Sustainability, City Light, Arts & Culture Committee 4/19/2024

Can you add me as a panelist, please?

So good morning.

The April 19th, 2024 meeting of the Sustainability City Light Arts and Culture Committee will come to order.

It is now 9.32 a.m.

I'm Tanya Wu, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Moore?

Present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Councilmember Saca?

Here.

Councilmember Strauss?

Present.

Chair Wu?

Present.

Chair, there are five members present.

Thank you.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

So as we know, tomorrow is Earth Day.

The first Earth Day was observed in Seattle, took place in 1970. Before Congress authorized the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, there were very few legal or regulatory mechanisms to protect our environment.

The City of Seattle adopted the Seattle Climate Action Plan in 2013, and as chair of this committee, I recognize the commitment to meet bold climate goals and uphold city obligations.

Climate change will continue to impact us all, and I'm committed to centering the communities disproportionately affected by climate change.

I'm looking forward to our discussion and education topics that will be brought before us today.

And with that, we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently, we have one in-person speaker signed up and one remote speaker.

Great.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with in-person speakers first before going to remote speakers.

And so the public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The period is up to 20 minutes.

I don't think we'll have a problem with that.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they were registered.

And speakers will hold a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speaker mics will be muted.

They do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow for us to call on the next speaker.

So the public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is David Glauger.

Good morning.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I live in District 5. And as we approach Earth Day, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak about the trees.

I think we can all agree about the benefits the trees provide, from cleaning the air to holding the soil, flood prevention, and mitigating the effects of climate change.

The trees are essential for Seattle.

Thus, I believe that it is good to honor the mature trees in our city.

I am a volunteer with Green Seattle Partnership and every time I work at a neighborhood park, I appreciate Seattle's support of this program.

Each week we remove invasive plants and add new native plants and trees that make our parks more resilient.

What we've seen is that it will take decades for these newly planted trees to provide significant canopy.

In the presentation that will be shown shortly and is available online, we are shown some of Seattle's plans for planting new trees to increase our canopy.

This work is very commendable.

However, it is stated that we are slowly losing our canopy in the city and is not on its path to meet its 30% tree canopy coverage, as stated in the comprehensive plan.

And what is missing from today's presentation is information about the impact of Seattle's tree protection ordinance that was enacted in 2023. This ordinance allows a developer to remove virtually any tree on private property.

I can't think of any better way to honor the mature trees of Seattle other than to protect these trees as we build our, increase our housing density and add more housing.

So I urge you to honor our trees by protecting them even further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The first remote speaker is Sandy Shutler, please press star six when you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Sandy, are you there?

Okay, we'll come back to Sandy.

We have another speaker, Lois Martin.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm a legacy resident of Seattle District 3. Thank you to Councilmember Wu for celebrating Earth Day by holding a session on our city's plans to combat climate change, as well as the loss of our urban forest.

At my early learning center, the children are busy listening to stories, reading books about Earth Day, creating projects, and I'm so glad the weather's lovely today, being outside, spending time with nature.

This past Wednesday, a report by Birds Connect Seattle with a board by Tree Action Seattle was shared with each of your offices.

Please review it as it discusses the importance of protecting mature trees on residential property, as well as maps out how it will negatively impact the city's urban forestry goals if we don't.

If the city only focuses on public lands, it will be impossible to have the type of health benefits shared in the upcoming OSC presentation.

I urge this committee to look at ways to preserve our urban trees and all spaces for the good of this and future generations.

Thank you.

We have another remote speaker, Toby Thaller.

Please press star six when you're ready.

Toby, are you there?

You may need to press star six.

Please press star six.

Okay, we'll check in on our first remote speaker, Sandy Shetler.

Please press star six when you're ready.

Go ahead, Sandy.

Sandy might have to press star six and just wait a couple of minutes.

It takes a couple of seconds for it to hold.

She texted me and she's trying to unmute, but something's not working.

Oh, we saw you unmute just momentarily.

Looks like you're unmuted.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you.

Oh, I'm so glad.

I've pressed star six about 40 times.

Thank you, everyone.

Yeah, this is Sandy Shetler with Tree Actions Seattle.

Thank you Council Member Wu and committee members for talking about trees and our environment today.

I'm grateful for the work that went into OSC's presentation, but concerned that it focuses on the need to spend scarce public funds to plant trees on public land.

Research shows that people get the most health benefits from trees by their homes, usually on private property.

On the city level, It makes financial sense to retain trees when lots are developed and leave space to plant new ones on lots that don't have them.

I also want to note that our approach to planting trees in frontline communities could be much more efficient.

Companies like Planet Geo provide inexpensive canopy mapping, which can be overlaid with land use types and socioeconomic and demographic data.

For a few thousand dollars, we could have a map of every frontline community tree planting site on public land without such a long process to get there.

I really appreciate your hard work, everyone, and I'm excited to learn more.

Thanks again.

So it appears there are no additional registered speakers and we'll now proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public are encouraged to either submit written public comments on the signup cards available on the podium or email the council at councilatseattle.gov.

If there is no objections, the public comment period is now ended.

We will now move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read the first item into the record?

Agenda item number one, Office of Sustainability and Environment, Building Emissions Performance Standards Overview for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Item one is read into the record.

Will the department coordinators and presenters come to the table?

And you are there.

Thank you.

Once ready, please introduce yourselves, and then we are excited to learn more about the Building Emissions Performance Standards.

Okay, good morning, thank you, Madam chair members of the committee, it is really nice to be here happy almost earth day happy earth month.

We are here to do two presentations and so why don't we click ahead to.

Our core services so one of the things that the office of sustainability and environment does is work across departments with the Community.

to decarbonize transportation buildings waste as we're fighting the climate crisis.

And so today, we are going to be talking about, we can actually go to the second, the next one, So today in that court, you can see the blue core services greenhouse gas emissions reduction so we're going to be talking about.

A really exciting policy that passed at the end of last year, we will also be addressing trees and our urban canopy i'm going to start by giving a brief intro to the building emissions performance standard.

Then we will move into trees and I'll do a little context setting and address some of the public comments too in that presentation.

So before we jump into building emissions performance standards, and you can go to the next slide, I just want to acknowledge what a big step forward this policy is in the fight to decarbonize our city.

It will result in a 10% emissions reduction by 2050, and it was not an easy road to get there.

The political leadership of Mayor Harrell, the leadership of sitting council members, Council Member Strauss, Council Member Morales, Council President Nelson, and many other advocates, building owners, really expert staff, and the ingredient of trust to do really hard things.

I think that's a really important element.

We're going to talk about how we got there and what this policy will do.

And the reason it's relevant, it's not just something to celebrate, but we're going to be going into rulemaking over the summer, and that will require really deep engagement with our stakeholders.

So you may be hearing about that when we go into that in the summer.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Nicole Ballinger.

Great.

Thank you so much, Jessen.

I'm Nicole Ballinger.

I'm the Building Emissions Performance Standard Program Manager for OSC.

Yeah, sorry, we just wanna get this into full screen here.

There it goes.

Okay, that looks nicer.

Thank you so much to City Council for the opportunity to present about our BEPS policy.

I also want to specifically thank Council Member Nelson, Council Member Strauss, and Council Member Morales for their support of this consensus-based policy.

And also to thank our new members for taking the time to learn about it this morning.

So today I'll walk you through some context for the BEPS policy, then I'll share details about what's required, and then I'll talk a little bit more in detail about what's next for implementation.

So here's some context.

Let's talk about why this policy was needed.

So as we all know, we are in a climate crisis and that what we do today and in the near term will impact all of our futures.

And we recognize that transforming our buildings to clean energy requires focus, sustained effort and resources.

And buildings are one of Seattle's largest sources of climate pollution, contributing 37 percent of our core greenhouse gas emissions.

In Seattle, we are very fortunate to have extremely low emissions electricity supplied by Seattle City Light.

So here, over 90% of our building-related emissions comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

That's gas and oil burned in furnaces, boilers, water heaters, and stoves, as well as in boilers that generate steam for district systems.

The environmental health impacts come not just from burning these fuels directly, but also during extraction and distribution.

And black and brown communities are the closest and most exposed to this pollution and most impacted by climate change.

So bold action is needed to significantly reduce our climate emissions from buildings.

And for all the city's great sustainability efforts and our voluntary incentive programs, as well as the leading work of building owners, both public and private, we're still falling well short of the trajectory necessary to meet our climate action plan goals, which has all buildings reaching net zero emissions by 2050. But we have been making good progress helping owners to get ready for climate action through our innovative policies.

In 2011, we are one of the first cities in the United States to require energy benchmarking reporting for large buildings greater than 20,000 square feet.

So under this policy, building owners report their energy use to the city every year.

It provides owners and the city with an understanding of the energy and emissions performance of their buildings.

2019, we implemented the building tune-ups program.

