Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090224MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Cantrell, Environmental Health Department THRU: Lee CasCsin, Environmental Health Director ~~ C ~ ~~ THRU: Phil Overeynder, Utilities/Environmental Initiatives Director DATE OF MEMO: February 20, 2009 MEETING DATE: February 24, 2009 RE: Single Use Shopping Bags REQUEST OF COUNCIL: At Council's request, the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) compiled a comprehensive report for City Council regazding plastic, paper, and canvas bag use and the environmental effects of these bags. The report examines the possible actions that Council can take to address the issue. Staff requests Council's direction regazding the next steps Aspen should take to eliminate non-reusable bags in Aspen. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Last yeaz Council asked staff to address the non-reusable bag topic by instituting a voluntary action campaign. At the time, Council wanted to give visitors and residents the opportunity to voluntarily reduce bag use prior to instituting a mandatory fee or a ban on bags. In response, Aspen participated in the Bag Challenge with Telluride to see which town could use the most reusable bags. During the challenge, CORE and City staff distributed thousands of free reusable bags to make it easier to decrease the amount of plastic and paper bags used daily. At the latest BYY meeting, Council requested more information prior to moving ahead with a decision about bags. In response, CORE created a report that addresses such topics as energy use of both plastic and paper bags, the environmental costs of using non-reusable bags, and the concerns associated with bag use in Aspen. The full report is available here X:\eh\Recycling. For your reference, specific sections of the report aze attached to this memo. DISCUSSION: Although plastic bags aze traditionally tazgeted in the media, both plastic and paper bags aze resource intensive and any political action should address both types of bags. Specific information on the resource consumption of each type of bag is available in Attachment A. In their report CORE recommends Council impose an Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) on both plastic and paper bags bought at grocery and convenience stores in Aspen. The proposed fee would generate revenue that can be used to provide shoppers with free re-usable bags. In addition to recommending an ARF, CORE also created a list of other possible City actions, and detailed the environmental and financial implications of each action. See Attachment B for a list of all proposed City Action options. It is important to note that regazdless of Council's decision on this matter, CORE is pursuing other programs to address the elimination of single use bags in Aspen. Beginning Mazch 1 ~', Aspen (along with Snowmass Village and Basalt) will participate in the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) Bag Challenge, which CORE helped create. Aspen, along with 20+ ski towns and other towns in the west, will work to see how many re-usable bags each town can use over a six month time period. At the same time, CORE is partnering with the Aspen High School EARTH Club to supply visitors with reusable bags. These locally designed bags will be placed in hotel rooms throughout Aspen, including the St. Regis, Aspen Meadows and Sky Hotel. Visitors are encouraged to use the bags while they shop in Aspen, and aze charged $5/bag if they choose to take the bag home with them. All proceeds from bag sales benefit the Aspen High School. This program will hopefully provide Aspen visitors with the option to use re-usable bags instead of single use bags while in Aspen. Bags aze not just a big topic here in Aspen, but also around the rest of the country. Plastic bag initiatives aze becoming more prevalent worldwide, and legislation is currently under consideration at the Colorado state level to ban plastic bags. As a way to move forwazd together, other municipalities in Colorado have expressed interest in partnering with Aspen to pass a bag fee or bag ban at the same time. It is necessary for Aspen to address the issue of both plastic and paper bags, and a bag fee could be more successful and well received if Aspen decides to partner with other Colorado communities and pass the same initiative. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: By eliminating free grocery bags, consumers could see a reduced cost because grocers will not need to include the cost of grocery bags in the cost of food and other goods. US retailers spend an estimated $4.5 billion annually to provide their customers with free shopping bags. There is also a disposal cost associated with non-reusable bags, and this cost is paid by tax dollazs, requiring that tax payers pay for the collection and disposal of shopping bags, run recycling programs, organize litter pick-ups, and handle the influx of solid waste during busy tourist seasons. In addition to saving money, a bag fee would also generate revenue that could be used to supply free reusable bags to shoppers, amongst of host of other `green' programs. For specific cost savings and revenue increases associated with a bag fee refer to Attachment C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of both paper and plastic bags are widespread and affect numerous sectors of society. In particular, the industry has adverse effects on human health, climate change, resource consumption, terrestrial and mazine ecosystems, and solid waste management. Both the plastic and paper bag industries are resource intensive from start to finish. Aside from actual raw materials manufactured, both types of bags require significant amounts of resources such as fossil fuels and water to transport, generate, and process materials. Refer to Attachment A for a detailed environmental analysis of each type of bag and Attachment D for more details on the environmental benefits of a bag fee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Aspen considers itself an environmental leader, and the bag issue presents an opportunity for Aspen to continue to take the lead on environmental issues. Although bag use is one of many pressing environmental issues facing Council, it is a significant environmental topic throughout the country right now. Cleazly, Council members must cazefully consider which goals take priority. At the minimum, Aspen should focus on excelling in the CAST Bag Challenge and other educational campaigns. Bag legislation may be most productive if passed in conjunction with other Colorado communities. ALTERNATIVES: See Attachment B for a list of all alternatives and the cosUbenefit analysis of each option. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Environmental Issues Attachment B: City Action Attachment C: Cost Savings Attachment D: Environmental Benefits of a Citywide Reduction Program Attachment A: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The environmental implications of the single-use shopping bag industry are vast. As a disposable and widely used item, single-use shopping bags are inherently destructive (Herrera 2008). In particular, the industry has adverse effects on human health, climate change, resource consumption, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and solid waste management. The following section will provide quantifiable information on the environmental liabilities of both plastic and paper bags based on life-cycle analyses (LCA). An LCA should examine the entire life cycle of a product, including the extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation and distribution of the final product, and recycling and/or disposal of the product once it is no longer in use. CORE did not produce an independent LCA, but rather relied on studies done by others to analyze environmental impacts. Resource Consumption Both the plastic and paper bag industries are resource intensive. Aside from actual raw materials manufactured, both industries require significant amounts of resources such as fossil fuels and water to transport, generate, and process materials. • Each plastic shopping bag requires .005 gallons of oil to produce. 