HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20171212
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
December 12, 2017
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Climate Action Plan Update
II. Update on Mobility Lab
III. Top Ten Goals Quarterly Update - no packet material
IV. Food Tax Refund
P1
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Menges, Data Research and Project Planner
THROUGH: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 8, 2017
MEETING DATE: December 12, 2017
RE: Aspen’s Climate Action Plan
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
1. Approve and sign the letter from City Council introducing Aspen’s new Climate Action
Plan (CAP).
2. Support the implementation of the CAP over the next three years.
3. Reaffirm Aspen’s long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals of 30% below 2004
levels by 2020 and 80% below those levels by 2050.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Since the inception of the Canary Initiative in 2005, Aspen’s City Councils have supported
ambitious and effective action to both cut emissions and respond to the impacts of climate
change. This legacy of leadership has set the stage for Aspen’s new CAP; which in turn provides
a framework for continuing and expanding Aspen’s leadership on climate action. Attachment B
provides a bulleted overview of previous Council actions related to climate change.
BACKGROUND:
The commitment to climate action in Aspen was born out of a community-wide recognition that
climate change presents one of the foremost economic, social and environmental threats to global
and local communities, including Aspen. Aspen was one of the first local governments to take
the lead by creating the Canary Initiative (now the Climate Action department), and in crafting a
comprehensive strategy for reducing GHG emissions.
Since Aspen’s climate work began in 2005, significant progress has occurred in how the
community’s energy is produced; the efficiency with which it is used; the way residents and
visitors travel from origin to destination; and in the amount of waste going to the landfill. These
outcomes were made possible by the work of many City of Aspen departments, local
organizations and individuals, but all lead back to Council’s enduring commitment to climate
action. In addition to this progress, the community’s understanding of the benefits of local
climate action have evolved significantly.
P2
I.
Page 2 of 5
Aspen’s 10 years of climate leadership has delivered numerous benefits including: reduced GHG
emissions, improvements to local quality of life, and an amplified voice in state and federal
policy. Additionally, this early leadership helped give rise to the global phenomenon of local
governments committing to and acting on climate. In 2005, only a handful of cities had adopted
formal commitments. Today, 7,497 cities representing over 9% of global population, have
committed to a climate action program similar to what Aspen has done for the past decade.
Nationally, states cities and businesses representing more than half of the US economy and
population have set GHG reduction targets and declared support for the Paris Climate
Agreement. And in Colorado, 24 local governments have committed to climate action by joining
the Compact of Colorado Communities, spearheaded by Mayor Skadron. Collectively, these
commitments represent a step in the right direction for reducing global GHG emissions at the
volumes necessary to maintain a livable planet.
There remains much work to be done locally, nationally and globally. While Aspen’s GHG
emissions have decreased, achieving the community’s 2020 and 2050 goals will require a
significant uptick in efforts. Accordingly, Aspen has developed an updated Climate Action Plan
to help usher in the next 3 years of local climate leadership.
DISCUSSION:
CAP Defined: Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Attachment C) is the community’s
roadmap for reducing local GHG emissions at the levels necessary to meet its 2050 goals and do
its part to reduce global emissions. The CAP recommends 37 actions across six sectors for
implementation beginning in 2018 and extending through 2020. The recommended actions were
identified with an Advisory Committee of regional experts, and are both innovative and
achievable. These actions also build on existing efforts and set the stage for future efforts. The
CAP can be viewed as Aspen’s strategic next segment on the long road to reducing GHG
emissions 80% by 2050. Having a CAP is a responsible approach to keeping Aspen’s
commitments, and is a best practice of cities worldwide.
Purpose and need: Aspen’s first Climate Action Plan (CAP) was published in May 2007,
setting priorities for 2007 through 2009. Since 2009, Aspen’s climate work has continued at full
speed, but outside of a formal planning framework. Progress in reducing GHG emissions has
been realized, but not to the extent desired or at levels that would enable achieving the 2020 and
2050 goals. Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen reduced its GHG output by 7.4%, despite concurrent
growth in population and economic activity. At the current rate of action, Aspen will have only
reduced its GHGs 3.5% by 2050. Accordingly, a new CAP, defining specific measures that
should be taken over the next 3 years is necessary to position the community for success.
What is addressed: The CAP recommends actions that would reduce emissions stemming from
Aspen’s six most significant GHG sectors: Energy Supply; Residential Energy; Commercial
Energy; Vehicles and Transportation; Aviation and Airport; Waste and Landfill.
Full descriptions of these sectors, and recommended actions in each, are provided in their
respective chapters of the CAP (Attachment C. p.18 – p.45). Tracking and mitigating GHGs from
these sectors aligns with national practices and protocols.
P3
I.
Page 3 of 5
CAP Process: The recommendations presented in the CAP culminate a year and a half of work
by Climate Action staff and the Advisory Committee; a group of more than 40 community
leaders and experts in energy, building science, transportation, waste, aviation, forestry,
community development, public administration, business, climate science, and resilience. This
committee represents the input of 15 organizations and 5 City of Aspen departments. A full list
of members is available in Attachment C on p.48.
The strength of the recommended actions in the CAP are a result of the robust process that
produced them. Three concurrent tracks delivered a CAP that is innovative, implementable, and
correlates with the community’s willingness to act. These tracks are:
1. Analysis and modeling: With the assistance of regional academic experts, staff
completed various research projects (like GHG inventories and forecasts) to inform the
Advisory Committee on how far Aspen has come and what the CAP would need to
accomplish to achieve long-term goals. Further, staff reviewed Advisory Committee
recommendations, conducted feasibility assessments to streamline the number of actions
for consideration, and worked to align the CAP with existing community plans and City
Council priorities.
2. Stakeholder engagement: Throughout the course of four, facilitated, in-person meetings
centered around the analysis and modeling, the Advisory Committee identified a full
spectrum of potential actions, and recommend a subset of specific actions for
implementation over the next 3 years. The recommended actions build on current efforts,
set the stage for the next generation of opportunities, and make tangible progress on
reducing GHGs. Further, the recommended actions include some that could be led by the
City and others that could be led by partners.
3. Community outreach: During the CAP process, three surveys were conducted to deepen
the City’s understanding about the specific climate actions that community members,
local businesses and visitors are most and least willing to take. Further, the surveys
identified motivations for, and barriers to, taking action. Staff collected completed
surveys from more than 250 community members, 30 businesses and 25 visitors.
Conducting the surveys provided 6 months of continuous community engagement on
climate action and sustainability. The collective information has been analyzed, and its
insights will help inform the forthcoming implementation of CAP actions.
Additional information about the CAP process and the four Advisory Committee meetings is
available in Attachment C on p.7 and p.50.
GHG Reduction Toolkit: Two unique documents came out of this process; Aspen’s Climate
Action Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Toolkit. While the CAP is an Aspen-specific
strategy, the Toolkit is a resource that can be used by communities throughout the region, state
and country. It provides a comprehensive menu of actions that communities can take to reduce
GHG emissions, and is fundamentally a shortcut for building a climate action plan.
One desired outcome is that the Toolkit facilitates greater regional collaboration around shared
GHG sectors, increasing the likelihood of meeting reduction goals while making the process
more efficient, collaborative, and multijurisdictional. Aspen’s CAP is built on actions drawn
from the Toolkit and it is anticipated that future CAPs will continue drawing from it. The Toolkit
is available at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1705.
P4
I.
Page 4 of 5
Data Context and Implications: The CAP process included robust quantitative analysis to
answer three key questions: how far has Aspen come; where will Aspen’s GHG emissions go if
we move forward at the current rate of action (business as usual); and what Aspen could
accomplish if it did everything that is currently known and possible. The answers are as follows:
1. Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen reduced community-wide GHG emissions by 7.4%. A
detailed look at these trends is available in Attachment C on page 12.
2. If Aspen continues at its current rate of reduction, and if population trends continue
growing at the rate that they grew between 2004 and 2014, the community will have
reduced emissions 3.5% below 2004 levels by 2050. A visual look at the “business as
usual forecast” is available in Attachment C on page 14.
3. If Aspen could successfully achieve all objectives identified in the Toolkit, it could
reduce GHG emissions 71% by 2050, getting very close to its goal. This is a promising
finding. More information and a visual representation of Aspen’s “GHG reduction
potential” is available in Attachment C on page 15.
Implementation of this CAP should begin to accelerate Aspen’s rate of reduction; a necessity if
the community’s stated GHG reduction goals are to be accomplished.
Next steps and CAP Implementation: The CAP proposes significantly ramping up efforts
related to energy supply, energy and water efficiency, transportation and mobility, waste
reduction and more. Its publication is a launch point for the real work of implementation, slated
to begin in 2018. The actions listed in this CAP build on past and existing efforts while setting
the groundwork for the mid- and long-term actions that will be necessary to achieve the Aspen
community’s GHG reduction goals.
The City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department proposes continuing a formal framework of
Convening the Advisory Committee to foster successful implementation. A list of 9 specific
implementation-related services the Department will provide is available in Attachment C on p.
45.
Metrics of success: The primary measure of success is continued and accelerated reductions in
community-wide GHG emissions. The Climate Action department will continue tracking
community-wide GHG emissions and publishing GHG inventories. Success will be realized if
Aspen’s GHG emissions decrease more between 2014 and 2020 than they did between 2004 and
2014.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Implementation of the CAP would positively impact numerous measures from City Council’s
Sustainability Dashboard:
Environmental
· Energy (all measures): Percentage of Energy from Renewable Sources, Community-Wide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Use from the Built Environment, Mass Transit Use.
· Air: Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution (through reduced VMT), Castle Creek Bridge
Traffic Counts, Ozone levels (reduced vehicle emissions).
· Waste: Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Rate, Miles Waste Travels for Processing.
P5
I.
Page 5 of 5
Economic
· Tourism, Lodging, & Mobility: Walkability, Bike-Ability, and Transit.
· Workforce Supply & Match: Median Commuting Costs by Bus, Participation Rate of
Employers in Subsided/Free Bus Pass Program.
Social
· Community Connections: Fostering a Sense of Place and Belonging. Participation &
Engagement Opportunities.
· Public Safety & Preparedness: Emergencies, Disasters, & Preparedness (various CAP
actions contribute to resilience).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. City Council approve and sign the letter included as Attachment A to introduce Aspen’s
new CAP to the community.
2. City Council support implementation of the CAP over the next 3 years.
3. City Council reaffirm Aspen’s long-term GHG reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels
by 2020 and 80% below those levels by 2050.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to not sign the letter introducing the CAP to the
community and:
1. Ask for specific revisions that would lead to approval.
2. Decline to sign any letter introducing the CAP.
Council could reject the final CAP as currently written to either:
1. Make specific revisions.
2. Continue the community’s climate action work without a formal planning framework.
Council could elect not to reaffirm Aspen’s long-term GHG reduction goals and instead:
1. Change the goals, either tightening or relaxing them.
2. Eliminate specific GHG reduction goals entirely.
Without Council’s endorsement and ownership of the new CAP, their support for a specific
planning framework, and the maintenance of rigorous GHG reduction targets, it is unlikely that
Aspen’s climate action work would be as effective and efficient as it could be. This would
deprive the community of certain benefits and compromise Aspen’s legacy of leadership on the
issue.
ATTACHMENTS:
· Attachment A: Letter from City Council introducing the CAP
· Attachment B: Previous Council Action on Climate Change
· Attachment C: Aspen’s Climate Action Plan
P6
I.
Attachment A: Letter from Council introducing the Climate Action Plan
December 2017
To the Aspen community and our visitors,
It is our pleasure to introduce Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP), which sets the
stage for continuing and growing Aspen’s legacy of climate leadership. When Aspen
released its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2007, we became one of the first mountain
communities in the United States to adopt ambitious climate goals. This commitment
reflects the community’s understanding that a stable climate is foundational to the Aspen
that we know and love, and that climate action delivers direct quality of life benefits.
Opportunities to reduce emissions are more practical, abundant and economical than they
ever have been; To accelerate our movement in the right direction, the CAP maintains
Aspen’s ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. We are confident that Aspen
and the Roaring Fork Valley community can rise to the challenge of meeting these goals,
based on our past work and forward thinking, committed community, policy makers, and
businesses.