This requires larger commercial owners to enact some low cost operations and maintenance actions that improve energy efficiency.

We've also been making our municipal buildings more energy efficient and less climate polluting, so we no longer use fossil fuels in new municipal buildings, and we've reduced both energy and emissions roughly 25 percent.

And we're finalizing a strategy to make the entire portfolio free of fossil fuels.

In addition, the latest energy code limits fossil fuel replacement in new construction, major renovations, and most equipment replacements.

Also in 2019, Washington State passed its clean building standards.

They focus on large commercial buildings and energy efficiency targets beginning in 2026. And so while all this work was and is extremely important, it's very foundational, it's still not getting the emissions reductions needed.

So this is why Seattle proposed the building emissions performance standard, and we developed it over two years of stakeholder engagement.

So briefly, to introduce you to BPS policies, they just require existing buildings to meet carbon emissions or energy performance targets by specific deadlines over time.

Sometimes you'll hear decarbonization, another word for reducing emissions.

So Seattle's not alone in this effort.

The map you see are all the cities that have already passed a policy or have one under consideration.

So you'll see that many of our peer cities have BPS policies like Boston, New York, Washington, DC, for example.

So as you know, this brand new consensus-based policy was signed into law by Mayor Harrell in December after unanimous council passage.

The signing, the mayor was flanked by representatives from affordable housing, like the Housing Development Consortium, also MLK Labor, Climate Solution, and many others.

And it was also at each of the council hearings, community support was 100% in favor.

We heard dozens of really moving statements from young people who expressed hope for their futures with Seattle taking this bold action and from elders who saw the same thing for their grandkids.

And also from labor and workforce reps who knew that this policy would catalyze good paying jobs.

So BEPS is one of the most effective climate actions that we're taking.

It's projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions about 325,000 metric tons by 2050. Or in other words, that's a 27% decrease in building emissions from a 2008 baseline.

If you want to look at that differently, it's like taking about 72,000 gas-powered cars off the road for a year.

The policy addresses multiple priorities.

Of course, it's an effort to mitigate climate change and reduce pollution, but it also considers multiple priorities faced by our community, by building owners, by tenants, and by the labor force, such as the need for environmental justice, downtown revitalization, and a just transition for workers, and keeping housing affordable.

Seattle's BEPS will create high quality local jobs that can't be outsourced.

And alongside the implementation of BEPS, OSC will continue coordinating with labor and on city workforce development initiatives to bring career opportunities to women and people of color and to support small businesses and to help ease the transition for gas workers.

So OSC conducted a robust and inclusive stakeholder engagement process to inform BEPS.

This process was identified early on in our racial equity toolkit analysis as necessary work to ensure an effective and equitable policy.

So this work included more than 125 meetings with hundreds of stakeholders and several large open house webinars that attracted hundreds of participants.

We included building owners and managers, real estate representatives, engineers, labor, and affordable housing providers.

We also had a technical advisory group that represented those interests.

And also the Housing Development Consortium led its own affordable housing task force, and the Green New Deal Oversight Board was a consistent partner providing an equity perspective along the way.

Okay.

So now that you've had that context, let's get into some detail about what BEPS requires.

So first, the who.

So BEPS covers about 4,000 of Seattle's larger existing non-residential multifamily buildings.

These are buildings over 20,000 square feet in size, and they're the same ones already complying with Seattle's energy benchmarking policy, like high rises, big box stores, and larger multifamily, for example.

Important to know the policy does not cover industrial and manufacturing facilities.

It doesn't cover smaller buildings less than 20,000 square feet or single family homes.

Nor does it cover new construction which is covered by the Seattle Energy Code.

The basic requirements include that owners, every five years, verify energy and emissions performance, then complete a short GHG report or greenhouse gas report that's designed to evaluate the building's baseline conditions, such as the type of heating and cooling equipment, and also identify actions to achieve the upcoming greenhouse gas intensity targets, and then meeting those decreasing targets every five years until finally achieving net zero emissions by 2050. BEPS will supersede our building tune-ups mandate.

We'll sunset that after 2026. It overlaps with the state requirements and it will reduce some reporting burden for owners.

So while BEPS is based on the idea that buildings meet clear targets along a very specific timeline, we heard extensive stakeholder input that they needed flexibility to address unique buildings and unique circumstances.

So we offer three pathways to compliance.

Under path A, it's the kind of standard path.

They meet the emissions targets by the set date.

Under path B, owners can get some minor modifications, say to how the targets are calculated or to the timeline.

for example, extensions, if they're eligible.

Path C offers the most flexibility to create a custom decarbonization compliance plan.

And that's if their building meets various eligibility criteria.

Like for example, if there's a conflict with the historic status of the building, or perhaps a seismic upgrade is happening concurrently in the building.

Also important to note that campuses that might have their own district energy type systems may also use this Path C. So there's a lot of text on this slide, and I promise I will not read it all, but this is just to talk about how flexibility was incorporated to prioritize frontline communities.

I'm gonna focus in on the text in blue about cooking.

So we heard that gas cooking would be quite difficult and costly to replace, especially in small and BIPOC-owned restaurants.

It would also be really tough to manage in apartment units where it could impact rents and disrupt tenants, and also in condo units.

And so while there are some really good electric and induction products on the market, they're still pretty costly and the electric upgrades would have an added cost impact.

So our response was to allow owners to deduct the cooking emissions from their building's overall emissions through 2040. And so what this does is it provides some more time for the technology to mature and for costs to come down.

It's important to remember that fumes from gas cooking are still a health concern.

So in the meantime, we'll work on voluntary programs for gas cooking replacements, especially in low-income housing.

So this is just an example of how our many flexible options are designed to help minimize burden of this policy.

So finally, what's the timeline for compliance?

So the first compliance interval is coming up 2027 to 2030. That's when owners will need to do the emissions and energy verification and submit that planning greenhouse gas report.

This helps ensure that owners are aware of the targets and can plan to meet them as part of their longer term asset management plan.

Then the first targets must be met by 2031 for the largest buildings through 2035 for the smallest.

Then you can see that the non-residential buildings have three compliance intervals to get to net zero, whereas the multifamily buildings have a little longer timeframe.

They get over four intervals to reach net zero emissions by 2046 to 2050. Also note that affordable housing and buildings with human services are given the option to take a little longer to prepare to meet the targets in 2036 to 2040. This is another flexibility provision that really addressed the concerns of low income housing providers.

They have long timelines for capital needs planning and public funding cycles.

So this gives them greater time to work those in as well as to seek funding and for the city to provide funding or assistance as it's available.

Okay, so rounding out the presentation, I'll finish with what's happening now and what's coming next.

So as Jessen mentioned, we've got rulemaking on the horizon.

So per Seattle Municipal Code, we need to do this to clarify the ordinance elements, such as when owners may apply for exemptions and extensions and what documents the city will require.

So our process is as follows.

We expect to kick off a technical working group later this year around Q3.

This will allow us to get inputs on key elements that we know are very important to stakeholders.

The step isn't actually required by SMC, but it's really important for us to get this additional detailed feedback because we feel it will lead to better policy implementation in the long run.

Then we'll also start prepping the draft rule.

We will share it with the wider public for their comment through some webinars.

Then we'll do the final draft and a formal public comment period, and we expect to adopt the final rule hopefully by Q2 of next year.

While that all happens, we're currently wrapping up our program design and support now.

So this includes conducting some analysis and some case studies of public and private buildings.

This will help daylight cost-effective paths to compliance.

We're also leveraging significant federal and state funds to build the program and support owners.

And in fact, we're submitting a really big proposal for a large Department of Energy ward next week, working hard on that right now.

We're also investigating reporting tools and learning what other cities are using for reporting and compliance.

And most importantly, we're already coaching owners to comply.

So we've got a Seattle Clean Buildings Accelerator.

We launched this in 2022 to support commercial building owners to meet the Washington energy standards.

We've had 40 organizations participate to date, like the Wing Link Museum, Seattle Public Schools, and Pike Place Market.

More than half represent frontline communities, nonprofits, or under-resourced buildings.

Right now, we're working on expanding the accelerator to include curricula on meeting emissions targets, of course, integrating BEPS into it and expanding the program to support multifamily and smaller commercial buildings.

Just want to share some great feedback we've had from participants.

This was from El Centro's facility manager.

She said the accelerator made it easier to complete the tasks under the Washington State Clean Building Standards and helped to teach and explain to our board of directors, leadership and participants and staff what we are doing, how we are doing it and why we are doing it.

Her statement, I believe, in many ways echoes what we consider at OSC to be really an approach to take education and equity first as our approach to BEPS as we support owners to comply.

And so with that, really thank you again for the opportunity to share about our BEPS policy and be very happy to take any of your questions now.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments, colleagues?

I have a request, if I might, Chair.

Yes, please.

Can you, sorry, let me get this closer.

