Laserfiche WebLink
November 9, 2009 <br />Section 7.~ Implementation <br />methodology employed for the prioritization of measures was developed by KEMA Inc., with <br />each project evaluated with a total of nine possible points based on three elements: <br />GHG reduction (metric tones COZ) -Measures were analyzed far approximate annual <br />quantity of greenhouse gas reductions that could be reasonably achieved.za <br />__ __~ GH~s:~~lt~c#iyn_ _ Score f_ <br />> 500 MTCO2 3 <br />50 - 499 MTCOZ 2 <br />< 50 MTC02 1 <br />^ City Costs -KEMA estimated upfront and first costs to the City to implement the <br />measure. Most measures were related to City programs for the community, with no <br />savings directly generated for the City. For the few measures that did result in annual <br />savings to the City, payback periods were generally greater than five years and were <br />qualitatively considered in determining the final score. <br />crty God <br />-- score <br />< $50,000 _3 _-- <br />$50-999,000 2 <br />> $1 million 1 <br />Feasibility -The analysis also considered whether or not significant barriers may make <br />implementation of the measure challenging, mainly related to technical and political <br />barriers (e.g. community resistance). In general, a project is considered to have high <br />implementation ability if staff has flexibility to implement with minimal institutional and <br />procedural barriers. Political viability is also included in this score, in consideration of <br />potential stakeholder concerns or opposition. <br />Feasibility 5cure <br />High 3 <br />Medium 2 <br />Low 1 <br />za Emissions Factors utilized: 0.638 Ibs C02 saved/kWh saved. 0.0053 metric tons COz saved/therm saved. <br />(Source: PG&E public report and The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol) <br />..~4 ~N f~9'~c Page 53 <br />q <br />