One of Aspen’s hopes in becoming an early leader was that other communities would
take notice. Today, local governments acting on climate is a global phenomenon. In
2007, few cities had adopted formal commitments. Today, thousands of communities
around the world, hundreds around the country and dozens in Colorado have committed
to climate action. Collectively, these commitments embody the potential for reducing
global GHG emissions at the volumes necessary to maintain a livable planet.
There has never been a better time to turn commitment into action. As history has shown,
Aspen has a civic responsibility to act on behalf of its constituents, a moral imperative to
take the steps necessary to meet the challenge of climate change, and the potential to be a
catalyst for meaningful and effective action around the state, country and world.
Implementing this CAP refocuses Aspen’s commitment to its future and will usher in the
next phase of local climate leadership.
We urge all to join us. Together we can make a difference that benefits our beautiful
region and has an impact far beyond it.
Mayor Steve Skadron and City Council members Adam Frisch, Ann Mullins, Bert Myrin,
and Ward Hauenstein.
P7
I.
Attachment B: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Since the inception of the Canary Initiative in 2005, Aspen’s City Councils have supported
ambitious and effective action to both cut emissions and respond to the impacts of climate
change. The following list is an overview of previous Council actions related to climate action.
1. 2005: Adopted the Canary Initiative with the goal of aggressively reducing Aspen’s carbon
footprint to protect the community’s future.
2. 2006: Published Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential
Responses to understand how anticipated changes are likely to affect key sectors and
ecosystems.
3. 2007: Adopted the first Climate Action Plan, covering the years 2007 – 2009. The Plan
specified GHG reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 80% below those
levels by 2050.
4. 2012: Published an updated Aspen Area Community Plan prioritizing reductions in GHG
emissions, energy use and traffic congestion.
5. 2004, 2007, 2011 and 2014: Published community–wide GHG inventories to better
understand the Aspen community’s GHG sources, trends, and reduction opportunities.
6. 2014: Published Climate Change and Aspen 2014: An Update on Impacts to Guide
Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement detailing likely climate impacts and
providing adaptation strategies in key sectors.
7. 2014: Joined Climate Mayors, an association of United States mayors with the goal of
reducing GHGs. The group represents 379 cities and nearly 20% of the U.S. population
8. 2015: Accomplished a key goal laid out in the CAP by achieving 100% renewable electricity
for Aspen Electric and directed staff to maintain a 100% renewable portfolio.
9. 2016: Finalized a resilience strategy to prepare key sectors of the economy for the
unavoidable impacts of climate change.
10. 2016: Adopted Resolution 11, Series 2016 urging the U.S. Congress to introduce and pass
carbon fee and dividend legislation.
11. 2016: Joined the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, an international
alliance of local governments dedicated to affecting global scale emissions through local
action.
12. 2016: Joined Colorado Communities for Climate Action (CC4CA), a coalition of local
governments working to affect climate and energy policy at the state level.
13. 2017: Launched the Compact of Colorado Communities, to help build the necessary capacity
for effective climate action in local governments throughout the state.
14. 2017: Adopted “Top Nine Goals” for 2017–2019, two of which are directly tied to local
climate action. Goal number four (transforming the mobility landscape) and goal number
seven (decreasing the carbon footprint of the community’s energy supplies).
P8
I.
ASPEN’S CLIMATE
ACTION PLAN
A Roadmap to Our
Sustainable Future
P9I.
Letter from Aspen City Council
INTRODUCTION
[Intro letter from Council — witheld pending approval and signing at 12/12/17 work session]
2
Aspen’s 2017 City Council is proud to continue and expand the
community’s legacy of climate leadership. From left: Bert Myrin,
Ward Hauenstein, Mayor Steve Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch
P10I.
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
Residential Energy 22
Commercial Energy 26
Vehicles & Transportation 30
Waste & Landfill 35
Aviation & Airport 41
Considerations for Implementation 45
Organizational Capacity Recommendations 46
Conclusion 47
Acknowledgments 48
Appendix A: How the CAP was Developed 50
Appendix B: A Summary of Relevant Climate Science 51
Appendix C: Related Documents 54
Appendix D: Literature Cited 55
Climate Action Mitigates Risk and Creates Opportunities 9
High-Impact Sectors 8
Welcome to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan 6
Executive Summary 4
Letter from Aspen City Council 2
CAP and Toolkit: What’s the Difference?11
Aspen’s GHG Emissions 12
GHG Emissions Forecast 14
GHG Reduction Potential 15
Understanding the CAP’s Recommendations 16
Key & Definitions 17
Energy Supply 18
Climate Action is a Community Value 10
P11I.
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The Aspen community’s first Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2007 and set the stage for 10 years of targeted and effective
programming. Originally written as a two-year strategy, decision-makers and community members have continued leveraging the
framework and priorities, resulting in an Aspen that has been able to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions despite growth in
population and economic activity (Figure 1). Successful implementation of and growth from the original plan also positioned Aspen
as a community known for leadership in climate planning, policy, and action; a position that has provided City leaders with a credible
voice in a variety of state, national and international climate-related initiatives. Given the success of the original Climate Action Plan,
direction from community members and elected official to bolster efforts, a need to align climate planning with the current priorities
and opportunities, and an accelerated impetus to reduce GHGs, this substantive update is timely.
4
Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies 37 actions to reduce GHG emissions in six sectors and recommends their
implementation. Conceived as a roadmap for achieving the community’s long-term GHG reduction goals, this CAP is one segment
on the longer journey to reducing emissions 80% by 2050. The CAP focuses on actions that can be taken beginning in 2018 and
through 2020, setting the stage for the programs and initiatives of the future — those have been identified in the comprehensive GHG
Reduction Toolkit1. Analysis and modeling were a key component of the CAP process and indicate that it is technologically possible to
get very close to the near carbon-free Aspen that community members and leaders have long aspired to achieve. Unless local and
regional climate action initiatives are significantly bolstered, GHGs will grow slightly by 2050, even if today’s level of commitment is
maintained (Figure 2).
Figure 1. GHGs
decreased while
population and
economic activity grew,
indicating that ongoing
efforts to address
climate change can
complement a thriving
and dynamic Aspen.
Retail Sales
Population
GHG Emissions
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%2004 2007 20142011
+54.5%
+5.5%
-7.4%
1 The GHG Reduction Toolkit is a companion document to the CAP, containing a comprehensive list of objectives and actions to reduce GHG emissions. It is available at: https://
www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1705.P12I.
Executive Summary (Continued)
INTRODUCTION
5
Analysis and modeling were but one component of the CAP’s development: its greatest substance lies in the robust stakeholder
process that identified many possibilities for reducing GHGs, and then prioritized a subset for implementation over the next
three years. The selected actions create a CAP that is innovative but also implementable. The recommendations can be found
in corresponding sector chapters, and are accompanied by rankings on how much each one could reduce GHG emissions and
information on the co-benefits that might accompany implementation.
The CAP was developed in collaboration with a diversity of partners representing all GHG sectors, which cultivated a spirit of shared
ownership for the real work of moving from Plan development to actual implementation. This is the community’s CAP, and while
specific organizations, entities or City departments may take the lead in implementing certain initiatives, success will require deliberate
partnership and collaboration. In short, no single organization or department is solely responsible for full execution of the CAP. Success
must be realized as an all hands-on deck effort.
Figure 2. Community-wide GHGs are likely to grow between now and 2050 if the current level of climate action in Aspen continues. On the
other hand, if efforts increase dramatically and all objectives in the GHG Reduction Toolkit are achieved, Aspen could get very close to reaching
its 2050 goal.
Increase Decrease
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0Metric Tons CO2eGHG
2014
BAU
2050LandfillAirportVehiclesCommercial EnergyResidential Energy2050 Goal
Business as Usual Through 2050
with Change by Sector
+0.6%+5.2%-8.3%+10%+0.5%450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0Metric Tons CO2ePossible GHG Reductions by Sector
BAU
2050
GHG
2050
-26%
-30.1%
-10.3%-20.6%
-14.5%
2050 GoalLandfillAirportVehicles
Commercial EnergyResidential EnergyP13I.
Welcome to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan
INTRODUCTION
A roadmap to our sustainable future: This Plan is the Aspen community’s
roadmap for reducing GHG emissions and envisioning what a low-carbon
Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley could look like. Intended for policy makers,
citizens, planners, and others interested in reducing GHGs while enhancing
quality of life, Aspen’s CAP sets immediate priorities while providing a
comprehensive planning resource for the mid- and long-term future.
Measurable and target-oriented: The CAP is a strategy to intentionally
move toward achieving the community’s long-term GHG reduction goals.
Aspen began measuring its community-wide GHG emissions in 2004 and
is committed to reducing them 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The long-
term target is consistent with what the international scientific community
believes is necessary to constrain global warming to 2°Ci and is aligned
with multinational commitments that uphold the Paris Climate Agreement.
A three-year plan looking far beyond: While looking forward to 2050,
Aspen’s CAP presents a three-year strategy focusing on innovative
yet implementable steps that should be taken beginning in 2018 and
maturing by the end of 2020. While directly reducing GHG emissions, the
recommended actions also set the stage for continued and expanding
reduction opportunities. A comprehensive list of strategies that could build
on the CAP from 2020 onward have been identified and published in a
companion document, the GHG Reduction Toolkit. The actions prioritized in
the CAP, as well as those identified in the Toolkit, were developed over the
course of four work sessions with a group of more than 40 regional experts
known as the Advisory Committee2. The CAP pulls its priorities from the
Toolkit, and the actions presented for implementation between 2018 and
2020 were selected by the Committee. Thus, this CAP considers a full
spectrum of GHG reduction opportunities, reflecting and prioritizing those
that regional experts agree merit focus over the next three years.
Intended use: The CAP should be used as a roadmap and springboard
for developing implementation strategies for each of the recommended
actions, and then applying them. The implementation pathway for each
CAP action will be unique, requiring stakeholder input and support, and
relying on a variety of mechanisms to be effective.
6
2 A list of Advisory Committee members is available in the Acknowledgments section.
Aspen’s Climate Action Plan is the
community’s second CAP, and the
first comprehensive update to the
original, adopted by Aspen City
Council in 2007.P14I.
Welcome to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (Continued)
INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive approach: This CAP is not simply a literature review of best practices and innovative ideas that might work in Aspen.
The recommendations in each sector are based on extensive analysis, modeling, deliberation, stakeholder input, and community
engagement3 to ensure buy-in and feasibility. Further, the CAP aims to complement the multitude of existing or developing plans and
City-wide goals in related areas such as transportation, energy supply, and waste diversion.
7
3 The Climate Action Planning Outreach and Engagement Report is a companion document to the CAP and details community outreach, surveying and engagement
efforts that occurred during the planning process to complement and inform CAP implementation. It is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/
View/1783 or by emailing climate@cityofaspen.com.
Figure 3. This comprehensive approach has produced a CAP that is innovative, implementable, and correlates with
the community’s willingness to act.
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
ANALYSIS &
MODELING
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
• Community member
and business surveys
• Web presence
• Tabling at local events
• GHG inventory, forecast and
reduction potential analysis
• Feasibility assessments
• Alignment with relevant plans
• Providing expertise
in all sectors
• Identifying actions
• Setting priorities
P15I.
High-Impact Sectors
The CAP addresses emissions stemming from Aspen’s six most significant GHG sectors4.
Full descriptions of these sectors are provided in their respective chapters.
INTRODUCTION
8
4 Tracking and mitigating GHGs from these sectors aligns with national and international best practices as stipulated by both
the US Community Protocol (ICLEI) and the Global Protocol for Communities (World Resources Institute).
ENERGY SUPPLY
VEHICLES &
TRANSPORTATION
How electricity powering the
community is generated
The on-road movement of
people, goods and services in
private, transit and fleet vehicles
AVIATION & AIRPORT
Aircraft operations as well as
energy use and transportation
directly attributable to airport
operations and passengers
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
How energy of all types is
used in commercial buildings
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
How energy of all types is
used in residential buildings
WASTE & LANDFILL
The solid waste generated
by the community and
how it is transported to
the landfill
P16I.