Can you go back to the slide on the rulemaking schedule and just, yeah, walk us through a little bit about what this means to have a director's rule that helps identify processes and guidelines rather than incorporating that kind of information into the legislation itself?

Yeah, certainly, I'd be happy to.

So I'll start with mentioning that our legislation actually is quite a lot more detailed than the other legislation from various BEPS policies.

So in a way, that's a very good thing because owners now can look at it and have a really good sense of the direction that they need to go to comply with this ordinance.

However, there are things within it, such as details about if an owner were to ask for an extension, say, due to having a certain hardship, that we don't spell out exactly what the documentation is in the ordinance, because that would first make it very long, and it also makes it hard to change.

Like, for example, if a city policy changes that changes some documentation, we can update a rule more quickly to provide that detail.

So the rule is really fleshing out a lot of that kind of extra information.

There also are some things in this policy, because it's a long-term trajectory, about say, for example, emissions factors of the utilities that will change over time.

And so the rulemaking process allows us to confirm those now and then periodically update those as their factors change.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this rather insightful presentation.

Really, really appreciate it.

This is important work, and to help us achieve our climate goals.

And so I really appreciate this overview of kind of how we're approaching the BEPS process, including the rulemaking process.

And importantly, minimizing adverse impact on stakeholders.

That's hard work.

That's hard work for policymakers at this dais, It's hard work for the executive in overseeing implementation.

It's hard work for you all on the front lines and the leadership levels to faithfully adopt and incorporate this policy.

We need to avoid the policy making where we just create a policy that achieves a specific end goal without meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout that process and in implementation.

So looking at this specific slide right here, just coincidentally, I see that stakeholder engagement and awareness is going on now and up front, which is great.

We always need to...

be able to continuously understand, monitor, and review, and adapt as needed.

That's hard work.

That's hard work.

And, but I'm committed to that toil and thank you all for demonstrating your willingness via PowerPoint slides to do the same.

But in any event, love this stuff.

Just curious to better understand the, on that chart there that shows, or on the slide there rather, that shows the three compliance pathways.

Of those three listed, What is currently the highest utilized pathway to compliance and how does that impact our goals?

Yeah, thank you for that question, council member.

So with BEPS being brand new, we're at the point where we're really talking with owners about what pathways they might choose.

So no one's selected theirs yet.

Our expectation is that most will use path A because it's the most straightforward.

It sets out a target and they know they have a known target.

They can plan to achieve that.

However, you know, We'll see.

I think our education is certainly focused on, first and foremost, making sure that building owners will be aware of those targets and have the tools to plan and understand how to meet them.

Certainly, we have a lot of owners that have expressed some interest in Path C through our stakeholder engagement.

and the more minor things in path B.

So it's a little bit to be determined exactly which paths they will choose, but we will be working to help them really with all of them.

And that first step is really understanding what their targets are and then figuring out what's the best path to compliance.

So, yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the presentation, and I did want to congratulate everybody who worked so hard to get this passed.

It was a monumental feat, so kudos.

Oh, sorry.

I wanted to say congratulations to everybody who worked so hard to get this passed.

So kudos to my colleagues and to all of you who are here today and to the mayor and former council member Lisa Herbold.

I just had a question about the city is investing one million in clean energy career pathway training.

If you could expand on that a little bit more and then also about the partnership with the University of Washington.

Thank you for that question.

I can talk a little bit about the workforce investments, and then I'll have Nicole answer our partnership with the University of Washington.

So one of the most important pieces, one of the co-benefits of this policy is that it creates kind of base level certainty around needs with the clean energy workforce.

And of course, we need to really make sure then that we're working with our labor partners, our community college and technical school partners, our public school partners, to make sure that we then actually have the workforce over this long lead time through 2050. And so we make investments.

We are investing a million dollars this year in partnerships with organizations like Sphere Solar, South Seattle College, which has a long-standing partnership with OSE, particularly around building decarbonization, but we help them by providing internship and funding opportunities.

So those are some of the specific ways that we work, but we also work to do pre-apprenticeship support sometimes.

People may need help with transportation or childcare to be able to successfully complete an apprenticeship program.

So we partner with...

with organizations to do that.

And so we'll be actually making an announcement very soon of the recipients of this year's awards.

So we'll make sure you have all of that information when it's out.

Great, thank you.

And you, Deb?

Yeah, yes, I'd be happy to speak to that.

So we have had quite a number of partnerships in the past with University of Washington through their integrated design lab.

They've done some work on some case studies around decarbonization and retrofit planning.

But this current one that's mentioned on the slide, they received funding from the US Department of Energy through the bipartisan infrastructure law to set up a building training and assessment center at UW.

And what it is going to do is provide hands-on job training for clean energy careers.

And their initial grant was to align it with the state requirements.

But we are a partner in that and will help them to align it with our BEPS requirements.

So we've had great partnerships with them in the past.

And their other partner actually is Seattle Colleges on that and also the Northwest Indian Training Center, I believe.

I think it's just a really great opportunity for us to be involved in.

And do you have to be matriculated at the University of Washington, or is that a separate standalone program?

How does that?

I believe that is a new program, but I could find out and get back to you.

Okay, thank you.

Great, well, thank you.

Looking forward to hearing more about the stakeholder engagement that's ongoing and public comment feedback.

Great.

We will now move on to our next item of business.

Sorry, I didn't raise my hand virtually.

I just final comments here for Director Farrell and the team, highlighting what was already said, but just putting a finer point on it.

This policy almost died on the vine last year.

There were a number of attempts to bring it forward and different reasons stalled it without Director Farrell.

without Mayor Harrell, without Councilmember Herbold, we would not be having this presentation today.

So I just want to thank you all for your leadership.

Thank you.

So we will now move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read the second item into the record?

Agenda item two, Office of Sustainability and Environment Tree Canopy Overview for briefing and discussion.

Thank you, and ready, please start your presentation.

Okay, great, so I'll just take a few moments and set some context, and then I will turn it over to Lauren to walk you through the presentation.

So, of course, we focused just a moment ago on our work to reduce climate emissions.

That's a key part of addressing the climate crisis.

Trees provide a whole host of benefits, but particularly as we're wrestling with how to build resiliency in communities, trees provide You know heat and cooling benefits and a whole variety of benefits, so this is an important part of our sustainability resilience work that we do with communities.

And so, today we are going to be doing a real grounding in the data, so we do a canopy assessment every five years, and so, as a foundation for policy making we're really focusing on the data.

Several commenters today talked about private regulations, and I will acknowledge that there are really two levers that the city has in terms of growing our canopy.

So one is that regulation, and there will be future opportunities to talk about that.

And today we're really going to focus on that other lever, which is public investment in our parks and rights of way and the investment in maintenance that's required, which is a pretty big body of work.

So I want to acknowledge how important the regulatory piece is.

And today we're going to focus on the other lever that we use, which is public investment.

And we'll look forward to having other opportunities to discuss the regulatory side.

So with that, I will turn it over to Lauren.

Thanks, Justin.

Can you hear me?

Oh, that's better.

Okay.

I'm Lauren Ergenson.

I'm the Urban Forestry Senior Advisor at OSE.

And today I will give an overview of Seattle's urban forests.

I'll introduce our citywide urban forestry vision and framework and provide some management highlights on our public lands.

And I'll introduce two exciting new canopy equity initiatives that are upcoming this year.

So when we're talking about Seattle's urban forest, we're talking about all the trees within our city boundaries.

So those are the trees on our public lands, in our parks.

Those are the trees in our right of way.

Those are the trees on private property.

And this is what constitutes our urban forest.

And we have a vision for managing our urban forests and that's a vision where a Seattle where everyone starting with those most harmed by inequities have access to trees and the benefits they provide.

And where we keep our trees and forests healthy and thriving in the face of a changing climate and that includes meeting our canopy cover goal of 30% canopy cover citywide by 2037. And several people today have already talked about the benefits of urban trees.

Trees are critical infrastructure for a healthy built environment and important tools to address climate change.

Trees matter for a number of reasons.

Trees are part of our identity in Seattle and our sense of place.

And trees provide real tangible benefits for the quality of life of Seattle's residents.

Jess and Mensen trees are increasingly important in heat island mitigation.

They manage our storm water and they clean our air, in addition to a number of other benefits for community health and well-being.

And urban environments can be challenging places for trees.

The heat and drought during our summer times is exacerbated by climate change.

Urban trees are particularly susceptible to pests and disease, and our cities often have more pests and disease and more isolated environments.

And having adequate soil volume and condition is critical for tree health and survivorship, and that can be limiting in cities.

Additionally, trees are challenged by competing mandates and competition for space.

It's an urban design challenge, and the cost of tree maintenance and establishment is also a challenge.

So in cities, you can plant trees, but in many of our environments, you also have to care for those trees in order for them to grow and survive over time.

So we have a one Seattle management approach to urban forestry.

Fundamentally, our urban forestry programs and policies are driven by data and research.

