For what it's worth, the "Community Guide to Boulder's Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report" puts the fraction of emissions from the transportation sector at 21.3 percent. This figure is apparently based on data obtained from DRCOG; per page 21 of the "Community Guide to Boulder's Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report":

Boulder’s transportation emissions are calculated based on annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the Boulder Valley, categorized by the class of vehicle and type of fuel. Because the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) did not model Boulder-specific VMT data for 2010, the inventory continues to use the 2009 figure of 2.46 million VMT daily.

Judy Amabile: The Climate Action Plan had significant benefits, but it failed to reach its Kyoto Protocol goal. Was this ever a realistic goal?

If we take realistic to mean "feasible at reasonable cost", then, yes, the evidence is clear that this was a realistic goal -- but as you point out, the evidence is equally clear that the course charted by the city failed to do so.

Our emissions targets could be met relatively cheaply by purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs) at an aggregate annual cost of perhaps $2.2 million/year. The cost effectivenss of that approach would be at least an order of magnitude more cost effective than existing CAP programs.

Note that RECs are not the same as carbon offsets, but are instead verifiable instruments that correspond to "green aspects" of electricity that has been generated via renewable means and injected into the grid. More info available here: http://goo.gl/IbdcH , http://goo.gl/6nliY

Alas, PV is still fairly expensive. Per the "The Community Guide to Boulder's Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report", Boulder currently has approximately 11.3 MW of installed PV capacity, which generates enough electricity to meet approximately 1 percent of Boulder's demand.

In order to have enough PV to meet even 10 percent of Boulder's demand, we'd need to install roughly another 100 MW of PV (e.g., 25,000 x 4 kW systems). Even if we could do so relatively cheaply (say, $2-$3 per installed Watt), that would require an investment of several hundred million dollars -- which is on par with the city's annual budget.

While it's not a full accounting, there is "The Community Guide to Boulder's Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report" ( http://goo.gl/cXx7E ), and I believe I once saw similar documents for previous years.

The report about CAP efforts produced by RMI can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/brbn5x9

Not weighing in on the low-level details, the high-level cost effectiveness figures speak for themselves: compared to simpler alternatives (e.g., offsetting carbon emissions by purchasing RECs), the existing CAP programs have not been terribly cost effective.

RECs are not the same as carbon offsets, but are instead *verifiable* instruments that correspond to "green aspects" of electricity that has been generated via renewable means and injected into the grid. More info available here: http://goo.gl/IbdcH , http://goo.gl/6nliY

RECs are significantly more cost effective than existing CAP-funded programs. If the city is going to spend money in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions, I'd much rather they do so in ways that are highly cost effective.

Council members believe that "renewing Boulder's carbon tax is essential if the city is to keep making progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions". However, even if the existing carbon tax (i.e., CAP tax) is not renewed, the city would still be collecting approximately $6 million annually through energy related taxes -- specifically, the utility occupation tax.

As I have written elsewhere, achieving our emissions targets could be done quickly and relatively cheaply by purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs) at an aggregate annual cost of perhaps $2.2 million/year. The cost effectivenss of that approach would be at least an order of magnitude more cost effective than existing CAP programs.

The upshot? Boulder's emissions targets could be met today by using only a modest fraction of existing energy-related tax revenues to purchase RECs.

According to the "City of Boulder Climate Action Plan Analysis Report" prepared by RMI, the overall lifetime cost effectiveness for the existing SmartRegs program is $174.34 per mtCO2e reduced (see Table 2). For comparison, renewable energy certificates (RECs) are approximately 40x more cost effective ($4.25/mtCO2e - $3/REC, each of which results in avoided emissions of 0.705 mtCO2e).

While the RMI report does suggest that programs like SmartRegs may become more cost effective over time, note that even if the proposed program was 10x more cost effective than the existing SmartRegs program, it would still be 4x less cost effective than simply purchasing RECs.

My understanding is that during her time on the Boulder City Planning Board, Ms. Jones was not only a strong supporter of the "compatible development" efforts, but pushed to make them even more strict.

My view? The resulting rules for "compatible development" added significant complexity in an attempt to address a problem that was never clearly defined and may or may not even exist. As such, I do not view those efforts as representative of good governance, and thus am strongly inclined not to vote for Ms. Jones.

Per page 21 of the "Community Guide to Boulder's Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report":

Boulder’s transportation emissions are calculated based on annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the Boulder Valley, categorized by the class of vehicle and type of fuel. Because the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) did not model Boulder-specific VMT data for 2010, the inventory continues to use the 2009 figure of 2.46 million VMT daily.

Which suggests that the emissions attributed to transportation attempt to account for at least some part (or possibly all?) of the commuter traffic, but we'd have to look at the DRCOG methodology to be certain.

For what it's worth, the "Community Guide to Boulder's Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report" puts the fraction of emissions from the transportation sector at 21.3 percent. (I don't know anything about the methodology used to arrive at that number or how this compares to figures for comparable cities.)