Climate Action Mitigates Risk and Creates Opportunities
INTRODUCTION
Aspen has been a leader in local climate action for 15 years. During that time, the community’s resolve for reducing GHGs has
strengthened. A wealth of scientific data, empirical local results, applied experience, and community sentiment indicate that:
• The severity of climate change in Aspen is directly tied to global GHG emissions.
• Cumulatively, local action provides a significant opportunity to affect global emissions.
• Climate action in Aspen has and will continue to improve local quality of life. Examples include reduced traffic and congestion,
improved air quality, stable and affordable electricity rates and a more comfortable and efficient built environment.
• Reaching Aspen’s GHG reduction goals is a long-term process made up of incremental accomplishments made possible by a
large variety of organizations and individuals.
• Doing all we can in Aspen allows local governments and community groups to more credibly and effectively be a voice for
favorable progress in state and federal policy.
Now more than ever, Aspen faces unprecedented risk and opportunity related to climate change. But Aspen does not face this risk
alone. Without substantial reductions in global GHG emissions, it is almost certain that this region will experience significant and
damaging warming during the lifetimes of its residents and visitorsii. Aspen is poised to take advantage of opportunities to reduce its
carbon output. There has never been such a diversity of locally-implementable solutions available, nor the ability to leverage local
success stories to advance state and federal policy.
9
Aspen’s climate efforts include local action,
in addition to multi-city efforts that leverage
successes and commitments at the state,
national and international level. These
partnerships include:
1. Compact of Colorado Communities
2. Colorado Communities for Climate Action
3. Global Covenant of Mayors
4. America’s Pledge/We are Still In
5. Climate Mayors
6. CDP
7. ICLEI USA and Carbonn
8. Urban Sustainability Directors Network
9. Citizens’ Climate Lobby
P17I.
Climate Action is a Community Value
INTRODUCTION
Aspen and Pitkin County’s commitments to protecting the health, prosperity and safety of its residents by acting on climate are not
new. Efforts date to the 1989 adoption of the Ecological Bill of Rights. This philosophy stipulates rights to clean air, healthy ecosystems,
and renewable energy. The community has since advanced and maintained these values as an integral part of its fabric in a multitude
of ways, which include:
• Formation of the Canary Initiative (the original name for the City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department) and completion of the
first GHG inventory in 2004.
• Development of first the Climate Action Plan and adoption of GHG reduction targets (-30% by 2020, -80% by 2050) in 2007.
• Prioritization to reduce GHGs, energy use, and traffic congestion in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan.
• Updates to the community-wide GHG Inventory and affirmation of commitment to the reduction target in 2007, 2011, and 2014.
• Publication of Aspen-specific climate change vulnerability and impact assessments in 2006 and 2014.
• Achievement of the 100% renewable electricity target for Aspen Electric in 2015.
• Creation of a resilience strategy in 2016.
• Finalization of the Aspen Community Sustainability Report in 2017.
• Implementation of an updated Climate Action Plan, beginning in 2018.
10Photo courtesy Aspen Chamber Resort
Association, Jeremy Swanson Photography P18I.
CAP and Toolkit: What’s the Difference?
INTRODUCTION
One process, two documents: The Climate Action Plan and GHG Reduction Toolkit are individual documents. Each is an output of
Aspen’s most recent climate action planning process, during which the Advisory Committee identified more than 250 actions that
could be taken to reduce GHGs in Aspen and throughout the region.
The GHG Reduction Toolkit5 is the complete list of actions developed by the Advisory Committee throughout the CAP process. It
has been published as a standalone resource for communities throughout the region, Colorado, and the United States. In addition
to presenting the full list of actions and providing information about each one’s GHG reduction potential and co-benefits, it touches
on best practices for climate action planning, defines how to use the Toolkit during that process, and provides considerations for
community leaders. One desired outcome is that the Toolkit facilitates greater regional collaboration around shared GHG sectors,
increasing the likelihood of meeting reduction goals while making the process more efficient, collaborative, and multijurisdictional. The
Toolkit also informs Aspen’s CAP, and has been used according to its intent: to prioritize actions for near-term implementation without
losing sight of the full range of possibilities. Fundamentally, the Toolkit provides Aspen and others with an immediate-, mid- and long-
term planning resource. It is likely that future climate action plans will continue drawing from it.
The Climate Action Plan is built on actions drawn from the Toolkit that have been selected for implementation over the next three
years. These prioritized actions have been adapted from the Toolkit’s general language into more specific language that fits the Aspen
community. The CAP prioritizes actions that both move the needle and establish building blocks for longer-term opportunities.
11
5 The GHG Reduction Toolkit is available
at https://www.cityofaspen.com/
DocumentCenter/View/1705 or by
emailing climate@cityofaspen.com.
One desired outcome
is that the Toolkit
facilitates greater regional
collaboration around
shared GHG sectors.P19I.
Aspen’s GHG Emissions
INTRODUCTION
Overview: Aspen conducts a community-wide GHG inventory every three years
to measure progress towards the 2020 and 2050 reduction targets. Inventories
have been published for calendar years 2004, 2007, 2011, and 20146 (a 2017
inventory is planned for 2018). As of 2014, the Aspen community had reduced
GHG emissions by a total of 7.4%iii, with the largest decreases occurring in the
Commercial Energy and Vehicles and Transportation sectors.
Geographic Boundary: Aspen’s GHG analysis and planning work addresses
emissions corresponding to sources and activities in the Emissions Inventory
Boundary (EIB)7. GHG inventories will continue measuring progress based on this
geographic boundary, and fundamentally, the CAP applies directly to the EIB.
However, CAP initiatives should not be limited to sources and activities within
the EIB. Successfully reducing GHG
emissions at the scale necessary to
achieve the 2050 goal will require
action and policy at the local, regional,
state, and federal levels.
Sources of GHG emissions: By far,
the largest source of Aspen’s GHG
emissions is energy consumed in
buildings, accounting for 56% of
the total (31% of total emissions
come from residential buildings and
25% from commercial buildings).
Vehicles and transportation also
represent a significant portion of
Aspen’s GHGs, totaling 19% (Figure
4). These percentages are expected
to shift somewhat over time. If the
electricity supply continues to become
more renewable, Residential and
Commercial Energy may become
smaller portions of the pie, magnifying
the contributions of other sectors.
12
6 The 2014 Community-wide GHG Inventory is available at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795.
7 The EIB has been used since 2004 under the rationale that this geographic area represents Aspen’s core functionality, and assumes that the contiguous outlying areas
included in the EIB would likely not exist in the same capacity were it not for the existence of the Aspen community.
Residential
Energy
31%
Landfill
9%
Vehicles
19%Commercial
Energy
25%
Figure 4: Aspen's GHG emissions by sec-
tor in 2014. A large portion of Aspen’s GHGs
come from energy consumed in buildings,
followed by Vehicles and Transportation,
Aviation and Airport, and Waste and Landfill.
Airport
15%
Wastewater
0.01%
The EIB is nearly identical to the City of Aspen’s
Urban Growth Boundary but also includes 1)
the Starwood and the White Horse Springs
section of the McLain Flats residential areas;
2) the residential areas within and contiguous
to the Aspen city limits such as Red Mountain,
Mountain Valley (on the southeastern edge of
town), Highlands, Buttermilk West, the Aspen-
Pitkin County Airport, the Aspen Airport Business
Center, Burlingame and North Forty; and 3)
the electricity and natural gas used to run ski
lifts and facilities on Aspen Mountain, Aspen
Highlands, and Buttermilk ski areas. P20I.
Aspen’s GHG Emissions (Continued)
Progress to date: Between 2004 and 2014,
Aspen’s total emissions decreased by 7.4%.
This net decline in emissions represents the
combination of increases in some sectors
with decreases in others (Figure 5). For
example, while GHGs increased 5% in the
Residential Energy sector, they dropped 26%
in the Commercial Energy sector. Similarly,
emissions associated with activities at the
Aspen Pitkin County Airport rose 15% while
GHGs from Vehicles and Transportation
decreased by 13% (Figure 6). Aspen’s
GHG inventories provide foundational
information for climate action planning. Two
conclusions emerging from the inventories
that underscore this CAP are that:
1. Achieving the 2020 and 2050 goals
requires dramatically accelerating
the community’s rate of reduction;
and
2. While the magnitude of achievable
GHG reductions varies by sector,
overall movement in the right
direction relies heavily on maximizing
reduction opportunities in each
sector.
Given the critical yet broad nature of the
takeaways from the GHG inventories, the
CAP process included GHG forecasting and
mitigation potential modeling to further
the understanding of what it would take to
achieve the 2020 and 2050 targets.
13
Figure 5. Total community-wide GHGs declined by 7.4% over the first 10 years of
measurement; a rate that must accelerate dramatically if Aspen’s targets can be met.
Figure 6. Changes in total GHGs are driven by the trends in each sector; reductions
in each are necessary to drive down the total to desired levels.
150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000
30,000
0Metric Tons CO2eResidential
Energy
Commercial
Energy
Vehicles &
Transportation
Aviation &
Airport
Waste &
Landfill2004200720112014Aspen Community Annual Emissions by Sector, 2004–2014
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Commercial Energy
Aviation & Airport
Waste & Landfill
Residential Energy
Vehicles &
Transportation
2004 2007 2011 2014
Aspen Community Annual Net Emissions, 2004–2014
Metric Tons CO2e2004200720112014200420072011201420042007201120142004200720112014+5%
-26%
-13%
+15%
+2%P21I.
GHG Emissions Forecast
INTRODUCTION
Aspen’s GHG emissions forecast provides a professionally-
modeled estimate of how much emissions might increase or
decrease through the year 2050. Forecasting possible future
GHG emissions is a best practice for climate action planning
and sets a context for the necessary scale of action to achieve
desired targets. As an early step in the CAP process, Aspen
completed a business-as-usual (BAU) forecast in partnership
with Western State Colorado University. BAU in this case
is defined as the continuation of existing mitigation efforts
and population trends, illustrating what Aspen’s 2015–2050
GHGs could look like if current efforts are maintained but
no additional action is taken. The BAU scenario considers
population growth by projecting forward the 2004–2014
trend, and constrains per-capita and per-square foot energy
consumption at 2014 levels. The forecast confirms that getting
close to achieving the long-term GHG reduction goals will
require a significant uptick in programming and impact. Further,
the forecast results are striking given that they consider Aspen’s
current level of climate action, which is already considered
robust and ambitious. In effect, the BAU forecast indicates that
significant change is necessary to achieve Aspen’s long-term
GHG reduction goals.
14
Figure 7. Under business as usual, Aspen’s GHGs are likely to continue declining modestly until about 2024, and then slowly rise through 2050,
ultimately resulting in a 3.5% decrease below 2004 levels. Accordingly, the CAP process aspired to identify ways to reduce GHGs an additional
76.5% by 2050.
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2004 2007 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 20472044204120382032202920262035 2050
Commercial EnergyMetric Tons CO2eAviation
& Airport
Waste
& Landfill
Residential Energy
Business as Usual CO2 Emissions Forecast, 2014–2050
2050 Goal:
-80%
Actual
2014:
-7%BAU 2020:
-12%
BAU 2050:
-3.5%
2020 Goal:
-30%
Vehicles &
Transportation
2020
Needed GHG
Reductions
2050
Needed GHG
Reductions
P22I.
GHG Reduction Potential
INTRODUCTION
The ‘GHG reduction potential’ of a specific action is a
measurement of how much that action could reduce emissions.
It is valuable to evaluate the GHG reduction potential of various
actions being considered for inclusion in the CAP because
it informs which individual actions could likely reduce GHGs
the most and the scale of total community-wide reductions
that might be achievable. By calculating the GHG reduction
potential of the proposed actions and adding them together, the
CAP estimates how far Aspen could go in its effort to reduce
emissions.