We focus on realizing the public benefits of trees, on creating climate adapted urban forests, on reaching equitable distribution of trees throughout the city, on balancing competing priorities and really identifying those locations where we can plant and care for trees to grow our canopy, including on public land.

And urban forestry is inherently related to a number of our city services and the work that our departments do, right?

Trees interact with our above ground utility infrastructure, like our electrical poles.

They interact with our below ground infrastructure, like our water lines and our electrical boxes.

Trees are essential for water resource conservation, stormwater mitigation, and that's why our utilities like Seattle City Light and SPU are critical partners in our urban forest management.

Trees interact with our right-of-way, they're an important part of our transportation infrastructure, and trees are prominent in our city policies and regulations.

So we have SDOT and OPCD and SDCI as critical partners in managing our urban forests.

And of course, trees are essential for our parklands.

OSC's role in urban forest management is really to work with all these different departments and knit together an overall vision and strategy to manage our urban forests.

And we do have an urban forest management plan, a citywide plan and framework for setting our urban forest vision and goals.

And our plan really underscores the different ways we manage trees in these different environments.

And we have an action agenda that drives near-term strategy and management actions throughout the city.

One of the actions called for in our urban forest management plan is that every five years we do a canopy assessment.

Our most recent canopy assessment was in 2021. And we look at where we are in terms of canopy cover.

We look at where canopy is located and distributed around the city.

For the first time in 2021, since we use the same method in 2016 and 2021, we could really track change in canopy over time.

And so that picture on the right just gives you some sense of how we understand this information.

It's based on LiDAR and aerial photography, and we can really see where there's been no change, gain and loss in our canopy throughout the city.

Some key findings of our canopy assessment from 2021 is that we are slowly losing ground.

Our canopy cover in 2021 is 28.1%, which was just slightly lower than it was in 2016 and below our 30% canopy goal.

We learned that our public sector is essential for managing our trees, and that neighborhood residential parks and right-of-way house the majority of our tree canopy, and that canopy is not equitably distributed in Seattle.

That neighborhoods impacted by racial, economic, and environmental injustice started with less canopy at the beginning of the assessment period, and they lost more canopy over that time.

And this picture on the right shows our racial and social equity priority neighborhoods outlined in that dark blacker color.

And then the neighborhoods, the black groups that are in those yellows are our low canopy neighborhoods that have less than 25% canopy.

And you can see that there's greater proportion of low canopy neighborhoods in our racial and social equity priority neighborhoods.

And as we're discussing, you know, we are data driven in our urban forest management, and I'm going to provide some management highlights, specifically focused on our public lands, the work of parks and SDOT, and then introduce some new exciting canopy equity initiatives being led by OSE.

So first, let's talk about Seattle Parks and Natural Areas.

These are critical spaces for our tree canopy, and although they're a relatively small portion of our overall landscape, they provide 19% of our canopy cover.

Our assessment also showed that parks and natural areas are losing more canopy than some of our other management units.

And there's some important reasons for that.

There's those climate impacts, the drought and the heat stress during the summer.

There's the fact that we have an aging urban forest, and it's really critical that we have conifers growing up in the understory to fill in those canopy gaps.

And it's because in our parks, we have a management approach that has a long term time horizon.

So as was mentioned previously, we're part of the management approaches to remove invasive shrubs and trees, which also in some cases contribute to the canopy.

And so our approach, Seattle Parks' approach to our natural areas is really founded on the Green Seattle Partnership, which is a 20-year program.

It's been a groundbreaking program that's been replicated across the state and been used as a model nationally for how you steward your natural areas with community.

And there's some accomplishments in 2023 of Green Seattle Partnership.

So they expanded contracts with 14 community-based partner organizations.

Many of those organizations are focused on environmental justice and led by BIPOC communities.

And so it's funding these organizations to work with communities and do this work.

They planted over 9,000 trees in our park's natural areas and added over 13 new acres to restoration.

Additionally, planting and tree care in developing parks is a big focus, an expanded program in tree planting and care.

In Parks Develop Parks, they're planting 300 new trees a year, and they're working to better meet those longer maintenance needs.

They're responding to climate change by extending the care of newly planted trees to a five-year establishment period for watering and mulching so trees have the opportunity to build that root system and survive drought and stress over the summertime.

And they expanded their inventory to monitor tree health and survivorship and then bring that information into future management.

Then there's Seattle right-of-way and the right-of-way is another key asset for our canopy.

It provides opportunities for shade, health and enjoyment where people live and where they work and as they travel through the city.

The right-of-way is 27% of the city's land area and 23% of our canopy cover.

And there's really important work ahead to do Right-of-way is an area where we have competition for space and multiple mandates, and there's a lot of work to do to make sure that we're prioritizing trees within that right-of-way to meet our canopy goals.

So I'll go a little bit into SDOT street tree management.

So SDOT is in their final year of a nine year operations and maintenance plan under the move Seattle levy.

And they've really been focusing on equitably equitable tree planting and maintenance grounded in an exceptional tree inventory data.

So I took a snapshot of that inventory data down in the Lower right hand there, and you can see that SDOT maps every street tree, and they're color-coded by who's responsible for caring for that tree, whether it's private, whether it's SDOT, whether it's other city departments.

Each species is noted, the health of that tree is noted, and this information is updated in real time and available to the public on their website.

So some accomplishments from SDOT and street tree management last year was over 500 trees were planted with 69% of those trees being our two highest racial and social equity priority neighborhood groups.

And 50% of those trees were planted in areas that have low canopy or less than 25% canopy cover.

And each year SDOT, prudes thousands of trees to support tree health and safe and vibrant streets.

Additionally, there's been a real leaning in to community engagement and partnership.

And this flyer on the right shows one example of that.

So this is targeting our racial and social equity priority neighborhoods.

And residents can reach out to SDOT and request a tree being planted.

And once SDOT plants the tree, they care for that tree over time, which is critical to reduce the health the financial tree care burden, especially for low-income residents.

And these flyers and websites are translated into nine languages.

So next I'll move on to some of the work that OSC is leading and two exciting new tree equity initiatives.

So one is development of a new citywide Seattle canopy equity and resilience plan.

The next is a five year $12 million federal grant under the Inflation Reduction Act that were received through the USDA and US Forest Service under a historic federal investment in urban forestry and are really honored to have received those funds.

And so first let's talk about the Canopy Equity and Resilience Plan.

So this will be a framework and a strategy to grow our canopy in the neighborhoods that need it most.

So racial and social equity priority neighborhoods that are experiencing extreme heat and have low canopy.

and we're gonna bring together the best available urban forestry information and data that we have.

We're assessing our programs and policies, and we're gonna bring that information to community and co-develop some recommendations for strategies and investments to grow our canopy.

The next is, again, this new federal grant initiative, which is a $12 million five-year initiative that's focused on climate and economic justice neighborhoods.

So that's a federal designation.

And it's focused on two neighborhoods in particular, Beacon Hill and Chinatown International District.

And the work is focused on three interrelated priorities.

One is advancing youth green careers through partnership with Seattle Parks and Recreation's Youth Green Corps.

The next is to be working with residents in those communities to have them lead on urban forest planning and actions in Beacon Hill and the CID.

And then the third is working with community-based organizations to expand that model of Green Seattle Partnerships community-led stewardship onto lands adjacent to parks.

including Seattle Housing Authority properties and Seattle Public School properties.

And it provides this really exciting opportunity to grow our partnerships within the city with community-based organizations, with communities and many more.

And that's what I have to present to you today.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to celebrate Earth Day and Earth Month, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions or comments?

Sure, I'll go first.

I don't have questions.

I just want to thank you.

This is exciting.

It's exciting to see the two new opportunities.

I did not know that we had got the IRA grant for $12 million.

So that's very exciting and really thrilled to know that Beacon Hill and the CID will be partnering.

So I will want to follow up with you just to learn more particularly about the youth opportunities.

so that I can help share information with folks in the district about the next steps related to that.

So thank you.

That sounds great.

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you for another insightful presentation, really like learn a lot every day and this is important work.

So, and thank you all for sharing out this information and then doing the work of course, as well.

So it was, Interesting to learn.

Well, good to learn that the vital importance that trees play across our city, including in our right-of-ways, and that 27, or excuse me, 23% of the city's canopy are in the right-of-way.

and that which comprises 27% of the city's total land area.

So it's vital real estate.

So, but I would just be curious to better understand how, and I sit on the chair of the transportation committee and so I work very closely with SDOT.

but just be curious to better understand, how does our street tree management approach, just high level, how does that compare to what other major cities are doing?

Pure cities like San Francisco, for example, Portland maybe, other major cities.

It's a really good question.

I know that some of the things that we're focused on for our right-of-way, and this is a challenge that's experienced by cities nationally.

You mentioned that it's vital real estate.

And there's a real need to, there's multiple mandates for the right of way, right?