1 At a consumption rate of 100 billion per yeaz, the United States uses 12 million barrels of oil each year to sustain its plastic bag habit. Even with the price of oil hovering azound $40 a bazrel, a five-yeaz low, Americans will spend nearly half a billion dollars on plastic shopping bags this year. • Fourteen million trees aze cut down every year to support the demand for paper bags in the United States. Most timber comes from pine forests in the Southeast, home to some of the most biologically diverse forests in North America. However, the American paper and pulp industry is beginning to rely more on international producers, such as Brazil, where commodity prices are lower (WRI 2001; Roberts 2007). •It takes 594 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to produce one plastic bag and 17 BTUs to recycle it (Federal Office of the Environment 1988). • Each paper bag requires 2,511 BTUs to produce and more than 1,400 BTUs to recycle (ibid). Energy use associated with paper bag production is higher than plastic because the process is substantially more labor intensive. z The paper industry is the third lazgest industrial user of energy in the United States (US Department of Energy). r See Appendix A to view calculations z A tree must be felled, taken to the mill (where it will sit for three years to dry) stripped of its bark and chipped into small squares, pressure cooked, treated with chemicals until it becomes a pulp, washed and pressed, all before it becomes a piece of paper. The paper then must be cut, packaged and shipped to its final destination-an exercise that uses more resources than plastic due to the weight and size of paper bags. • In the United States, paper bag manufacturing uses enough water to fi114,857 Olympic size pools every yeaz (Ecobilan 2004). • The U.S plastic bag industry requires more than 5.5 million cubic meters of water annually or enough to fi112,210 Olympic size pools (ibid). Pollution/Climate Change Climate change is the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions3 in the atmosphere, largely due to anthropogenic activities such as the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels for energy and land-use change. Life-cycle analyses of both a plastic and a paper shopping bag show that pollutants associated with each are considerable. • In total, the disposable, single-use shopping bag industry in the United States emits 3.85 million tons of COZ-equivalent each year! (Maloney and Stanton 2007) • For every 100 plastic bags manufactured, nearly seven pounds of COz_equivalent is released into the atmosphere (ibid). • Of the top six most toxic chemicals ranked by the U. S Environmental Protection Agency, five aze commonly used by the plastics industry. These chemicals, such as phthalates,4 are often carcinogenic and end up as pollutants in our air, water and soil. •. The paper and pulp industry is the fourth largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). For every 100 paper bags produced, 17 pounds of CO2-equivalent is released (Maloney and Stanton 2007). • The paper and pulp industry is ranked the fifth largest emitter of toxic water pollutants by the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. Primary pollutants include, but are not limited to, methanol, hyrdrochloric acid, ammonia, dioxins, lead, formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, mercury and azsenic. • Other air pollutants include sulfur dioxides, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxides and particulates, all of which contribute to ozone depletion, acid rain and smog. (Toxic Release Inventory 2006) • Burning fossil fuels also contributes to eutrophication, acondition that occurs when excessive amounts of nutrients (e.g nitrogen) aze released into soil or surface water due to atmospheric emissions or industrial effluents. Eutrophication causes oxygen imbalance and a There aze six greenhouse gas emissions considered to be contributing to global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They aze carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, PFCs and HFCs. a Phthalates are used as plastic softeners or as solvents. Tests show they can cause reproductive abnormalities, birth defects, and damage to the liver, kidneys and lungs. can lead to die-offs in marine environments. Both the plastics and paper industry are responsible for eutrophication (Herrera 2008). Wildlife The environmental fall-out from the plastics industry on marine species is staggering. Up to 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year due to ingestion of and entanglement in plastic debris (Wallace 1985). When one considers that the average American throws out 15 tons of plastic packaging during their lifetime, it is not surprising how much ends up in our oceans. The light weight of plastic bags makes them one of the lazgest offenders of marine litters Even when a plastic bag is properly disposed of in a landfill or recycling bin, wind can easily displace and dump it close to waterways or drains. Once at sea, birds, marine mammals, fish and sea turtles often eat pieces of the bags, mistaking them for food such as jellyfish or sponges. Scientists have found several marine birds with stomachs full of plastic particles. Several studies suggest that as much as 80% of all mazine debris is plastic (California Coastal Commission 2006; NOAA 2008). In the Pacific Ocean there aze two "floating islands", called the Pacific Trash Gyres, of such debris that put together aze lazger than the entire United States (see Figure 2). Scientists recorded that within a 5 million square mile radius there is six times more plastic than plankton (Ingraham 2001). Figure 2. Computer Generated Images of "Floating Islands of Trash" in the Pacific Ocean Paper bags are less of a litter problem than plastic bags due to a shorter lifetime and higher weight density. Unlike plastic, paper biodegrades after 1-2 months in a natural s Offshore surveys of mazine debris in the North East Atlantic between 2003 and 2005 found plastic bags to be the most common litter item seen at sea. (Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust) Another survey in the South East Pacific found plastic bags represented 48% of all floating marine debris. (Thiel et al, 2003). environment. Furthermore, paper bags aze heavy enough to remain in trashcans, recycling bins and landfills and therefore are less susceptible to wind litter. However, it is important to remember habitat destruction and erosion when considering the implications of paper bags on wildlife. The United States fells 14 million trees annually in order to produce enough paper bags to satisfy the American consumer. For every tree that comes down, several species lose their homes, a tract of land is disrupted, and a cazbon sink source is destroyed. The paper industry is one of the worst offenders of deforestation in the world. As cazetaker of the headwaters of the Roazing Fork River, the Aspen community should be conscience of the adverse effects of disposable bag litter on local ecosystems and riparian species. Solid Waste In 1960, plastic waste comprised less than 1% of total municipal waste in the United States By 2007, plastics became the second lazgest