The CAP used a ‘reduction potential’ model designed by Western
State Colorado University to evaluate how much the complete
set of identified actions could reduce community-wide
emissions through 2050. The modeling exercise revealed that
if Aspen successfully implemented all objectives and actions
presented in the GHG Reduction Toolkit, it could reduce its
GHGs 71% by 20508 (Figure 8).
The results of the modeling are encouraging in revealing that
currently identified opportunities and technologies could likely
get Aspen close to realizing its 2050 climate goal.
15
8 Modeling results inherently contain uncertainty. Assumptions built into the model are based on staff expertise and Advisory Committee deliberation.
Figure 8. If Aspen can successfully implement every objective contained in the Toolkit by 2050, it could reduce GHGs 71% below 2004 levels —
far greater than the forecasted BAU scenario. Successfully implementing this CAP continues building the foundation to move in that direction.
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2004 2007 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 20472044204120382032202920262035 2050
Commercial Energy
Metric Tons CO2eBAU Forecast
2020 Goal:
298,235 MT (-30%)
2050 Goal:
85,210 MT
(-80%)
Aviation
& Airport
Waste
& Landfill
Residential Energy
Reduction
potential:
-71% by 2050
Vehicles &
Transportation
GHG Reduction Potential by Sector, 2014–2050 P23I.
Understanding the CAP’s Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee identified
over 250 potential actions for reducing the Aspen community’s
GHG emissions. Through a deliberative process, the Committee
prioritized 37 of those actions for implementation over the next
three years. Several criteria guided that decision-making and
yielded implementation priorities that:
• Have the potential to significantly reduce GHGs
• Are innovative yet feasible
• Could create desirable co-benefits
• Complement existing plans and priorities
• Are positioned at the nexus of building on past efforts,
while setting the groundwork for those that will be
necessary in the future
• Are generally aligned across sectors
• Fully capitalize on the variety of opportunities in each
sector to avoid overreliance on any one
• Represent a consensus from stakeholders, who represent
the full spectrum of sectors
The following sections of the document address each GHG sector,
presenting the actions that meet these criteria.
16
The CAP Advisory Committee is comprised
of 40 community leaders representing 15
organizations and 5 City departments.
Committee members provided expertise
in energy, building science, transportation,
waste, aviation, forestry, community
development, public administration,
business, climate science and resilience.P24I.
Mandate decarbonization of energy supply
ACTIONS
Establish a collective of local governments,
large consumers and utilities to drive regional
clean energy transition
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
C C C C
C C C C
SECTOR
PARTNERS
SECTOR
RELATED PLANS
C C C C
C C C C C C C C
C C C C
Key & Definitions
KEY & DEFINITIONS
Promotes Equity
Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety
Builds Resilience
17
CO-BENEFITS:
Co-benefits are the additional positive benefits related
to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Nearly all of the
Objectives and Actions in this toolkit have co-benefits
that achieve at least one of these measures:
C C C C
C C C C C C C C
C C C C
GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL (BLUE):
GHG reduction potential for each Objective
represents how much it could reduce GHG
emissions in the context of the sector it is a part
of if fully and successfully implemented. These
rankings were quantified using a proprietary
model and simplified to a scale of 1 to 4:
Reduces CO2e by 4 to
1,900 MT by 2050
Reduces CO2e by 1,900
to 3,200 MT by 2050
Reduces CO2e by 3,200
to 9,600 MT by 2050
Reduces CO2e by 9,600
to 46,000 MT by 2050
OBJECTIVE:
The broad and big picture activities or changes that
must occur to make significant progress in reducing
community-wide and regional GHG emissions.
ACTIONS:
The programs, policies and steps that help
achieve each Objective.
GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL (GREEN):
GHG reduction potential for each Action
represents how much it could reduce GHG
emissions in the context of the Objective it is a
part of. Reduction potential was approximated
and is presented using a 1 to 4 scale:
Marginal reduction Small reduction
Medium reduction Large reduction
Objective co-benefits:
The primary co-benefits of
accomplishing the Objective.
Action co-benefits:
The specific co-benefits of
implementing the Action.
PARTNERS:
Describes which individuals, groups
or organizations are leading and
collaborating on implementation.
RELATED PLANS:
CAP recommendations align with key
aspects of these relevant plans and
community goals.
In addition to presenting the recommendations to reduce GHG emissions in each sector, the CAP presents a ‘GHG reduction potential’
ranking and a list of potential co-benefits of each ‘Objective’ and ‘Action’. The schematic below explains the elements of the tables
throughout the rest of the document.P25I.
18
ENERGY
SUPPLY
GHG emissions in the Energy Supply sector
are associated with purchased electricity
and the use of natural gas in residential
and commercial buildings. Energy Supply is
accounted for and embedded in both the
Residential Energy and Commercial Energy
sectors. During the CAP process, a decision
was made to isolate Energy Supply as its
own planning sector because changes to how
energy is produced impacts GHGs in both
residential and commercial buildings. Isolating
Energy Supply actions into their own category
brings focus to supply-side planning as its
own, high-impact endeavor.
The carbon intensity of Aspen’s electricity
supply is the result of the resources used
to generate the power (fossil resources are
significantly more carbon-intensive than
renewable energy sources) and locally-serving
electric utilities have incrementally become
more renewably powered in recent years.
Electricity in the EIB comes from two utilities:
Aspen Electric, which became 100% renewable
in 2015, and Holy Cross Energy (HCE), which
was 30% renewable in 2015. Given that more
than half of electricity sales in the EIB come
from HCE (70%), significant opportunity
remains for moving to an Aspen predominantly
powered by renewable electricity.
Sector Overview
P26I.
19
Electricity Portfolio Trends
ENERGY SUPPLY
Broadly, opportunities to
reduce emissions in the
Energy Supply sector range
from shifting generation
assets to fuel switching.
The co-benefits of
successfully reducing Energy
Supply GHGs can include
widespread improvements
to environmental quality,
increased resiliency,
innovation and the creation
of regional employment
opportunities.
In 2015, Aspen Electric became 100% renewable and represented 30% of the electricity consumed
in the Aspen EIB. That same year, Holy Cross Energy was 30% renewable and represented 70% of
the electricity consumed in the EIB. Taken together, electricity consumed in the Aspen EIB is 51%
renewable. Significant opportunities remain to reduce GHGs in the Energy Supply sector.
Coal Natural gas Wind SolarBiomass, LFG*,
Mine Methane
Hydro
Fossil Fuels Renewables
Hydro
46%Wind
53%
LFG*
1%
Aspen Electric (2015)
Coal
61%
Wind
23%
Natural Gas
8%
Hydro
3%
Solar
2%
Mine methane,
Biomass
2%
Holy Cross Energy (2015)
Electricity purchased
in Aspen (2015)
(51% renewable)
Hydro
16%Coal
43%
Wind
32%Natural
Gas
6%
Biomass, LFG*,
Mine Methane
2%
* Landfill Gas
Solar
1%P27I.
20
Energy Supply: Recommended Actions
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 20 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the
Energy Supply sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following seven actions over the next three
years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document.
Energy Supply continues on the next page.
ENERGY SUPPLY
Decarbonize Aspen’s energy supply
ACTIONS
Establish a collective of local governments,
large consumers and utilities to drive a
regional clean energy transition
Enable the regional production and
consumption of more renewable energy
ACTIONS
Implement and expand Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI)
Support distributed energy storage to address
the intermittency of wind and solar
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
Holy Cross Energy
Aspen Skiing Company
Pitkin County
Community Development
Department
Community Office for
Resource Efficiency
Citizens’ Climate Lobby
Colorado Communities for
Climate Action*
The Mountain Pact*
* These organizations were not
part of the CAP process but
are key partners for state and
federal policy work.
ENERGY SUPPLY
PARTNERS
P28I.
21
Energy Supply: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
ENERGY SUPPLY
Maximize local and regional renewable
energy generation
ACTIONS
Encourage regional solar development through
supportive land use policies
Streamline and incentivize rooftop solar
installation process
Incentivize both community- and utility-owned
renewable generation
Support relevant federal and state policies
through active legislative and regulatory
engagement
ACTIONS
Through continued engagement with
community members, elected officials and
partner organizations, Aspen will advance
climate and energy policy to the benefit of the
community. Given the dynamic nature of the
policy landscape, Aspen will continue a formal
process for prioritizing and advocating on key
issues.
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
Aspen City Council
Top 9 Goals (#7)
2017-2019:
Decrease the carbon
footprint of the community’s
energy supplies
Holy Cross Energy:
35% by 2025 renewable
power supply goal
ENERGY SUPPLY
RELATED PLANS
P29I.
22
RESIDENTIAL
ENERGY
GHG emissions in the Residential Energy sector
are associated with the use of electricity and
natural gas in residential spaces. Aspen’s
residential community is comprised of free
market and workforce housing rentals and
ownership properties that vary in age, quality,
size and occupancy, and include single family
homes, multifamily properties, mobile homes,
and residences in mixed-use buildings.
The residents and visitors occupying these
spaces are served by three energy utilities.
Roughly 6,300 residential electric accounts
in the Aspen EIB are served by the regional
cooperative utility, Holy Cross Energy, while
2,000 are served by Aspen Electric (the City’s
municipal electric utility). The 3,700 residential
natural gas accounts in the EIB are served
by the regional utility, Black Hills Energy.
Opportunities to reduce GHG emissions are
tied to making the supply of energy flowing to
the unit more renewable and consuming less
of it. The co-benefits of successfully reducing
Residential Energy sector GHGs include direct
consumer savings and improved dwelling safety
and comfort.
Sector Overview
P30I.
23
Residential Energy GHG Trends
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
If all objectives in the Toolkit
are fully and successfully
implemented, Residential
Energy GHGs could be
reduced 86% below 2004
levels by 2050.
2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential
Sources of
Residential Energy
GHGs
Holy
Cross
55%
Natural
Gas
39%
Aspen Electric
4%Propane
1%
Residential Energy GHGs grew 5% between 2004 and 2014 despite active energy efficiency
programming. A majority of GHGs come from use of electricity on the Holy Cross Energy grid and
from natural gas. Under business as usual GHGs could decline 6% below 2004 levels by 2020 but
then rise 7% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully
implemented, Residential Energy GHGs could be reduced 86% below 2004 levels by 2050.
150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000
30,000
0
2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eResidential Energy GHG Past and Possible Futures
+7% BAU
by 2050
-86% reduction
potential by 2050
+5% 2004– 2014
Possible reduction
pathway if all objectives in
the Toolkit are achieved
Likely GHG trend without
additional action
P31I.
24
Residential Energy: Recommended Actions
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 30 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the
Residential Energy sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following five actions over the next three
years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document.
Residential Energy continues on the next page.
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
Increase the efficiency of space and water
heating with conversions and retrofits to
high efficiency electric
ACTIONS
Integrate space and water heating equipment
standards into building codes
Improve the energy efficiency performance
of existing residential buildings
ACTIONS
Facilitate education and accreditation for
contractors, architects and property managers
Implement sleep mode technology for second
homes when unoccupied
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
C C C C
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
Holy Cross Energy
Pitkin County
Building Department
Community Office for
Resource Efficiency
Aspen Skiing Company
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
PARTNERS
P32I.
25
Residential Energy: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
Reduce energy consumption in rentals,
apartments and multifamily buildings
ACTIONS
Encourage and require energy efficiency
upgrades for rental units
Anticipate and mitigate likely expansion
of air conditioning use in new & existing
buildings
ACTIONS
Require high efficiency air conditioning
systems as AC use becomes more prevalent
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Aspen City Council
Top 9 Goals (#7)
2017-2019:
Decrease the carbon footprint of the
community’s energy supplies
2012 Aspen Area Community Plan:
Reduce our dependence on non-
renewable energy sources and instill
an ethic of energy accountability.
By 2020, reduce electricity and
natural gas consumption in the
Urban Growth Boundary.
Require new development and
redevelopment to minimize their
energy usage and use on-site
renewable energies as the site
allows.
Existing development should
minimize energy usage and use
onsite renewable energies as the
site allows.