And Seattle, in some ways, I was just talking with some national partners on tree equity, and Seattle in some ways is like right in step with a number of these larger cities in figuring out how to prioritize trees in the right of way.

You have multiple mandates, and without coordinated planning, we run the risk of not meeting our goals, of having unattended consequences, and not being able to actualize opportunities to meet these multiple mandates in the right of way.

So I know that cities elsewhere to are really working on like how you plan like this is really like the next phase and urban forest management is the right of way is front and Center and how we use that face space effectively for trees and for these all these other uses and so maybe that's helpful.

And i'll just add, I think, in some ways, this is a little bit of a good news bad news story and that cities across the country have not yet really cracked the nut on how to.

you know, adequately manage the competing needs, whether it's transportation electrification and the public infrastructure that we want to build, streeteries or bike parking, sidewalks, et cetera.

So this is very much a work in progress.

So thank you for that.

How are we currently thinking, because there's a tension a little bit between the need imperative to continue to grow our tree canopy numbers and volume, including on the right of way, but there's a tension on the right of way between preserving flexibility down the road for design changes.

Because once you plant a tree, maybe 10, 20 years from then, the local needs in that particular area might change.

It obviously limits our ability to potentially add a EV charging station or something like that.

So how are we currently thinking about you know, addressing those like strategies to address some of those potential tensions and conflicts, understanding that we need to continue that path, but also preserve flexibility.

Yeah, why don't I kind of set the frame and then Lauren can chime in.

I think, I mean, number one, I think is to just start with the data and to have a broad-based strategy across the many management areas, you know, parks and right-of-way, privately owned trees to understand how all of those pieces are going to fit together to meet our goals, right?

So that's why we're really starting today with that data piece because you really can't make policy decisions around how you allocate the right-of-way without understanding how the right of way impacts the overall goals and what the policy decision is around that.

So that's just kind of the foundation.

And I will say that it's really an emergent piece of work within city departments to really kind of hash out what is going to be, and this is where Lauren can kind of speak a little more specifically, but really, you know, what are the next steps in terms of navigating kind of more finely grained policy around the right of way?

Yeah, and I mentioned the upcoming canopy equity and resilience plan.

And so basically phase one of that planning effort is to focus on the right of way and to understand those multiple mandates, understand those space needs, to map them, to quantify them, and to really understand what the plantable space is in that area.

So that's like, that's where I'm starting with this new canopy equity plan.

Thank you.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So kind of along those lines that Council Member Saka was raising, sorry, just looking at my stickies here.

You know, in your slide where you talk about urban trees face challenges and one of the is competing mandates and you list urban design challenges.

I wonder if you could be a little bit more specific about what you mean when you say urban design challenge.

Um...

Yeah, and so we believe that we can meet our multiple goals for affordable housing and for trees.

And it's really a space issue, right?

And a design issue.

And so like thinking creatively about how we use our limited spaces to be able to meet those multiple goals.

So that's really what I'm thinking about when I put in that bullet.

Does that answer your question?

Well, can you be a little bit more specific?

I mean, there's clearly a tension, right?

The line is, well, we can't have more trees because we need more housing.

And then the people who support trees are saying we can have both.

And personally, in the current draft comp plan, I don't see a lot of protection for trees.

And trees are critical.

And as you've identified, trees are a critical racial justice issue.

And we have a lot of development going on in the South End where there are even less tree canopy.

So can we have a real discussion about the tension between trees and development and how we actually manage to have both

And I'll just say, because the answer is kind of the same in the right of way as it is in terms of our privately owned trees, which is really to say, at the end of the day, it's a policy prioritization process where you really have to make values choices, right, around of all of the things that are competing in the right of way, whether it's electrification or which we love, bikes, parking, which we love, accessibility, which we love and are also mandated to do, right?

So there are all of these different things that are competing priorities.

And really, the policymaker role then is to provide you know, that kind of direction around how the prioritization is working on the right of way and the same thing on, you know, as we develop, you know, and densify.

There are a lot of competing things that we put on a particular development and how we navigate that balance of housing footprint, trees, parking, bike parking, walkways, right?

There are a lot of different things that we're needing to do on a given piece of property and in a given right of way.

And so that's where...

the policymaking happens and that's really again where I think aligning the multiple goals and being really clear about what those are then helps drive the policymaking that's in keeping with the city's values.

Thank you.

And also I think we need to be honest that just sticking in a few new trees isn't gonna do the job.

And I wanted to ask that you noted that the canopy is inequitably distributed.

And neighborhoods impacted by racial and economic justice started with less canopy cover and have lost more.

So what do you attribute the accelerated loss to in those neighborhoods?

Yeah, I mean, probably several, multiple factors, right?

Fundamentally, something that comes to mind for me is that when you have more impervious surface and you have less green space, you're creating a more stressful place for trees to grow and survive, right?

And so it's almost like this feedback You need to create healthy environments for trees.

And so when we have a low canopy cover, those are stressful environments for trees and it's harder to maintain those trees there.

So there's this like fundamental challenge in getting trees to grow and survive well in those environments that underlays a lot of those other challenges that we're talking about.

I would also say in addition to the policy, very focused on data.

So understanding where there are opportunities to plant more trees, to care for our trees, to sustain our trees, like having those values and that data and that information is foundational to making good policy decisions.

And then very focused on that as well.

And I'll add the other piece.

I mean, you mentioned planting new trees is just part of the picture.

We really do have to take care of our existing canopy.

And maintenance is not the most exciting topic, but that really is particularly on our public sector trees, a really important piece of the strategy to maintain and grow our forest.

So we need much more aggressive, robust maintenance of the trees that we have and the trees that we're planting is the takeaway?

Yes.

Okay.

And I guess that also that would lead into the payroll expense tax.

Is money from that, from the jumpstart being used for planting and maintenance?

Where does that fall into supporting the trees?

So overall, the big capital departments have budgets really, you know, so SDOT has a tree maintenance budget that's not related to payroll expense tax.

The tree equity planning process that we're doing is funded with that, but the big investment that we're overseeing through the Forest Service is actually a federal, federally funded, the $12 million.

So I can't speak with real specifics to other departmental budgets, but I will say overall, our maintenance budgets tend to come from, you know, the fund sources that fund large capital departments and general fund.

But we can get back to you with more specific details on that.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Council Member Morales?

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore, for that particular line of questioning, because this has been a long tension that we hear about, Housing versus trees, and we know that we need both.

As the representative of the South End, I can tell you I see that.

That is true.

We need a lot more housing, particularly affordable to workers, family-sized units.

In certain parts of the city, there are lots of families with children who...

need to be able to find affordable places to live, multi-generational, all of that is true.

And also in the South End, we have lost a lot of tree canopy.

And as you said, we have heat islands that contribute to the stress of these trees.

My understanding is that part of the challenge is also that in the existing trees that have been planted is that they're not necessarily native trees.

And so they're at their life, end of their lifespan.

And what we really need to be doing is transferring over to planting more native trees.

So can you talk a little bit about that and what it means for what we should be doing in the future?

Because From my perspective, in South Seattle, we already lack trees, so we do need to be planting more.

And as a public entity, that means we plant where we own property, which is parks and rights of way.

So, yeah, so can you talk about understanding that we have this hole in our tree canopy and we need to plant more trees?

and we need to plant trees that will actually survive well, including with extended maintenance.

What does that mean for how we do it differently?

Yeah, so native trees are important.

Native conifers in particular are really important, but I would also say making sure that we're planting climate resilient species So some of our urban environments are not native environments.

So we really need to be careful like when we're focusing only on native species that we're planting species that can survive well.

And there are native species that are more drought tolerant.

So we're like really just making sure that we're planting species that are climate resilient as well.

Also, a key factor to consider is planting a diversity of tree species.

And so I mentioned the pests and disease issue.

That is really critical for urban tree survivorship and health.

And when we have a diversity of species, we become naturally more resilient to pests, right?

Because pests tend to target certain tree species.

And so if you have the same tree species planted everywhere and you get a certain pest, you end up losing large swaths of your urban canopy.

And so that those three things, native trees are important, conifers are important, climate resiliences are important, and species diversity is also really important.

Thank you.

Sure.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Director Farrell.

Thank you for your presentation.

I rely on your work when engaging in tree regulations, when we're looking at how we can better support, protect, plant more trees to grow our urban canopy.

Some of my colleagues have already taken my statements, but I'll kind of wrap up here, which is that we have When we were working on the tree ordinance last year, one of the arborists said to me, Seattle is the largest botanical garden in the state because we have so many non-native species.

We're also, through your tree assessments, I have noticed that we are at a point where our canopy, through climate crisis, we need to have more climate resilient trees.

When I was in AmeriCorps, I worked in the forests, working to protect and preserve our living forests and to prepare and to respond to pests that had wiped out a large section of our forests.

This is also true here in the city.