waste product, generating more than 30 million tons of waste per yeaz. Today, plastics represent roughly 12% of municipal waste (OSW 2008). Each American throws away an estimated 3.5 lbs of plastic bags each year. In 2007, 590,000 tons of plastic shopping bags were discarded (OSW 2008; American Chemistry Counci12008). The EPA estimates that it takes plastics roughly 1,000 yeazs to photodegrade, a process that breaks the material into tiny particles. However, even broken into tiny pieces, plastics never fully biodegrade because they are petroleum-based. These pieces often end up as toxic particulates in our soil and aquifers. Littered plastic bags are a contaminant of storm water run-off and often end up clogging drains and sewer systems. Several Southeast Asian cities blame plastic bags for blocking floodwaters from draining during monsoon seasons. The country of Bangladesh went so far as to ban disposable shopping bags, claiming they were tragic barriers during the catastrophic floods of 1997 and 1998 (BBC 2002). Their lightweight also makes them a costly nuisance for trash collectors and recycling facilities because they can be windswept out of receptacles. The paper bag industry produces more waste in our landfills than plastic. More than one million tons of bags and sacks were thrown away in 2007 (OSW 2008). Although paper is biodegradable, the EPA contends that our modern landfills make biodegradation neazly impossible due to lack of water, light, and oxygen (EPA website). Pitkin County Landfill does not track the amount of plastic and paper bags delivered to their premises on an annual basis. However, employees attest that Aspen's numbers are similar to national averages. In 2008, the City recycled 8,6901bs of plastic shopping bags (email communication with Richazd Ludwig). Table 1. Plastic or Paper? Environmental Comparisons Paper Plastic {Per million produced) {Per million produced) , Energy Pollution 'Wildlife • To produce: 2.51 billion BTUs* • To produce: 594 million BTUs • To recycle: 1.44 billion BTUs** • To recycle: 17 million BTUs .Water: 1,457 rn3 • Water: SS m3 • "1'rees• 1,4t3f1; ~ Petroleum: 120 barrels • CO2-equivalent: 76 tons • 50 x more water pollutants than plastic Trash/Litter • Time to biodegrade as litter: 1-2 months • Time to biodegrade in a landfill: Centuries** • Space in the landfill: 63 tons • CO2-equivalent: 31 tons • Time to biodegrade as litter: Indefinite (Plastics break into small plastic pieces as they degrade, but never truly return to organic material) • Time to biodegrade in a landfill: Indefinite/Never • Space in the landfill: 7 tons • An estimated 4 billion worldwide end up as litter every year-tied end to end the bags could circle the Earth 63 times *BTU= British Thermal Unit * Due to lack of water, oxygen and light, paper does not biodegrade properly in modern landfills. Attachment B: CITY ACTION The following is a list of options that CORE identified as strategies to address the issue of single-use shopping bags. Various municipalities azound the world have implemented these strategies-some with little success, others with much fanfaze (See Appendix A of the complete CORE report for full list). It is suggested that any strategy the City of Aspen decides to support should be modified to the needs of local retailers and consumers. It is also suggested that any action include a substantial education/public awazeness component. Citizens must be reminded that a reusable bag campaign is only as effective as the sum of its parts. Reduction of environmental and economic impacts occurs if consumers aze conscience of their actions and actually bring shopping bags to the store. ~ If not, encouraging the use of reusable bags in place of disposable ones will not produce desired results. CORE is willing to assist the City in developing and executing an educational plan, if needed. 1. Status Quo- The vast majority of towns in the United States have not passed an ordinance limiting the use of single-use shopping bags. The City of Aspen would not suffer any political or legal consequences should it choose to do the same. However, should Aspen choose to follow abusiness-as-usual path, the City will not be relieved of any costs associated with the transport and clean up of littered bags and/or the environmental implications associated with their use and disposal. Costs: Continuation of status quo costs associated with labor, transport and landfill management. Benefits: N/A 2. Voluntary Program- There is much to be said about the effectiveness of educational campaigns on voluntary compliance. During athree-month competition in 2008, Aspen and Telluride eliminated more than 140,000 plastic shopping bags from the environment. Z The success of the 1 Nick Sterling of Natural Capitalism Solutions asserts that reusable bags are only effective in decreasing environmental and economic costs if they are used at least once a week. Otherwise, the resources used to produce reusable bags outweigh the savings. z This number is based on the reusable bags used in stores between May 24 and September 1, 2008. Telluride residents used 29,351 reusable bags, while Aspen residents used 26,793. Each reusable accounts for an estimated 2.5 plastic bags. program was due lazgely in part to community organizers such as CORE and the City's Environmental Health Department engaging with the public about the ills of disposable, single-use shopping bags. CORE was able to raise public awazeness through local radio and television stations, newspaper articles, posters, flyers and free reusable bag give- aways. However, grocers argue that the enthusiasm for reusable bags does not last for extended periods of time without government support (personal communication with City Market and Clazk's). The advantage of the Aspen-Telluride challenge was that 1) it was a friendly competition between two rivaling ski towns and 2) it only lasted for three months. If the city chose to establish along-term voluntary program, it would be difficult to replicate the success of the Aspen-Telluride challenge given the time commitment. Studies have shown that although limiting the use of single-use shopping bags is an easy solution to a major environmental problem, changing everyday consumer habits is substantial (Gamerman 2008; Palmer and Weller 2002). Other towns, cities and countries have proven that relying on volunteerism to resolve the issue of disposable bags for the long-term is futile. Australia, Great Britain and Hong Kong have all attempted voluntary reduction programs with limited luck. Should the City choose to push a measure encouraging the voluntary use of reusable bags, it is imperative that substantial educational efforts compliment this measure. The City would need to establish an outreach campaign that is responsible for boosting public awareness about the environmental and economic costs of using disposable, single-use shopping bags. In order to make the education component more effective, the City would need to create a fund that subsidized reusable bag give-aways at local stores. During the Aspen-Telluride Challenge, CORE noted that customers aze more likely to voluntarily change their habits if the alternate option (i.e. a reusable bag) is readily available. Costs: Funds for educational programming, reusable bag give-aways and staff support. CORE would be willing to partner with the Canary Initiative and the Department of Environmental Health to coordinate educational events and raise public awareness in the community. Benefits: Potential reduction of single-use bags in groceries will result in a reduction of transport, labor and landfill management costs. 