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
RELATED PLANS
P33I.
26
COMMERCIAL
ENERGY
Aspen’s commercial building stock is made
up of free market and subsidized properties
that vary in age, quality, size and occupancy,
and include owner-occupied and tenant-
occupied businesses in single occupancy,
condominiumized, and mixed-use buildings.
GHG emissions in the Commercial Energy
sector are associated with the use of electricity
and natural gas in those spaces, and most are
served by both types of utilities.
Roughly 800 commercial electric accounts in
the Aspen EIB are served by Holy Cross Energy,
while 1,000 are served by Aspen Electric. The
900 commercial natural gas accounts in the
EIB are served by Black Hills Energy. These
commercial properties have a variety of utility
metering configurations, from single common
meters to individualized sub-metering.
Opportunities to reduce GHGs include making
the supply of energy flowing to commercial
properties more renewable and consuming less
energy in them. The co-benefits of successfully
reducing Commercial Energy sector GHGs
include direct financial savings for businesses
and enhancing the health, safety, and comfort
of the built environment.
Sector Overview
P34I.
27
Commercial Energy GHG Trends
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
If all objectives in the Toolkit
are fully and successfully
implemented, Commercial
Energy GHGs could be
reduced 80% below 2004
levels by 2050.
2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential
Sources of
Commercial
Energy GHGs
Holy
Cross
43%
Natural
Gas
45%
Aspen Electric
11%
Propane
0.5%
150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000
30,000
0
2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eCommercial Energy GHG Past and Possible Futures
+10% BAU
by 2050
-80% reduction
potential by 2050Possible reduction
pathway if all objectives in
the Toolkit are achieved
Likely GHG trend without
additional action
Commercial Energy GHGs declined 26% between 2004 and 2014 thanks to increases in renewable
electricity generation and active energy efficiency programming. A majority of GHGs come from use of
natural gas and from electricity on the Holy Cross Energy grid. Under business as usual, GHGs could
decline 31% below 2004 levels by 2020 but then rise 10% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives
in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Commercial Energy GHGs could be reduced 80%
below 2004 levels by 2050.
-26% 2004–2014
P35I.
28
Commercial Energy: Recommended Actions
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 38 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the
Commercial Energy Sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following seven actions over the next
three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document.
Commercial Energy continues on the next page.
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
Promote energy benchmarking and
reporting in commercial buildings
ACTIONS
Support commercial energy benchmarking and
incremental EE improvements through policy
Enhance energy and resource efficiency in
new commercial developments
ACTIONS
Provide incentives for new and remodeled
buildings to build above code
Limit GHG emissions from future development
through the use of controlled growth and
coordinated land use in and around the Urban
Growth Boundary
Delay the need for air conditioning via building
design and management
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
C C C C
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Community Development
Department
Building Department
Holy Cross Energy
Aspen Skiing Company
Aspen Chamber Resort
Association
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
PARTNERS
P36I.
29
Commercial Energy: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
Bring all commercial buildings up to current
building codes or retrofit a majority of
existing commercial buildings
ACTIONS
Establish new program to bring existing
buildings to meet current energy codes
Model best practices through energy
retrofitting of government buildings and
properties
ACTIONS
Retrofit government buildings, offices and
facilities (including affordable housing units
and complexes) to comply with current energy
code
Optimize utility rates
ACTIONS
Adapt utility rates as necessary to incentivize
and balance current and future priorities (i.e.
EVs, fuel switching, time of use, peak shaving,
energy efficiency, DSM)
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Aspen City Council
Top 10 Goals (#8)
2015-2017:
Energy efficiency-related code
changes to transform the energy
use of buildings within the
community
2012 Aspen Area Community Plan:
Require new development and
redevelopment to minimize their
energy usage and use on-site
renewable energies as the site
allows.
Existing development should
minimize energy usage and use
onsite renewable energies as the
site allows.
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
RELATED PLANS
P37I.
30
VEHICLES &
TRANSPORTATION
The Vehicles and Transportation sector
encompasses the ground transportation of
people and goods traveling within, to, from,
and passing through Aspen. GHGs are caused
by the combustion of liquid fuels in a wide
range of vehicles and can be impacted by a
variety of factors, including, but not limited to,
consumer choices, business demand, urban
design, housing and business density, transit
corridors, commuter and visitor choices, and
fuel type. Types of vehicles include but are not
limited to gasoline and diesel personal vehicles,
light trucks, transit buses, commercial transport
vehicles, heavy duty vehicles, and motorcycles.
Opportunities to reduce emissions in this sector
are diverse, and include shifting transportation
modes away from single occupancy vehicle
use and transitioning personal and commercial
vehicle fleets to low or zero-emission
options like electric vehicles. Some of the
co-benefits of successfully reducing Vehicles
and Transportation GHGs include reduced
congestion and improved air quality.
Sector Overview
P38I.
31
Vehicles & Transportation GHG Trends
VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION
If all objectives in the Toolkit
are fully and successfully
implemented, Vehicles &
Transportation GHGs could
be reduced 80% below 2004
levels by 2050.
2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential
Sources of
Vehicles &
Transportation
GHGs
Gasoline
Vehicles
77%
Diesel
Vehicles
21%
Electric Vehicles
0%RFTA Busses
2%
Vehicles and Transportation emissions decreased 13% between 2004 and 2014, thanks to a decrease
in overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) coupled with an increase in fleet wide fuel economy. In the
business-as-usual scenario, GHGs could decline 19% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 54% by 2050. If,
however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, GHGs could be reduced
80% below 2004 levels by 2050.
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eVehicles & Transportation GHG Past and Possible Futures
-54% BAU
by 2050
-80% reduction
potential by 2050
Possible reduction
pathway if all objectives in
the Toolkit are achieved
Likely GHG trend
without additional action
-13% 2004–2014
P39I.
32
Vehicles & Transportation: Recommended Actions
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 50 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in
the Vehicles and Transportation sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following ten actions
over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section
of this document.
Vehicles & Transportation continues on the next page.
VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION
Reduce VMT by promoting alternatives to
single occupancy vehicles
ACTIONS
Collaborate with employers to subsidize transit
and mobility options for employees
Enhance first and last mile connectivity to
transit
ACTIONS
Establish and expand feeder transit network to
increase access to primary transit stops (e.g.,
circulators, mobility as a service)
Expand bike and walk options between
population and work centers to primary transit
stops
Support and expand mobility options for the
first and last mile and/or full trips
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Clean Energy Economy
for the Region
Transportation Department
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
Aspen Skiing Company
Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority
Aspen Chamber Resort
Association
Colorado Communities
for Climate Action*
T h e M o u n t a i n P a c t *
* These organizations were not
part of the CAP process but
are key partners for state and
federal policy work.
VEHICLES &
TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERS
C C C C
C C C C
P40I.
33
Vehicles & Transportation: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION
Vehicles & Transportation continues on the next page.
Promote the adoption of alternate fuel
vehicles for individuals and fleets
ACTIONS
Increase the ratio of electric vehicles in all
fleets in the community (e.g., rental cars, hotel
shuttles, private fleets, government fleets,
personal vehicles)
Redesign urban form and population
density to reduce vehicle use
ACTIONS
Further develop bicycle infrastructure (i.e.,
missing connections system, more bike and
share lanes in key locations, solutions to key
locational conflict/hazard areas)
Promote new mobility technologies and
business models
ACTIONS
Support increased and targeted service during
peak times on transit routes
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C Aspen City Council
Top 9 Goals (#4)
2017-2019:
Mobility Lab
Short Range Transit Plan
EV Readiness Plan
Integrated Transportation
Systems Plan
Upper Valley Mobility Study
Upper Valley Mobility Report
Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan
2012 Aspen Area Community Plan
VEHICLES &
TRANSPORTATION
RELATED PLANS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
P41I.
34
Vehicles & Transportation: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION
Increase the cost of driving in certain
places
ACTIONS
Use parking policies and prices to disincentive
single-occupancy vehicle travel
Support and research regional road pricing
(e.g., congestion fees, tolls, dynamic pricing)
Support relevant federal and state policies
through active legislative and regulatory
engagement
ACTIONS
Through continued engagement with
community members, elected officials and
partner organizations, Aspen will advance
transportation and clean fuels policy to the
benefit of the community. Given the dynamic
nature of the policy landscape, Aspen will
continue a formal process for prioritizing and
advocating on key issues.
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
P42I.
35
WASTE &
LANDFILL
Waste generation in Aspen, estimated at 11 pounds
per person per dayiv, is above both the state and
national average. The average for Colorado is 9
pounds, which is twice the national average of 4.5
pounds. Some of the factors driving Aspen’s higher
numbers include the tourist population and the
active development economy. GHG emissions in
the Waste and Landfill sector come from waste
generated within the Aspen EIB, then transported
to, and processed at the Pitkin County Landfill.
Organic components within the waste stream
generate methane as they decompose9. Organic
components flowing from Aspen to the Pitkin
County Landfill include food waste, yard waste,
drywall and wood. The drywall and wood are a part
of the construction and demolition (C & D) waste
category, which equates to 80% of the total waste
sent to the landfill10. Heavy duty vehicles hauling
waste to the landfill and processing it on site
combust liquid fuels.
Opportunities to reduce emissions in this sector
include diverting or salvaging organic components
of the waste stream and increasing the efficiency
of hauling and processing. The co-benefits of
successfully reducing Waste and Landfill sector
GHGs include extending the life of local landfills
and improving local environmental quality.
Sector Overview
9 Organics like food scraps and wood in landfills are a major source
of methane, a GHG with a global warming potential 84x more potent
than carbon dioxide in the short term. Inversely, when converted into
compost and applied to the land, compost sequesters carbon (Source:
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2017).
10 Diverting C & D waste could extend the life of the landfill, lower
energy consumption and carbon emissions, create new jobs with the
reuse of construction materials and lower the cost of construction
materials for projects. P43I.
36
Waste & Landfill GHG Trends
WASTE & LANDFILL
If all objectives in the Toolkit
are fully and successfully
implemented, Waste &
Landfill GHGs could be
reduced 54% below 2004
levels by 2050.
2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential
Sources of
Waste & Landfill
GHGs
Commercial
Waste
58%
C&D
Waste
26%
Onsite Electricity
0.34%
Onsite Gas
& Diesel
0.10%
70,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eWaste & Landfill GHG Past and Possible Futures
+7% BAU
by 2050
-54% reduction
potential by 2050Possible reduction
pathway if all objectives in
the Toolkit are achieved
Likely GHG trend without
additional action
Waste and Landfill emissions increased 2% between 2004 and 2014, driven predominantly by
significant increases in the volume of C&D waste. Under business as usual, GHGs could increase 2%
above 2004 levels by 2020 and 7% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are
fully and successfully implemented, GHGs could be reduced 54% below 2004 levels by 2050.
+2% 2004–2014
Residential Waste
16%
50,000
60,000
P44I.
37
Waste & Landfill: Recommended Actions
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 50 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the
Waste and Landfill sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following nine actions over the next three
years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document.
Waste & Landfill continues on the next page.
WASTE & LANDFILL
Increase rates of, and participation in,
composting and recycling
ACTIONS
Use codes and regulations to increase
composting rates
Maximize diversion of construction and
demolition (C&D) waste
ACTIONS
Create a system for moving C&D waste to
markets
Adopt and enforce a requirements for C&D
waste diversion
Provide increased opportunities for
deconstructed building materials to be
salvaged and reused
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
Pitkin County
Pitkin County Landfill
Environmental Health and
Sustainability Department
Aspen Zero Impact
Aspen Skiing Company
Aspen Chamber Resort
Association
WASTE & LANDFILL
PARTNERS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
P45I.
38
Waste & Landfill: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
WASTE & LANDFILL
Increase community compliance with waste
diversion ordinances
ACTIONS
Create incentives for recycling and
disincentives for contaminating recycling loads
Align city, county and regional waste policies
and codes
Improve existing waste hauling practices
ACTIONS
Investigate haulers’ routes and look for
opportunities to optimize route efficiency
Encourage the use of cleaner vehicles for local
waste haulers
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive
Waste Diversion Plan
Pitkin County Internal Climate
Action Plan
WASTE & LANDFILL
RELATED PLANS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Waste & Landfill continues on the next page.P46I.