And so as we are right now in this transition, having these replacement chains, having the three for one SDOT replacement, having the new tree ordinance regulations, having all of the trees for Seattle, I believe it's called the SPU program.

Each of these individual changes Policies, programs, and projects are that network and that mesh that will help us get to the future and there's more to do, right?

It is this plus.

When using your tree assessment from last year, what we found was that the largest losses of trees were happening on parks and single family zones outside of development and on our streets.

We've been able to at least create stop gaps for these places, but there's still more work to do.

Already working on SDOT projects, I'm seeing the three-for-one replacement.

When we're working on the Burke-Gilman Trail missing link, we're seeing more trees having to be planted than the section that was built between 24th and the locks at a higher rate.

And what we know is, When that project was redeveloped, we have concrete, a lot of concrete that doesn't have a lot of shade, which creates hotter temperatures during our heat waves.

And trees are how we mitigate this.

Excuse me.

One of my constituents up in D6 planted from seeds his entire property 30 years ago, and it is completely...

I think he has one of the heritage trees now that he planted from seed.

And so this can happen quickly.

I'm lucky enough to get magnolia into District 6. I got it back.

And I was trying to find when the trees were planted in the north parking lot.

Looking on Google Street View, I can see that they were not there in 2012. So that was 16 years ago.

And today those trees...

create an enormous canopy.

They're deciduous.

So in the summertime, there's a lot of cooling effect.

In the wintertime, it still allows for light to pass through in the park.

So increasing safety, right?

Because sometimes when you can't see it, it's less safe.

I do want to say that as we are transitioning in this moment from non-native species to a desire to have native species, in a time when the trees that were planted are no longer resilient to our climate change, that we need to have more climate change, and that we need to grow our canopy, everything you're doing is critical and we need to do more.

I'm committed to doing that.

So I just wanted to thank you.

No questions.

Wanted to thank you because your tree assessment helps me do my job better.

Thank you.

I have two more questions.

So, when people do request a tree, can you talk about what that process looks like, and do you know if these requests are fulfilled?

Yeah, and so, you know, I don't work in SDOT, and it's really SDOT's program, so they would have a better, more nuanced answer.

But I do believe, my understanding is that the requests are fulfilled, and again, that critical piece.

is that if ESTOP plants the tree, like the right-of-way, if trees are planted by a resident, the resident then is responsible for caring for that tree over time, for doing the pruning work and all that other work, right?

If ESTOP plants the tree, SDOT then moves it into its own maintenance program.

And so that's really a key piece here and why some of these programs are really important.

So unfortunately, I don't know all those nuanced details because I don't run that specific program.

I can ask my colleagues and get back to you.

But I do know that that key distinction between who plants the tree and having the opportunity for residents to reach out to SDOT and have SDOT meet some of those canopy benefits in their neighborhoods is really important.

Thank you, and do you think we're gonna meet our goal of 30% tree canopy soon?

You know, we're at 28.1% right now, according to our last canopy assessment, and we're close, and that's where this data and the canopy equity plan really comes in.

We need to map this out.

We need to understand this better.

We need to have a plan, a detailed plan, and so that's what we're hoping to do with this next body of work.

And I would just add how important it is to be opportunistic about funding and really be aggressive in this moment where there's federal funding and state funding and you know not leave.

Any stone unturned so we're you know we're doing both the planning, but then also you know really hustling to make sure we're taking taking advantage of this opportunity.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thanks.

I grew up in Beacon Hill and spent a lot of time in the Chinatown International District.

So I know both these areas are near I-5, Boeing Field, Harborview Flight Path, industrial areas.

And so they're really boxed in.

They always talk about the lower air quality there and higher rates of health issues.

So I know the community is very excited about this grant and have been fighting for years.

And so thank you so much for all that you do and all the work.

And I'm excited to see what happens next.

Thank you.

Great, thank you so much.

Okay, there are no further questions or comments.

We will move on to our last item of business.

Will the clerk please read our third item into the record?

Agenda item three, resolution 32134, a resolution relating to the City Light Department, acknowledging and approving the City Light Department's adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2024-25 and 10-year conservation potential.

For public hearing, briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

As presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on resolution 32134 that acknowledges and approves the City Light Department's adoption of a biannual energy conservation target for 2024 and 2025 and 10-year conservation potential.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

There are no remote speakers and no in-person speakers signed up today.

Great, thank you.

Being that there is not a member of the public present for this public hearing on Resolution 32134, this public hearing is now closed.

Thank you.

Will the department coordinators who are present at the community table go ahead and introduce yourselves, and we will learn about the conservation target for 2024, 2025, and 10-year conservation potential.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Wu and committee members.

I am Dawn Lindell.

I am the interim general manager and CEO for Seattle City Light.

Maura Brugger, Director of Government and Legislative Affairs, Seattle City Light.

Good morning.

I'm Jennifer Finnegan.

I'm in Customer Energy Solutions at Seattle City Light.

Good morning.

Joe Fernandi, Director of Customer Energy Solutions at Seattle City Light.

So today we will present our two year and 10 year strategy around energy conservation targets.

And we're also going to report on how we performed to our last two year targets that were adopted by council in 2022. While we face challenges in the short term, we are pleased that our energy conservation savings continue to rise over the 10 years as we add new conservation measures including time of use rates and demand response measures.

This action is part of a state regulatory requirement that was adopted by Washington voters in 2006. However, long before the state requirement, City Light began treating energy conservation as a resource that we would invest in, along with our customers, to delay having to acquire new generation resources.

Jennifer will go ahead now with the presentation.

Thank you.

We had to reboot.

Oh, we had to reboot.

Council Member Strauss, do you have a question?

yes chair my apologies i will need to leave in about five minutes unfortunately um and i had a really great briefing with the city light team really appreciate the time that you spent with me i am i'm not comfortable voting on this today but i'm also not going to be here so um i know ceo lindell is going to follow up with me for more information to answer the questions that i have outstanding and just really appreciate all of the work that you do because you're doing really great work um that's all thank you chair

Please go ahead once the presentation is ready.

She's going to have to run it from over there because we got out of the Zoom.

We can't get into the Zoom meeting.

She's having it.

It's freezing up on her.

She's just trying.

Yeah, it should go right on.

How do you log in?

Nina, you gonna run it?

You gonna run it?

Okay.

Good morning.

I'm here to seek your approval for City Lights conservation targets.

This is to fulfill a state legislative requirement set by initiative 937. Next slide, please.

Initiative 937 is also known as the Washington Energy Independence Act.

It was approved by Washington voters in 2006. It directs Seattle City Light and a lot of other utilities to identify and pursue all available conservation that is cost-effective, reliable, and feasible.

We do this, we identify all available conservation by completing a conservation potential assessment.

The output of the assessment are the two year and 10 year targets that we're asking for your approval of today.

The state sets the framework for how we do this.

And we do this every two years.

We present our conservation targets to you and city council for approval and we get your approval.

And this is the eighth time that we have done this.

So we've done this for at least 16 years.

A few definitions before I go into the next slide.

Throughout the presentation, I'm gonna talk about conservation and energy efficiency, and they're the same thing.

We're gonna talk about them interchangeably.

Conservation means any reduction in energy consumption resulting from increases in the efficiency of energy use, production, or distribution.

It comes in different forms.

It comes in the form of rebates and incentives for things like efficient water heaters.

It comes from direct install, meaning that we buy the water heater for low income customers and we install it.

And it comes in the form of midstream activities like providing nudges to retailers and distributors to stock more efficient items.

Next slide.

There are three sections to this presentation.

The first is an introduction to conservation, Conservation 101, if you will.

The second section is focused on the conservation targets, the two-year and 10-year targets that we're asking for your approval, where we're gonna explain how we came up with them and why we came up with them.

And the third talks about what these targets mean for Seattle City Light.

Next slide.

Conservation is a top resource choice for the utility.

This means that conservation is just like hydro power, solar power, or wind power.

We value it just as highly.

By motivating customers to save energy, we don't have to generate or buy solar, wind, or hydro as much.

City Light values conservation for several reasons.

It's low cost.

It is less expensive than these other forms of energy.

It has low environmental impacts, including no greenhouse gas emissions, and it keeps our energy investments local.

It's a form of economic development.

We spent more than $30 million on conservation last year in investments across our community, across all customer classes, residential, commercial, and industrial.

Seattle City Light has a longstanding commitment to conservation.

It's a foundation of how we run the utility.

We have a long, strong, proud history of conservation at City Light.

We started running programs in 1977. This makes us one of the longest running utility programs in the country.

Next slide.

Here I have a pie chart.

This pie chart shows where conservation comes from.

It comes from lighting, the yellow area, representing 37% of the conservation that we collected in the past two years.

It comes from non-lighting, that's the blue area.

This includes things like heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, insulation, and systemic changes to buildings.

It comes from regional savings, which is the red area.