3. Labeling Requirement- The City could mandate that all disposable shopping bags have a label describing their material content as traditional, recycled, or biodegradable. This gives customers the ability to understand what types of resources have been used to produce their shopping bag. Such transparency also provides an incentive for retailers to choose more environmentally friendly products in order to please customers. The disadvantage of labeling requirements is cost and complexity of changing bag production (Herrera 2008). Retailers would need to disrupt their manufacturing stream (i.e. finding a new bag distributor) in order to accommodate a City mandate. Furthermore, both biodegradable and recycled products aze more expensive than traditional products. Estimates range between 8 to 10 cents a bag, whereas traditional plastic bags aze between 2 to 3 cents per bag. The increase in price would certainly be passed on to consumers. Lastly, a labeling requirement may not be environmentally effective because Aspen does not have the capability to dispose of biodegradable bags. Most biodegradable bags must be processed in an industrial composting facility in order to degrade properly. If not, they aze no different than traditional bags. At present, there are less than 100 such facilities in the United States (Bazclay 2004). Costs: Labeling requirements aze more costly for grocers. The City may also incur additional costs to accommodate biodegradable materials in separate recycling receptacles. Furthermore, the City would be responsible for the cost of an industrial composting facility, should one be necessary. Benefits: If biodegradables are disposed of properly, a labeling requirement has the potential to reduce landfill management needs, and thus labor and transport costs. 4. Voluntary to Ordinance An ordinance (such as a ban or a levy) would be based on the success of the voluntary program. For example, if Aspen were able to reduce single-use shopping bags by a certain percent by January 1, 2010 (based on 2008 numbers), then the voluntary program would remain in effect. If not, the City Council would revise the program to apply a levy or ban on single-use shopping bags. Should the Voluntary Program continue past January 1, 2010, the City would review the program on a yearly basis barring that standard reduction levels were met. Local retailers could easily track voluntary compliance with a special key code that counts the amount of reusable bags used at check-out. Both Clark's and City Mazket already have key code counters in place. Costs: Management fees for monitoring voluntary compliance and, should it be needed, legislative action. Additional funds for educational support, free bag give-aways, and staffing. If the voluntary program is not successful, the City would continue to incur business-as-usual costs. Benefits: Reduction of landfill management, labor and transport costs associated with the disposal of disposable shopping bags. Free green mazketing if the program is a success. 5. Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) on Plastic Single-Ilse Shopping Bags- People respond to financial incentives. Several communities have realized this to be the case, and, perhaps, none more than Ireland. In 2002, Ireland passed a 15 euro- cent fee called the `P]asTax' on all HDPE #2 plastic shopping bags. The ordinance requires that all supermazkets chazge customers a fee for each plastic bag they use. Retailers are fined if they pay the fee on behalf of the customer. Although bags were not outlawed outright, the fee, coupled with an enhanced educational campaign, made carrying them socially unacceptable. As New York Times reporter, Elisabeth Rosenthal, observed, "(carrying a plastic bag in Ireland) is on paz with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one's dog" (2008). Within five months of the fee mandate, the P1asTax resulted in a 90% decrease in plastic bag use.3 More than six years later, Ireland still leads as one of the most successful levy programs in the world. The Ministry of the Environment raised the `P1asTax' to 22 euro-cent per bag in 2007, in order to combat a slight increase in single-bag usage in 2005 and 2006. The Swedish retailer, Ikea, has also initiated a hugely successful levy program that has reduced plastic bag use substantially in its stores worldwide (email communication with Ikea bag campaign contact Lisa Davis). The revenue generated from the Irish `P1asTax' is collected in a green fund managed by the Ministry of the Environment. The green fund supports both national and local sustainability initiatives, such as clean up efforts, efficiency projects, solid waste reduction, and environmental educational campaigns. Funds were also used to provide customers with free reusable bags during the initial phase-in of the `P1asTax' (BBC 2002). The disadvantage of placing an ARF only on plastic bags is that it encourages customers to switch to paper bags. As described in the environmental section, the production of paper bags puts considerable strain on our planet's natural resources. Given the environmental impacts of paper production, it would be illogical to give paper the advantage of being the preferred option over plastic Furthermore, paper is more expensive than plastic. If retailers are required to provide `free' bags, customers will beaz the cost increase of this change in higher food prices. Costs: Management fees associated with monitoring the ARF program. Additional funds for educational support, free bag give-sways, and staffing. Benefits: Reduction of landfill management, transport and labor costs associated with the disposal of single-use shopping bags. Revenue generated from the fee could support green initiatives like the ones adopted by the Irish Environmental Ministry, as well as more unique local projects such as efficiency updates to affordable housing units and feasibility studies for an enhanced transportation system. If needed, CORE would be willing to manage the greens funds by establishing a grant cycle similaz to REMP. Free green mazketing for the City of Aspen. 6. ARF on all Disposable, Single-Use Shopping Bags a Due to Ireland's overarching reliance on plastic bags, the Environmental Ministry did not pass a levy on paper bags as well. However, the ministry did promise to pass similaz legislation on paper bags if stores made the switch from plastic to paper. Thus far, no legislation has been passed to tax paper bags. Recognizing that both plastic and paper shopping bags are unsustainable, the City could mandate that both types of bags be subject to an ARF. This would reduce confusion and bias towards one type of bag over another. Customers would be chazged a $.10 to .20 fee for every disposable bag used at the register. Fees would be itemized on the customer's receipt. Revenue from the ARF could be collected by the city, by retailers or by both to fund green projects and events in Aspen. It could also be used to raise public awazeness about the unsustainable nature of disposable, single-use items. In order for the ARF to be fair and effective, customers would need to be well educated by the City on why this initiative is both necessary and important. The City of Seattle passed a resolution in August 2008 mandating a .20-cent ARF on all disposable shopping bags distributed by supermazkets, convenience and drug stores. According to the ordinance, retailers whose annual gross profits are less than $ US 1 million aze permitted to use the ARF funds for in-store environmental projects, such as the more efficient energy use or the distribution of reusable bags. Those retailers with annual gross profits of $US 1 million or more aze required to remit 75% of funds to the City of Seattle for use in solid waste mitigation and management projects. The ARF was scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2009. According to polls and citizen activist groups, the majority of Seattle residents were in support of the ordinance. However, special interests such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC)4 were successful in lobbying to overturn the law until it was put to public vote (communication with Seattle environmental consultants). The ordinance has been sidelined until the City holds a referendum vote in August 2009. Costs: Management fees associated with monitoring the ARF program. Additional funds for educational support, free bag give-aways, and staffing. Benefits: Reduction of landfill management, transport and labor costs associated with the disposal of single-use shopping bags. Revenue generated from the fee could support in- store green initiatives or community- based environmental projects. Free green marketing for the City of Aspen. 