►  Whether plan is for entire community, government operations only, or particular sectors (such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc).

A portion of the plan is directed toward the members of “The Partnership for a Green City” (PGC), which consists of University of Louisville (U of L), Louisville Metro Government (LMG), Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS).  The other portion of the Climate Action Report (CAR) is for the community, which consists of residential, commercial and industrial entities.  The Climate Change Committee (CCC) was formed under the direction of the PGC to undertake the project.   “The aim of the CCC was to prepare a report for the leadership of the PGC entities that recommended strategies to mitigate the community’s GHG emissions and to prepare for the impact climate change may have locally.”  PGC is a group that was formed in 2004 with focus on green initiatives in the areas of environmental education, public health and environmental management. 

►  Length of time they took to develop plan.

The Climate Change Committee GHG Subcommittee began meeting second half  2007.  Trinity Consultants was hired January 2008 to develop a GHG inventory.  After the GHG inventory was completed, the other committees began developing their reports and the CAR was released to the public April 22, 2009.  The subcommittees met at different intervals, but in general requiring monthly meetings at first and then the pace quickened to every week or every other week as reports were finalized.

►  Whether this is their first plan or latest iteration.

This is the first and only plan.  No revisions have begun.

►  Whether they do updates to their plan on regular basis.

There have not been any updates to the plan.  The second wave of activity will concentrate on prioritizing the 175 recommendations listed in the CAR and determining who will take the lead in implementing and updating the CAR.  Meetings for this phase of the process have just started.  The CCC plans to meet with the PGC quarterly to track goals, monitor progress on climate action plans, make additional recommendations and reconvene working groups as needed.

►  Role universities play in their plan.

U of L is one of three members of the PGC, which served as the guiding group for the process.

►  Transportation nuances (served by rail, presence of interstates, vehicle miles travelled, etc).

Louisville has rail access, 3 major highways that converge in the downtown area, 2 other local access highways and commuting to work and school is the norm.  The CAR states that in 2007, 96.3% of people travel by car to work.  Trips taken by TARC in 2009 were estimated to be 2.4% of all vehicle trips in the county. “According to KIPDA, since 1980, the amount of driving done by Kentuckians rose at a rate of 4.6 times the rate of population growth, though nationally the rate is three times faster than population.”

►  Ways they obtained public involvement and to what extent.

The process began with the PGC group.  LMAPCD quickly took the lead to manage the Climate Change Committee and subcommittee processes.  Specific individuals with various experiences, skills and knowledge were invited to participate, but there was also an open invitation to community members to join subcommittees.  Many joined based on “word of mouth” and anyone interested was allowed to join.

►  Sources of funding to implement measures.

None at this time unless community entities want to voluntarily fund initiatives.  The CAR mentions on page 3 a few possible sources for funding such as tax increment financing bonds, land conservation tax, redevelopment and infill grants that support Brownfield’s reuse, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loans, net metering, rebates for projects that meet identified design standards, per–unit waste collection or tiered utility pricing.

►  Types of sub-teams/subcommittees they have set up (utility, transportation, renewable energy, green buildings, etc) and overview of each.

The subcommittees were a diverse group of PGC members, industry/commercial business representatives, citizens and environmental interest groups.  The subcommittees were as follows:

(1)  GHG Inventory and Mechanisms Subcommittee

● Cynthia Lee (LMG - Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD)) as chair

● 21 listed participants

● Includes inventories, trading, registries, offsets and other related mechanisms.  This subcommittee completed its report first and then was used by other committees as needed.  The baseline year is 1990 and 2006 was also completed.  Projected years were 2012 and 2020.

(2)  Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Subcommittee

            ● Michelle Stites (LMG - LMAPCD) as chair

            ● 27 listed participants

            ● Seeks opportunities to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy.

(3)  Land Use, Transportation, and Urban Forestry Subcommittee

            ● Tony Arnold (U of L) as chair

            ● 24 listed participants

            ● Policies

(4)  Education and Outreach Subcommittee

            ● Rachel Connolly (U of L) as chair

            ● 25 listed participants

● Focuses on raising the community’s awareness, changing behaviors and addressing students’ curricula and related opportunities.

(5)  Utility Regulations, Policies, and Practices Subcommittee

            ● Rick Lovekamp (E.ON U.S.) as chair

            ● 17 listed participants

● Examines the barriers, incentives, etc., such as net metering, demand side management, renewable portfolio standards and related approaches.

(6)  Local Impacts Subcommittee

            ● Judy Nielson (LMG) as chair

            ● 18 listed participants

● Reviews meteorological changes, ecological impacts, public health impacts, etc., as well as needs and opportunities for mitigation, adaptation.

(7)  Waste Subcommittee

            ● Cass Harris (LMG) as chair

            ● 8 listed participants

● Seeks opportunities to reduce GHG emissions resulting from disposal of municipal solid waste.

►  Energy type (coal, hydro, nuclear, etc) if info is included in their plan. 

Louisville’s energy production is 95 - 98% coal with a small amount of gas and hydro..

►  Whether they included info on their greenhouse gas emissions in their action plan or in separate report.

The full greenhouse gas inventory is a separate document which includes raw data, calculations and methods.  A summary of the major findings and recommendations were included in a separate section of the CAR.  Each subcommittee had a separate section in the CAR that included general information, major outcomes and resulting recommendations. Each subcommittee’s recommendations were also listed in a summary table in the back of the CAR.

►  The protocol they used to quantify their greenhouse gas emissions (such as ICLEI protocol).

The majority of the GHG emissions data were calculated using the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ (ICLEI) Clean Air and Climate Protection software (CACP).  GHG emissions were calculated for CO₂, methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂0), ozone (O₃), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) all placed in terms of CO₂e, which takes into account the global warming potential.

►  Their emissions per person (per capita) if available.

“GHG emissions, measured in tons of CO₂e, were calculated for the energy used by the community in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, as well as for onroad and nonroad transportation, public transit and waste disposal.”  Customer emissions were supplied by E.ON U.S.  Energy supplied from other utilities was not included in the inventory.  The community GHG inventory showed that 5% of the emissions  are from the PGC members as compared to the entire community.  The largest sources of CO₂e emissions were found to be the transportation and residential sectors, each at 29% (Commerical = 23%, Industrial = 18%, Waste = 1%).  Excepts from a table provided on page 6 of the CAR is provided below.

►  Their emissions goals for government and community. 

Mayor Jerry Abramson signed the “U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement on April 22, 2005 agreeing to voluntarily reducing greenhouse gas emissions from “city operations and the community at large” by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.

►  Whether they are on target to meet their emission reduction goals.

No information provided, but it is thought to be not on track.