Represented by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, that's NIA.

We work together with more than 100 other utilities in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana to change the market.

We do this with codes and standards, working with manufacturers and distributors, and with research and development of new technologies.

The hard truth is that organizations like Sony and Nest don't want to work with Seattle City Light because we're too small, but they do want to work with the Northwest when we're all coordinated together.

And last is the orange area.

I like to call it the orange slice.

Makes me think of candy.

This is the behavior and operations and maintenance slice.

This is where we influence the operations of a building without changing any of the equipment.

We convince customers to turn things off when they're not in use and use things more efficiently.

Next slide.

So before I show you the future conservation targets, which is what we're asking you to approve today, let me first ground you in the history of where we've been.

This is a complicated graphic.

So if you are wonks, you're gonna love it.

If not, bear with me.

Let me explain what's going on here.

This is a 20-plus year historic view of conservation achievement, or how much energy Seattle City Light conservation programs have saved each year.

This is a different way of looking at the pie chart on the last slide.

Let me explain the axis.

On the horizontal is time.

We've been running programs since the 1970s, but I start this graph about 20 years ago just to ease the eye strain.

On the vertical is energy savings in average megawatts.

One average megawatt is the equivalent electricity consumed by 1,200 Seattle residential homes in one year.

The colorful part shows the annual energy savings from conservation.

If you look at 2023 on the right, you'll see a reflection of the previous slide that showed that City Light's savings come from lighting, non-lighting, regional savings, and behavior.

The black line is new.

This line shows our past conservation savings target, which is set by the amount of cost-effective savings available in our service territory at that time.

And it's set by the conservation potential assessment, which I will describe in the next slide or two.

When you take all of this information together, you will see that City Light has achieved or exceeded this target, the black line, every biennia up until now.

And I'll explain more about that in a minute.

There are a number of things that I want you to see in this graph.

First is that our offerings and the amount of cost-effective savings changes over time.

They change with the market, with codes and standards, the available technologies, and with customers.

If you look to the left of the graph, you'll see that in the past, we were dominated by yellow, the lighting.

Lighting was low-hanging fruit.

It was plentiful, it was inexpensive, and it was quick to install.

But that low-hanging fruit has gone away because we have successfully transformed the market.

If you think back 10, 15 years ago, when you were walking down the aisles of Home Depot trying to get a light bulb, it used to be incandescents and those swirly CFLs.

And now, when you walk down those aisles at Home Depot, they're all LEDs and much more efficient technology.

The marketplace has changed.

So more recently, if you look to the right, you'll see more of our savings are dominated by non-lighting, by the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

I want to talk about the red area, the regional savings.

If you look at those, you'll see that they go up and down.

They're cyclical.

Every five years, the baseline changes.

And that's just the way it's done in the Northwest with the Northwest Power Plan.

And then talking about that orange slice, you can see that we temporarily exited out of much of the behavior savings.

But we are developing new programs now to be able to build that back up again.

In 2009, there was a bump, and that was from ARA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

That was the Obama era effort to boost the economy and create green collar jobs, and we did a lot of lighting projects along the way.

So, I want to draw your attention to the white area in 2023 beneath the black line.

This shows that there was a savings shortfall in 2022 and 2023, the last biennia.

During COVID, we experienced a significant drop-off in commercial savings.

This was due to supply chain issues, high vacancy, and decreased investment in commercial real estate.

Anyone familiar with downtown knows that there are a lot of vacant floors around here and we can see this trend, but we are excited because we're building back and we are well positioned to come roaring back with collecting savings in the commercial real estate market going forward.

We are finalizing the 2023 numbers now, and we should remain in good standing with state regulators because we overachieved the area above the black line in the past.

And we are able to claim these past savings in our regulatory filings.

In other words, we're able to access our rainy day fund.

So let me pause there.

This is a lot of information.

Do you have questions about it?

Can I share?

I'm sorry, can you go back to this gap?

because the way I see that and understand what you said is that, that is attributable to vacancies in commercial buildings, but wouldn't that still be a savings if there was no light or energy being used?

Yeah, I can see your thinking there.

We don't count savings that way.

We count savings when things are installed.

And right now, when efficient equipment is installed, when efficient lights are installed.

And so...

Right now, people aren't investing in those areas right now, but long-term they will.

Okay.

So it's the installation of new equipment that would lead to savings that is being captured in this grant.

Okay.

Exactly, exactly.

Thank you.

Okay, I nailed the graph then.

Okay, next slide.

So the purpose of this presentation is to gain your approval of the conservation targets.

Let me explain to you how we came up with those targets.

The targets are calculated with a conservation potential assessment.

This is an 18-month study that identifies all of the amount, timing, and cost of everything that could possibly save energy in our territory.

That's a lot of different technologies and installation and widgets.

We gather that all together and we come up with these estimates over the next 20 years.

The study is a partnership between our consultant Cadmus and many different groups at City Light, many of whom will come before you with future presentations about the integrated resource plan, which is the big plan that balances supply and demand over 20 years and the load forecast.

The studies are used to set our two-year target and our 10-year target.

And the state of Washington sets the methodology for how we do this, how we identify what is cost effective.

The reason why we do this study is because this conservation potential assessment is an important foundation for a lot of the utility planning exercises that we do.

This provides key inputs into the integrated resource plan and the load forecast.

And it also helps to provide direction for where we invest in customer programs going forward.

Do we invest more in residential programs or in commercial programs?

This study helps us to see that.

We also do this because it's a regulatory requirement, as I showed on that first slide.

This is a requirement of the Washington Energy Independence Act, and it's a requirement of a newer act, the Clean Energy Transformation Act, which was passed in 2019, which commits Washington to an electricity supply free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. But along the way, they said, hey, set targets over the four-year period, too.

So that's two-year targets, four-year targets, 10-year conservation targets.

We do it.

So this is the slide that we're asking you to approve.

This table shows the two-year and 10-year targets for conservation.

Put another way, this table shows the amount of cost-effective conservation in our territory.

The two-year target is 18 average megawatts, that's in green at the bottom.

We are required by state statute to set the targets in average megawatts.

An average megawatt is the equivalent annual energy use of about 1,200 Seattle residential homes.

In this case, 18 average megawatts is the equivalent annual energy use of 22,000 Seattle homes.

That's a lot of energy.

The 10-year target is 79 average megawatts, and this is the equivalent annual energy use of about 95,000 Seattle homes.

Most of the cost-effective conservation comes from the commercial sector, and this aligns with City Lights retail sales.

Next I'm gonna show you how this compares with the last potential assessment, the last time we came before you.

The blue area on the right is what I just showed you on the previous slide.

It shows you that the two-year target is 18 average megawatts.

That's the green area at the bottom.

On the left side is the gray area that shows the results of the previous study, and it shows that the total amount of cost-effective savings was 19 average megawatts.

This represents, with the newest study, a 4% decrease in the two-year time period.

However, I want to show you next what the target is over 10 years because it goes up.

This slide is very much similar to the previous one, only it's over the 10-year time period.

The blue area on the right is the current target of 79 average megawatts.

The gray area on the left is the previous 10-year targets of 77 average megawatts.

So the newer target is 2% higher over the 10-year period.

The other thing that I want to draw your attention to is that the tenure potential for residential is significantly higher.

It doubled from 11 average megawatts to 22 average megawatts.

And when we received these results at the beginning, when we were going through all these numbers, our eyebrows raised, we were like, what's going on?

Doubling of residential, that's pretty exciting.

And that's pretty exciting too, to the stakeholders that have been involved with reviewing our process that we come up as we have been preparing the study.

The models that we ran really liked the load shape and the timing of residential weatherization measures like insulation and heating.

When electricity prices are the highest are at times in the winter, like during MLK weekend when it was really, really cold.

And weatherization and heating provided savings at exactly that right time.

So the punchline is that the results of the study are saying that we should be investing more in residential conservation.

So what's driving the difference between the last study and this one?

There are four things.

The first is the red arrow going down.

Oh, next slide.

Utilities nationwide have struggled to deal with the impacts of supply chain issues, high vacancy and reduced investment in commercial real estate, especially here in Seattle, where so much of our energy efficiency potential 30% lies with the office sector.

This has brought down commercial potential in the near term.

The next that I want to talk about is the green arrow that's going up.

Overall, we have higher loads being forecast due to electrification.

I have seen, and I imagine you have seen, a lot of new Teslas and Rivians driving around, and I imagine that your neighbors are like my neighbors who are excitedly talking about their new heat pumps.

All of that translate into higher electric loads, higher electrification.

And Joe, who hasn't spoken yet, but my boss, likes to explain this with a great term.

He says, higher electrification is counterbalanced by conservation.

So when there's higher electrification, higher loads, we need more conservation.

That's why the green arrow is going up.

The second green arrow going up has to do with the shift that results from residential conservation, as I talked about in the last slide.