7. Ban on Non-Biodegradable Plastic Bags- In 2007, the City of San Francisco passed a ban onnon-biodegradable bags in all stores with annual profits of $ 2 million or more. Stores affected by the ban aze responsible for a The American Chemistry Council, American Plastics Council and other industry groups have played an integral part in derailing other ordinances on disposable shopping bags. Oakland and San Francisco, California and Maui, Hawaii have all faced opposition to their reduction plans from special interest groups (Progressive Bag Alliance website; Eskenazi 2009). providing biodegradable plastic or paper bags to the customer. They are also required to encourage clients to purchase reusable bags through signage and incentive programs. The ban has reduced some environmental impacts of single-use shopping bags in San Francisco, such as energy costs and landfill waste. Biodegradable plastics require less oil to produce because they are made from organic materials such as com, potato, rice or cellulose. 5 A ban on non-biodegradable bags could be difficult to implement in Aspen. Aside from the lack of composting capabilities, Aspen's retailers may be unwilling to cover upfront costs of purchasing biodegradable bags in order to comply with new legislation. In San Francisco, the ordinance affected retailers such as Wal-mart, Whole Foods, CVS and Sam's Club stores that could disperse higher costs nationwide. Conversely, local Aspen retailers, such as Clazk's and Miner's, would face the challenge of passing off the higher costs of biodegradables to a much smaller customer base. Costs: Installation of new recycling and disposal receptacles; potential installation of an industrial composting facility. Increased costs to grocers (up to 4 times more than traditional products) and customers. Grocers will accrue additional costs due to interruption and alterations of operating budget. Benefits: If biodegradables are disposed of properly, the program will reduce landfill management, transport and labor associated with the disposal of traditional shopping bags. 8. Ban on Plastic Single-Use Shopping Bags- Municipalities, states and countries all over the world have threatened to ban the plastic single-use shopping bag from lazge retail stores. The most notable, and successful, have been implemented in Bangladesh and South Australia, where both governments cited plastic shopping bags as a major culprit of clogging urban drains and destroying marine ecosystems. Other successful legislation passed in South Africa and several towns in Alaska where communities claimed plastic litter was unmanageable. In Apri12008, the prominent "green" grocer Whole Foods also banned plastic bags from its stores. A ban on plastic shopping bags would reduce local environmental issues such as litter in the Roaring Fork Valley. However, if retailers replaced plastic with paper, the ban would not address the broader environmental impacts of the single-use shopping bag industry such as greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption and adverse affects on health. s It should be noted that most biodegradable products aze made from food crops. Producing a disposable item from edible materials may not only be detrimental to our food stream, but also to our non-renewable resource stocks. The American corn industry (a common feedstock for biodegradable items) relies on petroleum to plant, harvest and fertilize its crops. Costs: Management fees associated with creating legislation and monitoring the ban in retail stores. Increase in costs for grocers/customers if paper bags aze offered as a "free" replacement. Additional cost increase for grocers due to an interruption and alteration in the management of the operating budget . Benefits: Reduction of costs associated with labor, transport, recycling and landfill management required for the disposal of plastic shopping bags. 9. Ban on all Single-Ilse Shopping Bags- A ban on all single-use shopping bags would be the most comprehensive legislation action the City could take to address all environmental and economic issues associated with disposable bags. Should such a ban pass, customers would be responsible for bringing their own bags to retail locations. Aspen would be the first municipality in the country to take such bold action against single-use shopping bags. Aside from standard opposition (e.g industry lobbyists and community activists) that might block legislation, Aspen's tourist population could prove to be the greatest barrier to passing a ban on single-use shopping bags. In fact, a ban could create more waste because visitors would have to purchase new reusable bags each time they vacationed in Aspen. The bags would go to the landfill after their departure, thus creating more waste and using more resources than the traditional plastic bag. A possible remedy to this issue would be a recycling program established by the Chamber Resort Association. Hotels would be responsible for buying reusable bags to put in each guest's room. The guest would then have the ability to use the bag for the duration of their stay. After their departure, the bags would remain in the rooms to be used by the next customer. The initial costs of the bags would be passed off to the guest as a green tax ~ .10 per bag. Costs: Management fees associated with creating legislation and monitoring of the ban in retail locations. Support funds for a reusable bag program in local hotels. Potential increase in waste management costs due to increase of reusable bags in landfill. Benefits: Reduction of costs associated with labor, transport, and landfill management required for the disposal of single-use shopping bags. Free green-marketing potential due to Aspen being the first jurisdiction to pass such legislation. Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of evaluated shopping bag strategies # Optiort ' tldvantages Disadvantages , 1 Status Quo • No legislation or action needed. .Environmental and economic costs continue •No legislation Qr enforcement needed. ; • Sttpgorted b~ pitblig in the past .Least inti^usive * ~amiriunty engagement Labeling Requirement • Raises community awareness about • Potentially ineffective w/o environmentally friendly products appropriate disposal facilities • Reduces the use ofnon-renewable • Cost increase to City, resources such as petroleum to produce retailer and customer plastics • Biodegradable products use food sources and still require non-renewable energy resources to operate manufacturing facilities. bags • Gives citizens an incentive to take responsibility for their actions • Revenue stream created from ARF to fund local green projects • Free green marketing costs • Administrative and management cost increase to City • Cost increase to customer •If only applied to a subset of retailers, leads to an "uneven playing field" where customers are only partially encouraged to change behavior • If universally applied, may present substantial costs to small retailers to administer fee due to bureaucratic nature 6 ARF an all Disposable •5ignificanf reduction of ' • Management cost increase to ARF on only Plastic .Reduces environmental and economic • Makes paper the preferred Disposable Shopping impacts from manufacturing, option, despite higher Bags transportation and disposal of HDPE #2 environmental and economic Biodegradable Bags economic impacts from manufacturing disposable bags • Raises public awazeness about environmentally friendly products • Free green mazketing for City and retailer • Potentially ineffective w/o appropriate disposal facilities • Biodegradable products often created from food Ban on non- • Reduction of environmental and • Increase cost to consumer sources. No change in non- renewable energy sources used for manufacturing. Attachment C: COST SAVINGS Assuming that a standard HDPE #2 plastic bag costs .03 cents and a paper bag costs .15 cents, American retailers spend an estimated $4.5 billion annually on providing their customers with "free" shopping bags. This overhead cost is then priced into the cost of food or goods and passed onto the consumer. The average American pays $15 a year to use a supposedly "free" item, an item that not only generates unnecessary waste but represents a considerable burden on our natural resources. Imagine if this money was spent instead on a durable item that did not need to be replaced every time we visited the grocery store. The $15 paid by consumers each year does not account for the additional costs covered by tax dollars to collect and dispose of shopping bags, run recycling programs, organize litter pick-ups, and, in the case of a tourist resort-town like Aspen, handle seasonal influxes of landfill waste. The City of Seattle (population 590,000) estimates that over a 30-year period it will spend roughly $39.5 million to manage the disposal of single-use shopping bags (Herrera 2008). Should the City of Aspen decide to address the use of disposable shopping bags, a mandatory fee will provide the City with the most savings. Fees on disposable shopping bags will not only reduce the amount of garbage generated, but will also produce substantial revenue for the City. According to the same study in Seattle, a .15-cent fee on both plastic and paper bags would raise $228.2 million over a 30-year time period for the City of Seattle (Herrera 2008). Attachment D: ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF A CITYWIDE REDUCTION PROGRAM The City of Aspen would reap considerable environmental benefits if it were to encourage its citizens to restrict or avoid the use of disposable, single-use shopping bags. Direct rewards would be a decline in litter, less transportation emissions due to reduced collection and delivery of disposable shopping bags, and less impact on local ecosystems such as the Roaring Fork River. Indirect environmental benefits stem from the decline in production of disposable shopping bags that would otherwise be used in Aspen if no municipal action had been taken. A decline in manufacturing results in fewer natural resources (i.e. timber, petroleum, natural gas, and coal) used, a decrease in pollutants (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions, industrial effluents, and other hazardous contaminants), and less adverse effects on ecosystems and wildlife. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this effort would pave the way for the City and its citizens to address other important environmental issues. Both a voluntary and mandatory action by the City against disposable shopping bags would establish a platform from which other environmental programs could build. Examples include a campaign to phase-out incandescent light bulbs, decrease the sale of disposable water bottles, or develop mandatory recycling requirements. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Rice, Utilities Energy Efficiency Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Utilities & Environmental Initiatives Director CC: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 20, 2009 MEETING DATE: February 24, 2009 RE: Work Session -BPI EGIA Contractor Certification and Energy Financing Program. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City staff is looking for direction to proceed in bringing a formidable contractor-based energy efficiency program to the city of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The program is a combination of Building Performance Institute's (BPI) contractor certification program and the Electric and Gas Industry Association's (EGIA) Geosmart loan program. The purpose is to bring aone-stop-shop energy efficiency/building performance program to our ratepayers so they may engage in energy efficiency improvements to their homes and buildings. The benefit of the program to our ratepayers is a certified contractor performing energy and building performance improvement work under a set of rules and guidelines incorporating finance options. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council gave approval for afull-time energy efficiency manager in June of 2007 and has directed staff to plan, design, and implement energy efficiency programs that benefit our rate payers, as well as create a position of innovated leadership in the Roaring Fork Valley and beyond. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Electric utility provides electric service to approximately 2,800 electric ratepayers (meters) and currently offers a wealth of efficiency programs from rebates and incentives to education and outreach in addition to sponsorship and support of local organizations and community events. DISCUSSION: The Energy Efficiency programs the city of Aspen utilities provide, while accessible and beneficial, fall short of a comprehensive program package that our rate payers can Page 1 of 2 more easily comprehend and utilize. The drive has been to design programs at every level of service that provide the comprehensive one-stop-shop capabilities. The BPI contractor certification program educates and trains existing contractors in all elements of building performance analysis, energy efficiency presentation and sales, and implementation in prepazation to becoming a certified building performance contractor. Once certified, the contractor then works under a strict set of rules and guidelines designed to protect the interest of the building owner and provide maximum building performance service. BPI engages a third pazty monitoring and verification system to provide a checks and balance progam to ensure a high quality of performance and customer satisfaction. BPI also provides continuing education and training, sales and mazketing materials and support, and continuous contractor support. EGIA partners with BPI to provide GE Capital financing options via the certified contractor through EGIA's Geosmazt Loan program. EGIA supports the certified contractor with programming software, continuous education and training as well as sales and marketing material and support. The benefits to our ratepayers by hosting this program is they receive aone-stop-shop service that incorporates the necessazy first step of an energy audit with contractor scope of work and bid proposal, and the financing options to implement the needed energy efficiency and building performance improvements. The benefits to the City of Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, and our region is increased focus on energy and energy efficiency increasing the number of contractors capable of providing specific energy efficiency and building performance services within reason and regulazly available to the ratepayer. