Testimony of Montgomery County Sierra Club on Status of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Office of Sustainability

Testimony of Montgomery County Sierra Club

Montgomery County MD, County Council Transportation and Environment Committee

4/16/15

Thank you, Chairman Berliner and Councilmembers for holding this briefing on the status of greenhouse gas emission reduction in Montgomery County.  My name is Michal Freedman and I am here as a member of the Montgomery County Sierra Club Executive Committee, representing the more than 5,000 Sierra Club members in Montgomery County.

In 2007, at the urging of Sierra Club, Montgomery County was one of only 12 counties nationwide to pledge to reduce global warming emissions by 80% by the year 2050.  As Carl Pope, then leader of the Sierra Club, said, “The county leaders joining us understand the seriousness of the problems we face and are taking the kind of bold, visionary action that will protect both our climate and their own citizens.”

Montgomery County made that commitment. Short term, emissions were to stop growing by 2010. Then they were to be reduced by 10% every five years until 2050, for the total reduction of 80% below 2005 levels.  However, in March 2015, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued its annual report on the status of greenhouse gas emission reductions, finding roughly a 5% increase in energy use over the period that emissions were to decline by 10%.  As the Sierra Club wrote in its letter of March 30^th to you, Chairman Berliner, the County is now about 15% behind in achieving its goals.

We in the Sierra Club have asked ourselves why there is such a large gap between commitment and outcomes. Sierra Club Executive Committee members meet regularly with the staff of the newly created Office of Sustainability in the Department of Environmental Protection. We have met with Lisa Feldt, the new Director of the Department. We’ve participated in regular meetings on implementation of the Benchmarking legislation, and attended green festivals throughout the County, where we always encounter DEP staff promoting sustainability. We see a hard-working staff extremely committed to goals of greenhouse gas emission reduction.  Why is the County falling behind?

To answer this question, we have looked at jurisdictions reporting successful reductions in emissions to see what we can learn from them. We relied on the database of the American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy (ACEEE) to select local jurisdictions that ACEEE has determined rank highest in energy efficiency programs.  ACEEE is a nonprofit organization that acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies and programs.  Because ACEEE has no database on counties, we examined its city database.

We looked at the five cities ranked highest by ACEEE, excluding New York City, which we viewed as too different from Montgomery County in population size and building infrastructure.  We focused on Boston; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco; and Seattle.  We added Washington, DC because it also ranked high (7^th) and borders Montgomery County. We also looked at Arlington County, Virginia, because of its proximity to Montgomery County and its participation in the 2007 12-county pledge. For data on Arlington County, we relied on budget documents available online.

In all cases we looked at data on community-wide energy-related programs, not internal programs to reduce government emissions, which is the focus of the Office of Energy and Sustainability in the Department of General Services.

First, we assessed the comparability of these jurisdictions in population and population growth rates.  Population growth matters because emission targets are absolute, regardless of how fast the population grows.  All of the jurisdictions we targeted had smaller populations than Montgomery County, from Arlington County with about 20% of Montgomery County’s population to San Francisco, with about 80%. The jurisdictions all experienced population growth that was roughly comparable to Montgomery County’s. According to census data for the period 2010-2013, Montgomery County and the others grew a little under 5%, although DC grew by nearly 8% and Arlington County by nearly 9%, presumably posing more serious challenges to reducing absolute levels of emissions.

Second, we looked at reported progress in emission reductions. While we can’t assure assessment methods are strictly comparable, we assume rough comparability. What do the jurisdictions report?  Unlike Montgomery County, every one of these jurisdictions reports a reduction in emissions, some quite substantial.[1]

What accounts for this success? There may be some program differences, but one starting point is to compare the staff each jurisdiction is devoting to developing and implementing energy conservation and efficiency programs, including the highly intensive work of generating interest in participating in such programs.  Again we rely on ACEEE data and also budget reports for Arlington County to assess staffing numbers.

We first need to establish the relevant staffing in Montgomery County. ACEEE has gathered information on staff who develop policy for and implement energy-related community-wide programs.  Staff who work on other sustainability objectives, such as enhancing the tree canopy – which may contribute to greenhouse gas reductions, but not as directly or quickly – are not counted.

What positions in the Office of Sustainability directly engage in energy-related responsibilities? The Office has two positions dedicated to energy programs, one of which has yet to be filled due in part to the hiring freeze.  There are parts of other positions, such as the Chief’s position and those doing outreach, which partly relate to energy work, but still, there are only two dedicated full-time staff employees focused on fossil fuel use reduction.

What level of staffing is funded by the jurisdictions that have succeeded in reducing emissions? Boston has 10 positions directly related to community-wide energy strategies, such as the Director of Energy Policy and Programs, the Climate and Buildings Program Manager, the Renew Boston Community Outreach Manager, the Senior City Advisor for Large Buildings Energy Efficiency, and so on. As an aside, they have 7 more positions dealing with energy efficiency and clean energy for Boston government.   

Portland, the smallest city, has 7.5 full-time employees for climate, building and energy work.  San Francisco has four full-time employees and 17 other staff working on green building and energy efficiency programs and policies, including financing and marketing. Seattle has 18 staff in the Office of Sustainability and Environment, but since they work on more than energy issues, it’s hard to make a clear comparison.  DC has 10 staff dedicated to implementing energy efficiency strategies in low-income communities, two staff focused on community outreach in energy efficiency and energy conservation and two staff focused on clean energy.  And Arlington County has 7.5 full time employees for its Arlington Initiative to Rethink Energy (AIRE).  

Thus, all of these jurisdictions, with populations smaller than Montgomery County, with population growth rates equal to or greater than Montgomery County’s, report progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and (with the possible exception of Seattle) have substantially more staff dedicated to energy programs than Montgomery County.

The comparative success of these other jurisdictions can teach many lessons, but the most obvious is that Montgomery County needs to commit more resources to the urgent and enormous task of reducing emissions.

We know the FY16 budget is strained. But as the climate becomes increasingly unstable, the consequences for the County’s budget will be severe.  If we do not invest in greenhouse gas mitigation now, we and our children and our grandchildren will bear a much heavier burden later. 

The Sierra Club applauded Montgomery County for the leadership it exhibited with its 2007 pledge to implement a forceful program to reduce emissions.  But, as many have observed, the planet does not care about declarations, and time is running out.  Eight years later, Montgomery County is nowhere near the pathway of emissions reduction that it pledged to achieve.

We urge the County Council, as an important first step toward staffing levels commensurate with the County’s pledge, to add three additional positions to DEP’s Office of Sustainability to directly engage in energy-related responsibilities.