’s 2023 GHG Inventory
Body
Questions posed by John Mirsky. Responses (in green) from Carissa Ebling unless otherwise noted.
1. It would be nice if OSI's stackbar charts in the presentation included the sum of all emissions at the top of each bar (even if they have to be manually inserted in PowerPoint as text boxes).
a. While I didn't include the value for the total emissions each year on these slides, you can find that information in our dashboard: <https://analytics.a2gov.org/superset/dashboard/osi-performance-metrics/?standalone=2>.
2. I would appreciate more of the type of analysis that you provide at the end of the slide deck posted to Legistar.
a. Slide 9 is revealing. Given we have collectively averaged and more or less consistently delivered an approximate 1 - 2% annual decline in emissions since 2000 as measured by the simple inventory and since 2015 as measured by the expanded inventory - and even since 2020 (as compared to 2019) when substantially more resources have been dedicated to climate action - it seems we aren't decarbonizing fast enough in spite of all of the recent A2ZERO-related actions and successes. If not, what is being - or needs to be - changed going forward?
i. We've seen a 27% drop in our GHG emissions since 2000. We expect much more significant drops in the coming years due to programs ramping up as well as significant changes in our energy portfolio due to the SEU and DTE's commitment to generate 50% of their energy from renewable sources by 2030.
b. What are the key takeaways when it comes to the main drivers of either emissions reductions or increases? For example:
i. In his public comments at the beginning of our last commission meeting, Ken Garber told the commission that - while other things are clearly going on, as reflected in your presentation slides - the full drop in emissions from 2022 to 2023 could be solely attributed to DTE cleaning up its electrical power fuel mix. This seems to be reflected by the figures for electricity emissions in Slide 8. Is that true?
1. The portion of DTE's energy that is actually being produced from renewable sources only went up 1.25% from 2022 to 2023, so this is not the only emissions reduction driver. Ken was likely referring to 2024 data for the amount of renewable energy they generated plus the renewable energy credits (RECs) they purchased. RECs are not taken into account in our inventory.
ii. We know that U-M makes up ~ 1/3 of total emissions and the city 2/3 of the total. Is one or the other of the two entities making progress faster than the other and why?
1. This is not my area of work, but both of UM and the City are making progress towards emissions reductions goals. Due to the University of Michigan owning and operation all of its buildings, a better comparison may be between the City's municipal operation emissions and the University of Michigan's emissions. Both entities have made significant progress towards reduction goals.
iii. Based on both your presentation and OSI's Dashboard, it seems that the slow loverall (non-City) EV adoption rate and the very small reduction in VMT traveled by all vehicles, especially the remaining ICE vehicles, are proving to be major obstacles to achieving our carbon neutrality targets. Does OSI agree with this assessment and, if so, what new strategies or strategic shifts are planned, especially since biking and walking have dropped off in spite of significant improvements in infrastructure supporting those modes of transportation?
1. This is not my area of work, so I don't have an immediate answer for this. It's worth mentioning that, currently, 42% of trips in Ann Arbor are taken using alternative forms of transportation (walking, biking, and busing). This is well above our A2ZERO goal of 25%. Our Commercial EV charger program was also just launched this year, the goal of which is to increase public access to EV charging.
iv. What else stands out?
1. We saw a reduction in 2023 emissions from residential buildings, institutional buildings, and transportation. Emissions reduction drivers likely include implementation of city programs related to residential building decarbonization (such as Solarize), an increase in alternative transportation modes, the University of Michigan making progress on their emissions reduction goals, and a slight increase in the amount of renewable energy generated by DTE. Something that is really important to keep in mind is that our inventory does not include renewable energy credits, MI Green Power, or offsets. This means that it does not paint a complete picture of where we are at in terms of our A2ZERO goal.
c. As stated on slide 10, it is true that many programs are just getting started but do they seem to be having the intended effects at the speed / rate necessary? For example:
i. Is the commercial benchmarking ordinance having an affect on outcomes? It seems those buildings' emissions are increasing.