39
Waste & Landfill: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
WASTE & LANDFILL
Support relevant federal and state policies
through active legislative and regulatory
engagement
ACTIONS
Through continued engagement with
community members, elected officials and
partner organizations, Aspen will actively
engage in waste and waste-diversion policy
to the benefit of the community. Given the
dynamic nature of the policy landscape, Aspen
will continue a formal process for prioritizing
and engaging on key issues.
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
P47I.
40
AVIATION &
AIRPORT
GHG emissions in the Aviation and Airport sector are
associated with aircraft operations (primarily landings
and takeoffs), ground support equipment, on-road vehicle
use, and energy consumed in buildings (such as the
terminal) at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (Airport, ASE).
Opportunities to reduce emissions in this sector include
increasing the operating efficiency of aircraft, electrifying
ground support equipment and ground access vehicles
and maximizing the energy efficiency and on-site energy
production of airport buildings. It is likely that the Airport
will undergo both a runway and terminal expansion in the
coming years, and elements of the CAP have considered
this while being developed alongside Airport officials.
Only two percent of GHGs occurring at ASE are directly
controlled by Pitkin County11, making this sector one of
the most difficult to affect directly. While airlines have
created voluntary targets to reduce GHGs related to
aircraft operations, mandatory fuel economy requirements
(which would need to be set by the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration) do not exist. Nonetheless, the difference
between intentional local action and business as usual
is substantial and a necessary component of the Aspen
community’s climate action efforts. Specific actions
recommended in this CAP involve both local action and
pursuing more efficient or alternative fuel aircraft via
engagement with airlines and federal regulators. The
co-benefits of successfully reducing Aviation and Airport
GHGs include improvements to both public health and
environmental quality.
Sector Overview
11 98% of ASE’s GHG emissions come from aircraft operations, which are
regulated by the US Federal Aviation Administration. While local governments
and airports cannot mandate aircraft fuel types or economy standards, they can
partner with stakeholders to offer and incentivize cleaner fuels and to provide
infrastructure for more fuel-efficient aircraft. Source on 98% statistic: Aspen/
Pitkin County Airport GHG Inventory, 2014.Photo: Gloria Bouillon P48I.
41
Aviation & Airport GHG Trends
AVIATION & AIRPORT
If all objectives in the Toolkit
are fully and successfully
implemented, Aviation
& Airport GHGs could be
reduced 8% below 2004
levels by 2050.
2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential
Sources of
Aviation &
Airport GHGs
Aircraft
Operations
89%
Ground Support Equipment
& Access Vehicles
11%
Aviation and Airport emissions increased by 15% between 2004 and 2014, driven predominantly by
more passengers flying longer distances. Under business as usual, GHGs could increase 22% above
2004 levels by 2020 and 67% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully
and successfully implemented, GHGs could be reduced 8% below 2004 levels by 2050.
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eAviation & Airport GHG Past and Possible Futures
+67% BAU
by 2050
-8% reduction
potential by 2050
Possible reduction
pathway if all objectives in
the Toolkit are achieved
Likely GHG trend
without additional action+15% 2004–2014
Photo: Gloria Bouillon
P49I.
42
Aviation & Airport: Recommended Actions
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 28 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the
Aviation and Airport sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following eight actions over the next
three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document.
Aviation & Airport continues on the next page.
AVIATION & AIRPORT
Reduce airport controlled GHGs
ACTIONS
Support the use of electric vehicles or other
clean fuel vehicles for ground support vehicles
and ground support equipment (GSE)
Upgrade airfield lighting with LED lighting
Encourage taxi and airport shuttles to achieve
high fuel economy or clean-fuels standards
Reduce aircraft and aviation related GHGs
ACTIONS
Promote and incentivize the use of aviation
biofuels in aircraft servicing local airport
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
Pitkin County
Aspen Chamber Resort
Association
Community Office for
Resource Efficiency
Aspen Zero Impact
Aspen Skiing Company
AVIATION & AIRPORT
PARTNERS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
P50I.
43
Aviation & Airport: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
AVIATION & AIRPORT
If a new terminal is developed, ensure
that it represents the pinnacle of energy
efficiency and sustainability
ACTIONS
Encourage and support new terminal or Airport
building to be net-zero
Encourage passengers to use transit and
mobility services to access airport
ACTIONS
Encourage rental car companies to have
electric vehicle (EV) options. Pursue EVs
becoming a certain percentage of the rental
fleet
Provide transit service directly to and from
Airport and/or wayfinding from terminal to
existing transit
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
Primary Co-Benefits:
Pitkin County Internal Climate
Action Plan
AVIATION & AIRPORT
RELATED PLANS
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
C C C C
Aviation & Airport continues on the next page.P51I.
44
Aviation & Airport: Recommended Actions (Continued)
Promotes Equity Fosters Economic
Sustainability
Improves Local
Environmental Quality
Enhances Public
Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential
GHG Reduction
AVIATION & AIRPORT
Support relevant federal and state policies
through active legislative and regulatory
engagement
ACTIONS
Through continued engagement with
community members, elected officials
and partner organizations, Aspen will
advance relevant policy to the benefit of the
community. Given the dynamic nature of the
policy landscape, Aspen will continue a formal
process for prioritizing and advocating on key
issues.
OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION
POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS
Primary Co-Benefits:
C C C C
C C C C
Photo: Gloria Bouillon
P52I.
Considerations for Implementation
CONCLUSION
The publication of this CAP is a launch point for the real work of implementation. It is the intent of the partners that developed this
Plan to begin implementation in 2018 and make significant progress by the end of 2020. The actions listed in this CAP and slated for
implementation over the next three years build on past and existing efforts in each sector while setting the groundwork for the mid-
and long-term actions that will be necessary to achieve the Aspen community’s GHG reduction goals.
One of the reasons for developing the CAP in collaboration with a diversity of partners representing all GHG sectors was to cultivate
a spirit of shared ownership around both achieving community wide goals and by association, for implementing actions. This is the
community’s plan — no single organization or department is solely responsible for full execution of the CAP. Rather, implementation is
an all hands-on deck effort.
To foster successful implementation, the City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department will:
• Continue convening the Advisory Committee as it develops an implementation strategy for each recommended action
• Provide research capacity and expertise to inform decision-making
• Compile and formalize the Advisory Committee’s feedback into implementable strategies for execution
• Support entities and organizations leading implementation on all actions
• Assume a leadership role in implementing relevant and appropriate actions
• Maintain implementation timelines
• Establish necessary outreach efforts and engage entities and constituencies that can help guide and support successful
implementation
• Measure progress in both action implementation, GHG trends and progress towards reduction goals
• Keep decision-makers, community members, and stakeholders informed on progress and results
Most broadly, the CAP is but one of many current planning efforts that could affect GHG emissions in Aspen and the Roaring Fork
Valley. Accordingly, an underlying priority is coordination with those related efforts, plans, and priorities. Other key implementation
principles are building on previous experiences and successes, remaining apprised of evolving best practices, maintaining a clear
prioritization of actions, and regular evaluation and redesign once implementation begins. Linkages and overlap with priority actions
in other sectors will also be addressed and leveraged. Successful implementation will be pursued using similar principles to how the
CAP was developed: through collaborative development with stakeholders, by leveraging local expertise, building strong partnerships,
employing capable staff, responding to supportive leaders, and actively engaging with community members.
45 P53I.
Organizational Capacity Recommendations
CONCLUSION
The Advisory Committee’s engagement in developing the CAP demonstrates substantial capacity and support from regional leaders
to advance climate action. Successfully moving Aspen along the path to its -80% GHG target is contingent on leaders and elected
officials continuing to foster a supportive culture and providing adequate resources. The City’s Climate Action Department requests
that Council help ensure success of CAP implementation by supporting staff to:
Secure and prioritize the necessary organizational capacity.
Ensure that stakeholders from all relevant sectors are included.
Ensure that representatives of all impacted populations are included.
Identify champions to take the lead on implementation.
Identify and allocate funds for
implementation.
Continue enhancing technical capacity as
necessary.
Engage in relevant state and federal policy
efforts. Often, local priorities can be bolstered
by enabling legislation.
Collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries.
Regional collaboration in all sectors enhances
efficiency and magnifies impact.
Track performance, celebrate successes,
and adjust course when necessary.
46
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Photo courtesy Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Jeremy Swanson Photography
P54I.
Conclusion
CONCLUSION
Aspen’s first decade of climate action has seen many successes
in areas related to energy, transportation and waste, showing
that it is possible to reduce emissions during times of population
growth and heightened economic activity. Further, experience to
date shows that bold actions to reduce GHGs improve quality of
life and coincide with community values and priorities, such as
those illustrated in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
At the same time, Aspen’s forward momentum in reducing
GHGs must ratchet up substantially if the community’s long-
term reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels by 2020 and
80% below those levels by 2050 are going to be met. To date,
community-wide emissions have been reduced by 7% below
2004 levels, and business-as-usual forecasting indicates that
without significant additional action, it would be reasonable to
expect a 3% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050. Conversely,
modeling indicates that on paper, it is possible for the community
to get very close to achieving the long-term goals. If every
objective in the GHG Reduction Toolkit is achieved, Aspen could
plausibly reduce emissions 71% by 2050.
Implementing the actions described in this Climate Action Plan is
the community’s next step in that direction. These actions could
offer immediate reductions in GHG emissions, create a variety of
co-benefits for the community, and set the stage for building on
successes to continue forward progress.
An Aspen that has reduced its GHG emissions by 80% is one in
which transformative change has occurred in the way community
members produce and consume energy, travel to destinations,
consume products, and dispose of waste. Many experts believe
that these changes align closely with the type of community
that residents want to live in and that guests hope to visit: An
Aspen with clean air and water, accessible mobility that reduces
congestion and promotes health, buildings that are safe and
comfortable to occupy and affordable to power, and a waste
stream where maximum diversion has been achieved.
Thanks to the support of the Aspen community and their
elected representatives on Aspen City Council, the diversity of
experts and stakeholders that helped conceive this Plan will
continue their momentum by getting down to the real work of
implementation. Successful implementation will be contingent
on collaboration and a diversity in the ownership of various
initiatives. The authors of this document thank both Council and
the community for their support and look forward to keeping all
parties apprised of progress moving forward.
47
City of Aspen staff with Aspen Mayor Steve Skadron at the Compact
of Colorado Communities kickoff event, May 2017
P55I.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
48
Aspen’s Climate Action Plan was prepared by the City of Aspen with extensive input from expert stakeholders representing all sectors.