What we saw was that in the bitterly cold winter temperatures, when electric prices are high, residential weatherization and heating provide savings at exactly the right time.

And so we want to be investing more in those kinds of incentives, and we're able to pay a lot more to be able to invest in those incentives.

Lastly, the two arrows going sideways.

I wish I had a graphic that went up and down a zigzag.

These are about the policies at the federal, state and local levels that are driving higher electrification, higher conservation and transmission uncertainties.

The Federal Inflation Reduction Act provides customers incentives to increase conservation and electrification.

Conservation means...

So they're countervailing arrows in this case.

The Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Act and the Washington State Climate Commitment Act also add some up and down arrows in this perspective.

And last but not least, what you just heard about earlier today, Seattle's Building Emissions Performance Standard increases electrification and efficiency adoption.

The punchline is that there are a number of factors that influence the need for more conservation, particularly residential conservation over the 10-year horizon.

Next slide.

With this presentation, City Light is seeking your approval of a two-year conservation target of 18 average megawatts and a 10-year target of 79 average megawatts.

Between now and two years from now when we are back showing you our latest conservation targets, you will see that we will continue to deliver innovative conservation programs for all customer types.

You will see that we will be scaling up our offerings for residential customers.

And in doing so, we will be leveraging the Inflation Reduction Act funding and promote building electrification.

Over the next two years, you will see that we are centering our program design and energy efficiency programs around equity.

We develop racial equity analysis at the beginning of our program design processes.

It's really important that all customers can access our programs.

In closing, thank you for your attention, and thank you for your approval of the conservation targets.

We are excited to continue our long, strong, proud history of conservation, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

I have a quick question.

We always hear, you know, we're in a drought right now.

How, and there may be an electricity shortage, how does that play into conservation targets?

And does that affect our goals and our projections for the next 10 years?

Yeah, part of the study that we do involves a lot of different scenarios.

We look at a scenario having to do with higher electrification.

We look at a scenario having to do with climate change.

And we looked at a scenario having to do with high electrification and high climate change all at once.

Climate change affects those droughts that you're talking about, and it increases the variability of when we need energy, and it impacts how people are...

It impacts people's desire for air conditioning and when they use heating.

And so...

our study showed that with climate change, there's slightly less need for heating over time, and there's a greater need for air conditioning over time, which means that that exacerbates the need for conservation, particularly in summer.

Does anybody want to jump in?

What does it affect with the drought affecting our dams and our ability to produce and the need for more conservation due to the running of the...

I guess heat pumps.

So do we focus on marketing or education aspects?

And can you talk more about that?

Yeah, absolutely.

I think that it's easy to just put on the hat of saying that we are looking at planning over the long term and talking about average megawatts.

And what's missing from this presentation is the people and how we connect with people in different ways.

And we're doing that in a lot of different methods and channels.

Is that something you wanna jump in on?

Yeah, sure.

Thank you for the question, Chair Wu.

So our number one priority looking ahead and in 2024 is ensuring that our portfolio of programs is aligned to those customer priorities.

So that means getting the maximum performance out of our existing portfolio by communication, outreach, engagement, and by also filling in gaps within our portfolio to make sure that we have a robust portfolio of customer energy programs that meet their needs across different portfolios like energy efficiency, renewables, and demand response.

I have a question regarding why is the two-year targets different than the 10-year?

Yeah.

That's a great question.

Let me pivot here.

The two-year target reflects the amount of available cost-effective conservation in our territory, and we're following methodology that's set by state law.

In the near term, there's just lower investments in commercial real estate, and that's impacting our near-term ability to be able to collect savings in that area.

So are we basing our targets on studies on what's achievable versus what we'd like to achieve?

Yeah, our conservation potential assessment first defines all technical potential available out in our service territory.

Then it looks at the economic potential, what's cost effective to our customers based on the cost of those upgrades and the benefits that they'll receive from those upgrades.

And the last slice is what's achievable, which takes into consideration market barriers and things like the, you know, reduced interest in commercial real estate sector right now.

So that bottom number of what's achievable is what sets our target for the next two years.

And to answer your earlier question, I think, you know, all of these planning, this is a planning cycle, right?

We have our load forecast, we have our integrated resource plan, we have our demand side potential assessment.

And we fully expect that when we take another lap around the track, right, as our customers continue to electrify, it increases the value of energy efficiency, which is why you see the 10-year horizon, the goal increasing a little bit there.

And when we do this again next year, I expect our two-year target to increase again.

So you're going to come back before us in the next two years?

Yeah.

You'll see us in two years.

And that's to approve the plan again for the next 2 and 10-year cycle?

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Saka?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for this presentation.

I would like to double click for just a moment on the construct of electrification, specifically with respect to transportation electrification.

There's all these great conversations going on right now and strategies in various sectors.

on how we can better electrify using clean energy, and that's where you all come in, in part.

At the port level, electrification of the ports, EVs, our transit.

Metro has an ambitious goal to fully electrify their bus fleet by, I forgot the date offhand, but no doubt you all know all this.

And at the personal vehicle level, And there's big efforts going on nationally at the state level to incentivize people to convert from fossil fuel burning vehicles to personal vehicles to EVs.

And the two biggest blockers right now to adoption, as you know, are, you know, the cost of the EV itself and also access to vehicles.

like infrastructure to support EVs.

It's different than just going to a gas station and filling up in five minutes and being on your way.

And some confusion, I think, in the marketplace amongst consumers about what that looks like, even if there is.

But regardless, it is really important work.

And with all these parallel conversations going on right now, and there's gonna be a lot of funds available to expand and support that strategy at the federal level, State level and at the city level, at least in the transportation context, we're gonna leverage a lot of those resources, but it doesn't absolve us of our own responsibility to have our own city-wide investments, right?

But obviously that, as we know, it puts a huge strain on the, well, adds to demand, rapidly increases demand and these constructs are related.

How do these proposed conservation targets contemplate the increased expected EV increased adoption, particularly the targets for the 10-year targets?

Thank you for the question, Council Member Saka.

I can take this one.

So we have recently partnered with the Electric Power Research Institute to conduct an electrification assessment, and that tries to anticipate the timing, pace, and magnitude of electrification activity within our service territory.

That includes transportation electrification, and building electrification.

So it takes everything we know about anticipated level of adoption, and it takes everything we know about policy like the building emissions performance standard that the Office of Sustainability Environment just presented on.

That informs our load forecast.

What do we think our load is going to do based on all of that customer demand?

The next step is our integrated resource plan, which is essentially, once we understand what that load is, we have to stack up an optimized mix of supply-side and demand-side resources to meet that load in an affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible manner.

Now, the programs here that we're talking about today, that's all the demand-side part of the equation.

We call that demand-side management.

We have energy efficiency, we have demand response, distributed energy resources, customer renewables.

All of those programs come into play to help us cost-effectively, affordably, reliably balance demand with supply.

So this last step here in the demand-side management potential assessment, or what we used to call the conservation potential assessment, That identifies, based on all of that that we know, based on all those other models, how much cost-effective potential exists within our service territory.

And once we know that, that's what we go out and get with our programmatic portfolio.

Thank you.

One in three vehicles today in Seattle are, just based off my recollection from a presentation I got from City Light, OSE, and SDOT about a month back.

And I just looked at it again the other night.

But I think one in three, if I recall correctly, vehicles that are purchased in Seattle are EVs currently.

And I think the projections that I've seen from you all you know, expect that number to rapidly grow over time.

And so we need to be able to better support that both through the supply and demand side.

But thank you.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you, I wanna get back to, I think, similar to Council Member Wu's question about the conservation targets and kind of how they're set and wonder if you can, I think my basic question is how do we know that the targets are appropriately set?

But I'm also curious about kind of trends in how they're set and how they compare in other cities in the state maybe, assuming everybody's sort of facing the same situations.

Yeah, one of the great things is that all the other utilities have to do this too.

And so we all work on these things independently and then we finish and we pop our heads up and we say, what did you get?

And the punchline is that our results are pretty similar to other utilities.

I can go into details if you'd like.

Maybe just a little bit.

Okay, so Puget Sound Energy, their conservation potential assessment is decreasing long-term.

Tacoma Power is increasing by just 1.3% over 10 years.

If you recall, we're talking about 2% over 10 years.

And Snohomish PUD is increasing moderately long-term.

It looks like 5% over 20 years.

So we're right in there with them.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

I'll add that that's another benefit of doing this exercise every two years.

You know, we shouldn't expect a major shock in the system when we perform this because we're always using the best available data when we come back to you every two years to get the targets approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think there needs to be further discussion needed.

I have a couple of questions.

I would love to dig deeper into this.

And so we will not vote on it today.

I would consider moving it to the next meeting date, if possible.

Are there any questions or comments?

Madam Chair, I appreciate you holding off on the vote.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you for your presentation and coming in and I look forward to further discussion.

So we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Hearing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.

Thank you.