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated cost of this program will be $25,000, which is currently part of utilities 2009 budget authority and is specifically related to efficiency measures for the city's utility customers. The proposed program provides our ratepayers with a comprehensive program to improve energy efficiency and building performance saving them excessive out-of-pocket costs and the waste that occurs when multiple contractors aze involved. Approximately 80 percent of current construction is retrofit, remodel, and/or upgrades on existing homes. This program would provide a platform for existing contractors to add services or reinvent themselves, stimulating the construction economy of the Roaring Fork Valley while providing the in-demand services property owners are looking for. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The city of Aspen Utilities department recommend Council approve the spending of efficiency monies to bring the Building Performance Institute's (BPI) contractor certification program and the Electric and Gas Industry Association's (EGIA) Geosmart loan program to the city of Aspen's utility customers. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to this one-to-shop program for our utility customers would be to hold on to that portion of our efficiency budget and utilize these funds for our customers in a different, yet-to-be defined manner. ATTACHMENTS: Screen shots of BPI and EGIA web sites. Page 2 of 2 BPI: Consumers -Make the right choice in contractors BUILDING PERFORMANCE INSTITUTE INC. Page 1 of 1 Search 'Guide to Selecting Contractors Verify Certification Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Resources / Incentives Customer Feedback Deactivated Make the right choice in contractors. Insist on using BP[ Accredited contracting companies if you want to know that the work is done right and you're getting value for your money. Do you have comfort problems like drafts or rooms that are hard to heat or cool? High energy bills? Ice dams? Mold, mildew or moisture damage? These symptoms are obvious, but sometimes the root causes aze not readily appazent. Is it the furnace? Should my home be more airtight? Do I need more insulation? Should I seal the ducts? Buy a new air conditioner? Replace the windows? Your house is a system. Everything is connected. The relationship between all the systems in the house is the key to its overall performance. Your health, safety and comfort. Your home's energy efficiency and durability. BPI contractors have completed rigorous training, administered by a network of affiliates, in home performance evaluation focusing on this house-as-a-system concept. These systems include heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment and the building envelope or outer shell -the foundations, walls, roof and all their component parts like windows and doors. The other traiuing programs just don't cut it. Other programs give people certificates for simply attending the training course. There is no way of knowing if information was retained. But when you get a BPI Accredited company, you get certified staff. BPI Certification requires each person to pass not only a written exam for competency and base knowledge in their field, but also a field exam where he or she applies what they know. Reduce your risk and get the job done right. Find a BPI accredited contractor, The following contractors are no longer accredited by BPI. 107 Hermes Road, Suite 110 Malta, New York 12020 Request Information PHONE:877-274-1274:518-899-2727 FAX:866-777-1274:518-899-1622 http://www.bpi.org/content/consumers/index.html 2/20/2009 BUILDING PERFORMANCE INSTITUTE Raising the bar in home performance contracting. The Building Performance Institute, Inc. (BPI) is a recognized global leader, supporting the development of a highly professional building performance industry through individual and organizational credentialing and a rigorous quality assurance program. BPI works with building performance industry stakeholders to ensure that the professional baz for excellence in building performance contracting is established and maintained by creating and regulazly updating technical requirements through an open, transparent, consensus-based development process. BPI measures the knowledge, skills and competency of individuals, and evaluates the organizations impacting building performance. We accomplish this with an integrated certification, accreditation and quality assurance program designed to support the building performance contracting industry. BPI also offers added support services that promote and stimulate infrastructural development, emphasizing education and outreach. Our history. In 1993, a group of building tradespersons, project managers and public program professionals joined to form the Building Performance Institute. At first, BPI was a resource for independent, third-party verification of worker skills in the weatherization industry and building trades. By 1996, BPI began issuing certifications for weatherization auditors and installation personnel Since that time, BPI has expanded to serve not only the weatherization industry, but also the growing residential and multifamily building performance contracting industry. BPI is now supported by organizations around the globe. 107 Hennes Road, Suite 110 Malta, New York 12020 Request Information PHONE:877-274-1274:518-899-2727 FAX:866-777-1274:518-899-1622 http://www.bpi.org/contenUabouUindex.html 2/20/2009 BPI: About BPI -Raising the bar in home performance contracting Page 1 of 1 Job_ Opportunities Contact Information Request EGIA Home Page > GEOSmart Home Page Page 1 of 1 - - _. _. EGIA is proud to present GEOSmartSusGinable Finandng Solutions, a comprehensive and easy to use home improvement and solar Fnandng program. Stap losing sales and start realizing the full eaming potential of your home improvement or renewable energy business with GEOSmart Sustainable Financing Soutions. Sign-up now and start making it easier than ever for your ~ customers to bring energy efficiency home. Revolving Financing Current Rates & Terms • Home Improvement Tenn Sheets • HVAC Tenn Sheets • Qulck Start Guide Sales & Marketing Support • Consumer Brochure • Credit Application • SuDDN Reorder Fonn • Sales Book Inserts 0 6 Month NPDI 0 12 Month NPDI o FIxED APR PROMO 0 7.99% Fixed APR - 2% 0 9.99% Fxed APR - 2% 0 1Mf~'7.99%90Day NPDI 1.25% o X7.99%90Day NPDI 1.5% 0 17.99% 90Day NPDI 2% 0 19.99% 90Day NPDI 1.25% 0 119,99% 90Day NPDI 1.5% o X9.99%90Day NPDI 2% o +11.99%90Day NPDI 1.25% o /112.99% 90Day NPDI 1.5% o '12.99%90Day NPDI 2% ~iesidentiai Financing Ideal for home improvement projects such as HVAC upgrades, replacement windows, insulation, solar pool heating applications and more. 7.99% a 9.99% APR Fixed Rate For Life Programs . 3, 6, 12 a 18 .Instant In-Home Approvals / Month No Quick A Easy Paperwork Payment / .National GEOSynay>Qricing Deferred On All Promofional Interest Programs Promotions .Branded GEOSyrrarttredit . Une Of Credit Applications With Energy Up To $25,000 Efficient Message . New 1.25% .Direct Deposit Funding Payment FaRor Available To Keep Payments Low Approved Products Wind Turbines Water Heaters . Solar Photovoltaic .Insulation .Energy Efficient . Solar Thermal • Radiant Remodeling • Domestic Water • Rolled . Window Treatments Heating Blown (tinting, shading, shudders, • Pod Heating . Whole House Home awnings) Windows & Siding Performance .Indoor Air Quality HVAC .Artificial Turt .Installed Generators . GeoExchange Systems .Roofing . Water Conserving Irrigation Water Conserving Landscaping Mease Contact EG[A for the extensive list of additional home improvement measures covered under the GEOSmart program. Commercial Leasing EGIA has teamed up with dean Power Finance to offer the GEOSmar[Commercial Leasing Program. To team more, [lick the link below. Program Website GEOSmartSustainable Finandng Soutions is an exdusive program for EGIA members. To become an EGIA member, CLICK HERE. If you're already an EGIA member and would like to sign-up for GEOSmart, CLICK HERE. Copyrght (c) 2009 EGIA Home Page Terms Of Use Privary Statement Hosted hy: Elecbic & Gas Industries Association http://www.egia.