It would not be possible without the expertise, time, and dedication of this Advisory Committee. We would like to express our thanks to
the following individuals and the organizations they represent:
Person Title Organization
Adam McCurdy Forest Programs Director Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
Ashley Perl Director of Canary Initiative City of Aspen
Auden Schendler Vice President of Sustainability Aspen Skiing Company
Bert Myrin Council Member City of Aspen
Chris Hildred Power Supply & Special Projects Supervisor Holy Cross Energy
Chris Lane Chief Executive Officer Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
Chris Menges Data Research and Project Planner City of Aspen
Cindy Houben Director of Community Development Pitkin County
Claire Sacco Member Services Coordinator Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Clem Kopf Board Member Holy Cross Energy
David Hornbacher Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives City of Aspen
Ellen Sassano Long Range Planner Pitkin County
Jack Johnson Executive Director Aspen Zero Impact
Jamie Mandel Prinicipal Rocky Mountain Institute
Jamie Werner Forest Programs Director (former)Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
Jane Wilch Climate Outreach Coordinator City of Aspen
Jannette Whitcomb Sr. Environmental Health Specialist – Air Quality City of Aspen
Jed Miller Operations Foreman Pitkin County Landfill
Jen Wolchansky Project Manager Mead & Hunt
Jesse Morris Principal Rocky Mountain Institute
Jessica Garrow Community Development Director City of Aspen
John Katzenberger Executive Director Aspen Global Change Institute
John Kinney Director of Aviation Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
John Krueger Director of Transportation City of Aspen
Kate Andrus Project Manager, Aviation Services Mead & Hunt
Laura Armstrong Climate and Sustainability Programs Associate City of Aspen
Liz Chapman Sr. Environmental Health Specialist – Waste City of Aspen
Mary Vigilante President Synergy Consultants LLC
Advisory Committee (AC):P56I.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
49
Preparer and contact information:
City of Aspen Climate Action Department: climate@cityofaspen.com
CAP author and project manager: Chris Menges, Data Research and Project Planner, City of Aspen. chris.menges@cityofaspen.com
Project assistance and meeting facilitation: Larissa Read, Common Ground Environmental Consulting. larissa@commongroundenv.com
Graphic design and layout: Kate Lohnes and Claire Lukens, Lilja Communications. kate@lilja.com, claire@lilja.com
Icon illustration: Ellie Barber, Aspen Global Change Institute. ebarber@agci.org
Forecasting and reduction potential models: Dr. Abel Chavez and Brandon McNamara, Western State Colorado University. achavez@western.edu, brandon_mcn@outlook.com
Person Title Organization
Matt Hamilton Sustainability Director Aspen Skiing Company
Matthew Shmigelsky Energy Consultant Clean Energy Economy for the Region
Michael Miracle Director of Community Engagement Aspen Skiing Company
Mirte Mallory Executive Director We-Cycle
Mona Newton Executive Director Community Office for Resource Efficiency
Phillip Supino Long Range Planner City of Aspen
Randy Ready Assistant City Manager (former)City of Aspen
Richard Heede Director Climate Accountability Institute
Robert Gardner Board Member Holy Cross Energy
Ruth Brown Co-chair Aspen Chapter, Citizens Climate Lobby
Ryk Dunkelberg Vice President of Aviation Services Mead & Hunt
Ryland French Utilities Efficiency Specialist City of Aspen
Sara Ott Assistant City Manager City of Aspen
Sarah Gruen Community Sustainability Coordinator Community Office for Resource Efficiency
Stephen Kanipe Chief Building Official City of Aspen
Steve Child Commissioner Pitkin County
(Cont.) Advisory Committee (AC):
Person Title Organization
CJ Oliver Director of Environmental Health and Sustainability City of Aspen
Julia Farwell Sustainability Intern – Waste Reduction City of Aspen
Larissa Read Principal Owner Common Ground Environmental Consulting
Missy Stults Program Officer Climate Resilience Fund
Mitzi Rapkin Community Relations Director City of Aspen
Facilitation and meeting assistance:P57I.
APPENDIX A: How the CAP was Developed
APPENDIX
50
The recommendations presented in the CAP culminate a year and a half of work by the Advisory Committee including experts in
energy, building science, transportation, waste, aviation, forestry, community development, public administration, business, climate
science, and resilience. Throughout the course of four facilitated, in-person meetings centered around extensive analysis performed
by the City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department, the Committee was able to select and recommend specific actions. Re-capping the
four-meeting framework provides an overview about how the CAP was developed:
• Reviewed GHG Inventory and GHG forecast to understand trends
• Defined what a successful CAP looks like
• Reviewed background information on each sector
• Discussed GHG reduction objectives in each sector
• Brainstormed list of 400+ possible actions
Advisory Committee Meeting 1:
• Reviewed refined list of possible actions (original list of 400 was refined to
250 “feasible” actions)
• Identified co-benefits of the 250 actions
• Developed modeling assumptions for each action (for reduction potential modeling)
Meeting 2:
• Reviewed GHG reduction potential related to successful implementation of
all actions
• Reviewed which actions have the highest reduction potential in each sector
• Discussed Toolkit concept
Meeting 3:
• Reviewed draft Toolkit
• Chose three to seven actions in each sector for implementation over next
three years
• Finalized list of 37 priority actions for the Aspen CAP
Meeting 4:
The stakeholder engagement
process began with the
Advisory Committee defining
what a successful CAP would
look like. Aspen’s CAP been
designed around these
measures of success:
• Actionable
• Implementable
• Innovative
• Integrated
• Cross jurisdictional
• Meets GHG reduction goals
P58I.
APPENDIX B: A Summary of Relevant Climate Science
APPENDIX
51
Our climate is changing, and more rapidly than at any point
on recordv.
• “Every single year since 1977 has been warmer than the
20th century average, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on
record occurring since 2001, and 2016 being the warmest
year on recorded history.”vi
• Global temperatures have risen by 1.5°F since 1880vii and
national temperatures have increased 2°F since 1978viii.
• In Colorado, average temperatures have risen by 2.5°F
since the 1950six.
• In Western Colorado, there are 23 fewer frost free days
than there were before the 1980s, and annual snowfall
has declined by 10 inchesx.
While questions remain about the exact specifics of future climate conditions, the basic facts of climate science and solutions are
well understood, and more relevant and accessible to local communities than they ever have been. The following insights have been
compiled to provide accessible climate change information that is relevant to the Aspen community.
Human activity, namely GHG emissions, is driving most of this change.
• 97% of climate scientists agree that the warming over the past century is due to human activity. Most leading scientific
organizations worldwide have issued public statements affirming thisxi.
• Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen 40% since the industrial revolutionxii.
Figure 9. Observational record of annual mean temperature:
Global, U.S. and Colorado (Aspen Global Change Institutev)
Figure 10. Evidence
that atmospheric CO2
has increased since the
Industrial Revolution
(NASAvii)P59I.
APPENDIX B: A Summary of Relevant Climate Science
APPENDIX
52
The severity of future climate change is directly linked to GHG emission levels.
• Current and future GHG emissions are the single most significant factor in the amount of future global temperature changexiii.
• Currently, the world is on a high emissions trajectory. Unless GHGs are mitigated, this could lead to a 9.7°F increase in Western
Colorado by 2100xiv.
• The best available science indicates that the world, Colorado and communities should reduce GHGs 45% below 2005 levels by
2030 and 90% below 2005 levels by 2050, to limit warming to 1.5 to 2°C above preindustrial levelsxv.
We know how to solve it.
• Robust and effective climate solutions are developed and ready for implementation at the international, national, state and local
levelxvi.
Acting now is less expensive than inaction and can create healthy, thriving communities.
• Dramatically reducing GHG emissions is much less expensive than the anticipated costs of dealing with the impacts of
unchecked climate changexvii xviii.
• Effectively addressing climate change at the scale necessary to solve the problem could be the largest wealth creation
opportunity of our timexix.
• In communities, climate action typically creates numerous co-benefits such as increased resilience and economic activity,
healthier citizens and improved environmental quality. (The CAP and Toolkit define some of the co-benefits that are associated
with various actions.)
• Climate action is frequently complementary to existing priorities for communities and regions.
Local action matters.
• While future climate will be determined by global GHG emissions and levels, the cumulative impact of local action is significant
and meaningful.
• 78% of energy globally is consumed in citiesxx. Local action can significantly accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels.
• Local governments in the US currently have some of the most ambitious climate action commitments. More than 350 US mayors
have signed a pledge to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement through local action and necessary policy at the state, federal and
international levelsxxi. Globally, over 7,500 cities representing over 700 million people have committed to climate actionxxii.P60I.
APPENDIX C: Related Documents
APPENDIX
53
The following documents provide additional context to the Climate Action Plan:
1. The Climate Action Planning Outreach and Engagement Report. During the CAP process, three surveys were conducted
to deepen understanding about the willingness of community members, local businesses and visitors to act on reducing
energy use, waste generation and vehicle miles traveled. Further, the surveys identified both motivations for, and barriers
to, taking action in these areas. The Outreach and Engagement Report provides survey results, methodology and analysis,
and is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1783. Survey insights will be used in developing
implementation plans for CAP actions.
2. The GHG Reduction Toolkit is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1705.
3. The 2014 Community-wide GHG Inventory is available at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795.
All related documents can also be obtained by emailing climate@cityofaspen.com. P61I.
APPENDIX D: Literature Cited
APPENDIX
54
i Climate Interactive. 2016. “Deeper, Earlier Emissions Cuts Needed to Reach Paris Goals.” Press release of May 18. https://www.climateinteractive.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Stronger-Pledges-May-2016.pdf.
ii Aspen Global Change Institute. Climate Change and Aspen: 2006 study and 2014 report. http://www.agci.org/project/climate-change-and-aspen.
iii City of Aspen, 2014. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide GHG Inventory. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795.
iv Pitkin County and City of Aspen, 2016. Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan Phase 1. http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/245/documents/67.
v American Meteorological Society, 2017. State of the Climate in 2016, https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-
american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate.
vi NASA, 2017. Release 17-006. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
Quotation from Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-
faq.html#.WdvDKmhSzxU.
vii IPCC, 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution 12 of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
viii Aspen Global Change Institute, 2014. Climate Change and Aspen 2014, p.28.
ix Aspen Global Change Institute, 2014. Climate Change and Aspen 2014, p.29.
x Ibid p. 14.
xi NASA, 2017. Climate change: How do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence.
xii NOAA, 2014. Global Warming FAQ. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-
questions#hide7.
xiii Aspen Global Change Institute, 2014. Climate Change and Aspen 2014, p.43.
xiv Ibid p. 44.
xv Western Resource Advocates, 2017. Colorado’s Climate Blueprint. https://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/colorados-climate-blueprint.
xvi Hawken, P., 2017. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. http://www.drawdown.org.
xvii Universal Ecological Fund, 2017. The Economic Case for Climate Action in the US. https://feu-us.org/case-for-climate-action-us2.
xviii American Security Project. http://www.americansecurityproject.org/resources/pnpl/Colorado%20FINAL.pdf.
xix Shah, J., 2013. Creating Climate Wealth: Unlocking the Impact Economy.
xx CDP Cities, 2015 report infographic.
xxi https://www.wearestillin.com/cities-counties/initiatives.
xxii Global Covenant of Mayors, 2017. http://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org.P62I.
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 429-1798
Canary@CityofAspen.com
www.CityofAspen.com
The City of Aspen strives to be an environmental leader
and to promote environmental stewardship throughout
the Roaring Fork Valley, across the state of Colorado, and
around the globe. We recognize Aspen’s dependence on
climate and natural resources for a thriving economy, healthy
ecosystems, and exceptional quality of life. In an effort to
do our part to reduce the threat of climate change, Aspen’s
City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan in 2007, which
commits to reducing community-wide emissions 30% by
2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels.
DECEMBER 2017
PARTNERS
Cover photo courtesy Aspen Chamber Resort Association,
C2 Photography P63I.
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 8, 2017
MEETING DATE: December 12, 2017
RE: Aspen Mobility Lab
SUMMARY:
This past summer, Mayor Skadron introduced the idea that the City of Aspen should conduct a
large-scale, bold experiment that would increase mobility options while decreasing the reliance
on the personal automobile in the Aspen community. After further consideration, City Council
directed staff to create a project plan and scope. Since then, City of Aspen staff have partnered
with consultants and regional groups to create a plan for the Aspen Mobility Lab. Staff is
prepared to present a comprehensive plan for the Lab that will deliver transportation options that
are competitive with the ease and speed of personal vehicles to all members of the Aspen
community, revolutionizing the way people move within the boundary of the Intercept Lot to east
of Aspen in June, July and August 2018. The Lab will be a community-wide initiative to increase
convenient mobility options, environmental sustainability, safety and quality of life in the upper
Roaring Fork Valley without a focus on adding lanes or parking spaces.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff is presenting a detailed plan and scope for the Lab and requesting City Council’s feedback.
BACKGROUND:
Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley have a long history of leading the way with innovative
transportation measures. These accomplishments and the services that are offered to the
community are renowned across the country, particularly for a community as small as Aspen.
Despite these aggressive actions, the community continues to be greatly impacted by traffic
congestion and the absence of mobility services that are adequate to serve the unique needs of
locals, commuters and visitors. Data and evidence from the community shows that the current
mobility options are not convenient, inexpensive, or attractive enough for community members
to leave their personal automobile and choose another way. There is a need for new approaches
to Aspen’s transportation landscape, and those approaches must be innovative, creative and
competitive. The Aspen Mobility Lab will provide a demonstration ground for the concepts that
were put forward by the Community Forum on Transportation.