1. Response by Staff Liaison Joe Lange: Only one year of benchmarking reporting had taken place prior to 2023, which was only for buildings greater than 100,000 square feet. The second reporting deadline was then halfway through 2023, for buildings over 50,000 square feet. With the reporting deadline being in June 2022 for the first year and June 2023 for the second, the opportunity to make significant changes by those buildings and see results prior to the conclusion of 2023 was minimal, so the impact of this ordinance on the 2023 GHG inventory is likely not significant. Staff is working to compile a report on the benchmarking program and will share with and present to the Energy Commission once it is ready.
ii. Are there any early indicators that the HERD ordinance is driving homeowner actions? Has the use of the HEA program continued to increase or has it tapered off or even dropped?
1. This is not my area of work, but HERD and the HEA program are still in their very early stages. It will take time to evaluate and determine the impact of these programs.
2. Response by Staff Liaison Joe Lange: HERD and the HEA both launched earlier in 2024. As Carissa indicates, it will take time to see the full impact of these programs. That said, HERD has been ramping up and adoption has been seen broadly. OSI is currently working to provide wrap-around services to help new homeowners understand and act on the information they are given. The HEA has provided home energy assessments and customized decarbonization plans to 195 homes since its launch. Both programs are up and running, with improvements being made as opportunities arise. While OSI is continually monitoring the impact of these programs, we are looking to conduct a more in-depth analysis and look forward to discussing that with the Energy Commission once it is ready.
iii. Will the GRHP be tough enough to drive rental unit decarbonization?
1. This program has not yet been implemented, so it will take some time to evaluate and determine its effect.
2. Response by Staff Liaison Joe Lange: The goals of the Green Rental Housing program are to improve the energy efficiency of rental units, resulting in a reduction in GHG emissions. Based on what we are able to do within our authority, the program is at a level to ensure we have a program addressing energy efficiency and emissions in rental housing with the ability to drive rental unit decarbonization. But this is not all we are doing, rather it is part of the puzzle that is decarbonization. While they do not address all rentals, the home energy rebates have already been utilized by some landlords who are installing heat pumps and improving the energy efficiency of their units. We are working with building owners and developers across the spectrum of rental properties to connect them to financial and technical resources, including those that did not exist during the initial inception of the program (e.g., IRA credits and rebates) to make improvements. The framework and requirements laid out here are done with the goal of having a viable policy while providing a framework and connection point to make meaningful change through all the initiatives that are available.
iv. Progress in the Bryant neighborhood is great but it only comprises 260 houses and 100 townhouses; will the same or similar approach be deployed to other neighborhoods soon?
1. This is not my area of work, so I don't have an immediate answer for this.
2. Response by Staff Liaison Joe Lange: The work in the Bryant neighborhood is having great success, as indicated by Jordan Larson during the Feb. 2024 Energy Commission meeting. As discussed during that meeting, while there is still much more work to be done in the Bryant neighborhood itself, the approaches from this work are already being replicated in other OSI projects and programs. The energy assessment developed by Bryant residents is the foundation for the assessment and Path to Zero used in the Home Energy Advisor program. Where rebates are allocated through the Home Energy Rebates was based on the results of the assessments and work to date on homes in Bryant. The resilience hub work undertaken by Community Action Network and OSI is fueling a grant OSI received from the EPA to add more resilience hubs in the community while also building out a resilience network that connects all the different groups and people working to provide services in our community. Multiple other grants have been applied for by OSI to continue this work in Bryant and replicate it in other communities of need and are awaiting a decision from the respective funding sources. The design of the district geothermal network created in Bryant is awaiting decision on funding and is also being used as the basis for the investigation of district geothermal more broadly in Ann Arbor. Additionally, while this work is still in the early stages, OSI has been in conversation with other neighborhoods both in and around our community to determine how these neighborhoods can accomplish similar work. In all of this work, progress moves at the speed of trust. Thanks to great collaborations with our local community-based organizations, this work is well underway and expect more to continue.
d. We know that ~ 2000 new, dual-fuel (i.e., NG connected) housing and hotel units plus some commercial projects have been approved for construction where most developments are underway but not yet occupied and thus not emitting. Even more dual-fuel space is likely to come on line before our 2030 CN target date given the low cost of NG. Has this impact been assessed and how can it be offset?
i. The majority of Ann Arbor's building stock (and emissions) consists of existing buildings, so many of our programs focus on reducing existing building emissions. However, we will be evaluating ways to offset remaining emissions in the coming years.