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?VendorID=57&TabID=506 2/20/2009 EGIA's GEOSmarl Commercial Program: Home GEO Smart t~a~a Page 1 of 2 The Electric 8 Gas Industries Association (EGIA) has partnered with Clean Power Finance to create the GEOSmart® Commercial Leasing Program. With the GEOSmart Commercial Leasing Program, EGIA member contractors can now provide businesses of all sizes with a comprehensive, quick and easy way to finance energy eFFciency upgrades, including heating and cooling (HVAC), lighting, t solar PV, solar water heating applications and more. +a,. _ Program Features . Quick Quote Tool available 24 / 7 . On-line credit applications (completed by contractor or consumer) . Finance equipment, installation, tax 8 extended service agreements . Non-Brand Specifc . Financing specialists handle transaction from start to finish . Amounts 6om $10,000 to $2,000,000 or more . Tax advantages for business owner . Non-Tax Lease: take advantage of depreciation expensing . Tax Lease: write off entire monthly payment as a tax deduction . Non-Profd and Municipal leases available . Approved Products: Solar, HVAC, Geothermal, Wind Power, High Efficiency Lighting w„ ~~ ). ;,~ ..k 1,l,, 6 '~". ~, ~ ~ i/li ~a~1n i 1 L ~II~I~III~ ~I~I~~ ,. },i; I t ~ t ,ro i Non EGIA Members Current EGIA Members Log-in to Contractor Corner and click the Commercial Leasing Program link to Stan using the program immediately. If you do not currently have a Contractor Comer account, Gick the register link below: 7 `~ t~Ls~ u~ ,, ~,,; °_ Jeremy Chandler EGIA, Manager of Contractor Services http://www.egia.com/geosmartcommerciallGeoSmartCom_Index.aspx 2/20/2009 ~'~ ELECTRIC & GAS INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION News Release Clean'€~~~~~r Finance GEOSMARTSUSTAINABLE FINANCING SOLUTIONS® EXPANDS TO OFFER UNPARALLELED GREEN FINANCING FOR HOMES, BUSINESSES AND MUNICIPALITIES EGIA and Clean Power Finance Announce Strategic Partnership To Deliver Commercial and Residential Energy E1Tciency And Solar Financing SACRAMENTO, CA -August 20, 2008 -The non-profit Electric & Gas Industries Association (EGIA) and Clean Power Finance, Inc. today announce their partnership to add business and residential energy efficiency and solar secured project financing to EGIA's nationally recognized GEOSmart Sustainable Financing Solutions. This comprehensive financing program will be delivered through manufacturers, distributors, utility companies and EGIA's nationwide contractor network. The partnership will provide businesses and homeowners with unparalleled unsecured, secured, and commercial financing options for virtually all energy efficiency or renewable energy projects. EGIA, having facilitated the financing of over $400 million iri home energy efficiency and solar upgrades over the past 5 years, will continue to provide its GEOSmart unsecured financing program for residential projects from $1,000 to $50,000. In addition, GEOSmart approved contractors will also have access to Clean Power Finance's residential and commercial secured financing options. These services include leasing and property based commercial loans, as well as, residential refinancing, second mortgages, and home equity lines of credit. The GEOSmart financing program now allows contractors to provide both residential and commercial customers with 100% financing for their energy efficient and renewable energy projects, with the programs that best fd their financing needs. With the GEOSmart Commercial leasing program, businesses of all sizes now have a comprehensive, quick and easy way to finance energy efficiency upgrades, including heating and cooling (HVAC), lighting, solar PV and solar water heating applications, refrigeration, energy efficient office equipment and more. The GEOSmart Commercial leasing program is available for small businesses, retail, commercial and industrial facilities, to finance projects ranging from $10,000 up to $2 million or more, with leasing terms up to 7 years. Municipal tax exempt leasing is also available for government and public agencies including schools, cities, hospitals and special assessment districts. "One of EGIA's key objectives is to make investing in energy efficiency and solar projects easy and affordable for businesses and homeowners alike," says Bruce Matulich, executive director of EGIA. "The addition of commercial financing complements our GEOSmart program and enables us to deliver what we believe to be the industry's most comprehensive financing solution, all marketed under one nationally recognized green brand." "EGIA has a long history of industry leadership and we're pleased to be part of the GEOSmart program. We look forward to working with EGIA to continue our support of home improvement contractors, and drive adoption of solar and renewable energy solutions by consumers and businesses alike," said Joseph Brakohiapa, president of Clean Power Finance In addition to enhanced financing options, Clean Power Finance will also be offering EGIA member contractors their state of the art web based estimating software (CPF Tools) under special terms and conditions. CPF Tools is a web-based solution designed to help installers grow, manage, and close more business. By providing qualified leads, a job management tool and a financing partner, CPF Tools manages the sales work flow from project inception to instajlation. With continually updated databases for utility rates, incentives and equipment, CPF Tools delivers professional sales proposals for residential and commercial bids. To learn more about the GEOSmart commercial financing program go to www.epia. orq/G EOSmartCommercial About Electric 8 Gas Industries Association The Electric & Gas Industries Association (EGIA) is anon-profit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions through a nationwide network of contractors, distributors, manufacturers and utility companies. EGIA is a leading provider of resource efficiency services and energy efficiency program administration for utility companies and water agencies. EGIA also provides the home improvement industry and businesses with comprehensive energy efficiency and solar financing solutions and has administered some of the nation's largest utility and state sponsored energy efficiency financing programs. For more infonmation, visit www.eoia.ora. About Clean Power Finance Clean Power Finance is the leading provider of software and financing solutions to the solar industry. Based in San Francisco, the company's mission is to enable the mass-market adoption of renewable energy by providing an end-to-end software solution that integrates financing into the sales process. Since its introduction early this year, the Clean Power Finance software has garnered enthusiastic reviews from users who represent over 30 percent of the solar installer community nationwide. For more information, visit www.cleanoowerfinance.com For more information contact: Bruce Matulich, EGIA, (916) 480-7314 or bmatulich(rDeaia.ora Mike Pryde, Clean Power Finance, (916) 474-93135 or morvde(a~cleanpowerfinance.com