P64
II.
Page 2 of 6
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the Aspen Mobility Lab is to provide community members, commuters and
visitors with an improved quality of life and experience by delivering convenient alternatives to
driving alone. If the Lab is successful, those who no longer desire to sit in traffic in their personal
automobile will abandon their private vehicle for another way. The Lab will draw on lessons
from select pilot programs in over 25 cities worldwide, and will be the most advanced
community-wide pilot program executed to date. The lessons learned from the Lab will be
actively disseminated to national partners, municipal leaders, and transportation directors across
the US. The City of Aspen will seek out unique ways to share insights with others, starting with
design and implementation, and concluding with a Summit in November 2018 to provide all
interested parties an opportunity to connect and recap the Lab. Most importantly, the City of
Aspen and regional partners will learn what modes are accepted and used by the community to
inform responsible future investments and planning.
The Lab will include four key elements: increased transit options, increased support for
bicyclists, incentives to drive behavior change, and outreach to the community.
Aspen Mobility Lab Guiding Principles:
· Provide new transportation modes to encourage new users. The Lab will prioritize
funding and resources towards deploying new technologies and new transportation modes
over existing modes. The Lab seeks to change the behaviors of those who currently drive
alone, and secondarily, to improve the experience for those already using mobility
services.
· Deliver a comprehensive mobility system. If full funding and support is not realized and
Aspen decides to pursue a scaled-down Lab, all elements including new mobility, bike
support, incentives, disincentives, and outreach must be included.
· Provide real solutions to positively impact the local community. The Lab will first and
foremost support the practical needs of locals, commuters and visitors and must inform
the future of local transportation investment. It will favor these solutions over glitzy high-
tech options that are not yet available in the market or that do not enhance the Aspen
lifestyle.
Opportunities: The Aspen Mobility Lab will provide ample opportunities to businesses,
commuters, locals, visitors, and transportation planners. These opportunities may include:
· Impacting real change in commuting patterns and modes
· Creating new opportunities for existing businesses to attract customers
· Increasing the vitality and connectedness of downtown
· Supporting the goals of sustainability, quality of life, mobility and innovation
· Improved convenience and experience
Proposed Project: The Aspen Mobility Lab is proposed to run from approximately June 1-
August 31, 2018 and would create a testing ground for addressing transportation and mobility
needs in Aspen. This section details the specific components of the Lab.
Mobility options. The Lab will provide new and expanded ways for people to move into and out
of town from the Brush Creek Intercept Lot, the Buttermilk Parking Lot, and Aspen’s
P65
II.
Page 3 of 6
neighborhoods, as well as improved options for in-town movement. To do this, the City will
partner with local and national mobility providers to bring new technologies to the community
while expanding and supporting the existing modes.
A Request for Proposals was recently released in the following categories of mobility:
· Bicycles:
o Dockless bike share program
o Electric bike share program
o Specialty bike share program (cargo bikes, etc.)
o Electric bike lease program
o Specialty bike lease program
o Discounted electric bike sales program
· Transit:
o On-demand transit services
o Specialty fixed route services
o Microtransit services
Incentives. To support the use of the new and existing mobility options, the Lab will provide
incentives for those who participate. Some of those incentives may include:
· Discounts at local businesses
· Coupons or gift certificates to be used at local businesses
· Prizes and rewards for long-term behavior changes
· Recognition programs
In addition, the City will strive to make as many services as possible free or inexpensive to the
user.
Parking Lots. One goal of the Lab is to encourage 600-800 drivers to park at the Brush Creek
Intercept Lot instead of driving into town. To do this, the City will submit a permit to Pitkin
County requesting permission to host a coffee cart at the Intercept Lot, as well as higher quality
portable toilets and temporary improved seating to enhance the experience. Additionally, the City
will encourage parking at the Buttermilk parking lot for those who wish to park and bike into
town. The City will provide amenities to support bike commuting and will work with local bike
shops to make Buttermilk a hub for bike commuting.
Mobility Support. To support new users of mobility, the City must alter the downtown landscape
to provide safer conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and mobility technologies. To improve
safety and wayfinding for bicyclists, the City will install protected bike ways on Hopkins, Galena
and Cooper Streets. These bike lanes will allow bicyclists a safe and designated way to move
about town while reducing bike/pedestrian and bike/car interactions. Although downtown Aspen
currently supports biking through the use of ‘sharrows’ painted on the streets, a significant
number of community members do not bike because of safety concerns. Data from the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan shows that designated and protected bike lanes would decrease the
barrier to biking for much of the community, leading to an increased number of new bicyclists in
Aspen, which is one of the goals of the Lab. It is anticipated that electric bikes will be a critical
component of the Lab because e-bikes remove barriers for bike commuting and travel and could
lead to a significant number of new bikers.
P66
II.
Page 4 of 6
In addition to protected bike lanes, the Lab will support new mobility by providing twelve
designated locations for ride-shares, shuttles and others to drop off and pick up passengers, as
well as increased valet services.
Outreach. The key to successful behavior change is education, outreach and marketing to
different community groups. It is also critical to provide messaging and program design that is
uniquely designed to speak to each group’s values and address their challenges. A Request for
Proposals has been issued to find a strategic outreach and marketing firm to oversee these aspects
of the Lab and to ensure that the Lab is inclusive and equitable.
Work accomplished to-date:
The Mobility Lab project team is organized into working groups. Below is an update on recent
accomplishments by each group.
Fundraising Working Group
· Created funding materials and funder communications
· Developed list of possible funders
· Facilitated initial meetings with funders
· Currently: Conducting follow up meetings
Downtown Design Working Group
· Established parameters for downtown mobility support
· Created detailed plan for bike routes, activation areas, bike storage, drop-off zones
and parking
· Developed initial plan for Brush Creek Intercept Lot and Buttermilk Parking Lot
Bike Working Group
· Identified existing barriers to biking
· Recommended improvements to support biking
· Conducted initial outreach to local bike shops to solicit involvement
Data Working Group
· Identified data currently available
· Identified key measures of success
· Established an approach to communicate data to the public through a dashboard
· Created a data quality checklist and guidelines
Outreach Working Group
· Identified 20+ audiences and user groups
· Developed and issued RFP for comprehensive outreach, education, promotion and
incentive program
· Finalized branding system
Mobility Provider Group
· Identified mobility services required
· Assessed capacity of local providers
· Issued RFI to solicit initial interest
· Issued RFPs in two categories: Bikes and Transit
Regional cooperation: The Mobility Lab has the support of the Aspen Community Foundation,
the Aspen Community Forum, Core, Rocky Mountain Institute, SkiCo, the Association of
P67
II.
Page 5 of 6
Colorado Ski Towns, and CDOT'sRoadX, which supports the most innovative transportation
projects in the state. There has been significant outreach to Pitkin County and Snowmass.
Next Steps:
The primary focus through the remainder of 2017 and into the first part of 2018 is fundraising.
Staff will return to City Council on January 23rd to provide an update on funds raised. At that
meeting, it is expected that the City will have soft funding commitments, but not contracts for
funding or services. Depending on the success of fundraising efforts, staff will provide City
Council with different levels of project design and scope and will ask City Council to determine
a final direction and scope for the Lab.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Bringing a truly innovative and comprehensive lab to Aspen will require funding most likely
between $5 and $7 million. The City of Aspen cannot provide this level of funding and must
create new partnerships and build upon existing ones to make the Mobility Lab a reality. It is
expected that the City of Aspen will need to fund a percentage of the overall project, but the goal
is to minimize the City’s contribution.
Fundraising Developments:
1) Automotive, technology and telecom companies are proving to be the most likely partners and
funders of the Lab. Additional meetings are scheduled between December 15 and January 15.
2) The City of Aspen is supported by mobility fundraising experts and specialists.
3) The Mobility Lab and the Aspen story has received positive responses so far. Some of the
unique attractions to the sponsors include: the Aspen brand, the City's strong commitment, and
the controlled environment for testing interaction between innovative options and real people.
4) Extrapolating from the first 10 meetings, there is adequate interest from funders to meet the
City’s fundraising goals, however timing is the biggest challenge.
Fundraising Challenges
1) The funding timeline has always been the biggest challenge in making the Lab a reality.
2) The fundraising goal has increased from $1.5mm to over $5.5mm, significantly increasing the
challenge.
3) Companies are wary of short-term labs and experiments without ongoing opportunities to
create a clear ROI for their investment. Staff is working on how to make the Lab attractive from
an ROI perspective.
City Council has approved $350,000 for use in 2017 and for the first part of 2018. Those funds
are being used as follows:
- Contract with Design Workshop for downtown and parking lot design
- Contract with Fehr and Peers for mobility consulting
- Contract with Alta Planning and Design for construction and engineering assistance
- Project management and administration staff and consultant
- Fundraising consultants and activities
- Branding
- App research and creation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
P68
II.
Page 6 of 6
The Aspen Mobility Lab positively impacts numerous measures from City Council’s
Sustainability Dashboard including: Air Quality (PM levels, ozone levels); Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Castle Creek Bridge Counts; Acres of Trails; Mass Transit Use; Walkability and
Bike-ability Rating; Health and Well Being; and Community Connections
P69
II.
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Don Taylor, Finance Director
Thru: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Date: December 8, 2017
Re: Background on Sales Tax Refund
The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters)
have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale
tax on food however and apparently this was an issue when the city increa
1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed
amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still
able to collect sales tax on the food purc
purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund
given at that time was $7.00.
In 1972 the City raised its sales tax by an additional 1% and the City stayed wit
methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to
$39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100,
the blind an additional $50. Interestingly, only $50 of th
codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This is
something we should correct in the near future.
The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of adm
is required is that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12
months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been either
registered to vote in the city of Aspen. This occasi
not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial
residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel
that they are entitled puts the city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax
was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow,
giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of
determining residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued
to be increased.
How much should the food tax refund be? It has always been a specified amount per person
with additional amounts given to senior citizens. A $50 food tax
$208 per month per person for food purchased in the city of Aspen. Most would consider this
randum
Don Taylor, Finance Director
Steve Barwick, City Manager
December 8, 2017
Background on Sales Tax Refund
The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters)
have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale
tax on food however and apparently this was an issue when the city increased its sales tax by
1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed
amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still
able to collect sales tax on the food purchases of visitors, which is the majority of the food
purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund
In 1972 the City raised its sales tax by an additional 1% and the City stayed with the same
methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to
$39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100,
the blind an additional $50. Interestingly, only $50 of the senior additional 100.00 was ever
codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This is
something we should correct in the near future.
The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of adm
is required is that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12
months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been either
registered to vote in the city of Aspen. This occasionally creates conflict with those who do
not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial
residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel
city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax
was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow,
giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of
residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued
How much should the food tax refund be? It has always been a specified amount per person
with additional amounts given to senior citizens. A $50 food tax refund translates to about
$208 per month per person for food purchased in the city of Aspen. Most would consider this
The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters)
have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale
sed its sales tax by
1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed
amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still
hases of visitors, which is the majority of the food
purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund
h the same
methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to
$39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100,
e senior additional 100.00 was ever
codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This is
The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of administration. It
is required is that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12
months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been either
onally creates conflict with those who do
not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial
residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel
city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax
was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow,
giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of
residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued
How much should the food tax refund be? It has always been a specified amount per person
refund translates to about
$208 per month per person for food purchased in the city of Aspen. Most would consider this
P70
IV.
l Page 2
close to average for an individual. Factor in that economies of larger family units, $832 per
month for a family of four, and we see that this refund is maybe on the high side. Throw in
that most of us will stop at grocery stores outside the City of Aspen a few times per year or
more and the $50 seems very reasonable.
If council wishes to move forward with a higher food tax refund the code can be amended in
January.
P71
IV.