Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Local Policies and Practices for Climate Mitigation : guidance for local governments in BC from around… Senbel, Maged; Pierce, Jennifer Rae 2017-02

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


42591-Senbel_M_Pierce_J_Climate_mitigation_2017.pdf [ 2.1MB ]
JSON: 42591-1.0376117.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0376117-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0376117-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0376117-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0376117-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0376117-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0376117-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

MitigationClimateguidance for local governments  in BC from around the worldLocal Policies and Practices forJanuary 2017PICS Phase 2: Increasing Energy Efficiency in British Columbia’s Built EnvironmentCommunity Energy EfficiencyDr. Maged Senbel and Jennifer Rae PiercePICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 2 of 51 Senbel and PierceThis report was prepared for  the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS),  an interdisciplinary knowledge network of researchers focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation  in British Columbia (BC) and around the world.Learn more at pics.uvic.caThis research project is part of the larger applied research project entitled  Increasing Energy Efficiency in BC’s Built Environment.   It is managed by the Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and  under the direction of the Principal Investigator, Dr. Ray Cole.This report is the Community Energy Efficiency team deliverable for year one, prepared by  Dr. Maged Senbel, Associate Director of  the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) at UBC, and SCARP PhD student, Jennifer Rae Pierce.Suggested citation:Senbel, Maged and Pierce, Jennifer Rae. 2017. Local Policies and Practices for Climate Mitigation: guidance for local governments in BC from around the world.  Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Jan. pdf.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 3 of 51 Senbel and Pierce4 List of Abbreviations5 How to Use This Report6 Executive SummaryPart 1: PreParation10 Choosing a framework and goals for climate mitigation18 Building regional collaborationPart 2: action20 Engaging with the public22 Spurring action in the private sector24 Regulating and taking direct governmental action aPPendices26  Appendix 1: Climate mitigation in British Columbia38  Appendix 2: Municipal-level emissions targets and plans40  Appendix 3: Research methods47 Appendix 4: Engagement Strategy49 References citedTABLE OF CONTENTSPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 4 of 51 Senbel and PierceBC British ColumbiaC40 Cities Climate Leadership GroupCAP Climate Action PlanCC Climate ChangeCCAR California Climate Action RegistryCDP Carbon Disclosure ProjectCLUE Climate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe  CO2 carbon dioxide CO2 eq. carbon dioxide equivalent emissionsCOP Conference of the Parties ENGO Environmental non-governmental organizationGHG greenhouse gasesGPC Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission InventoriesICLEI ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (his-torically stood for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives)IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changekt kilotonnes LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestrysr. seniorPICS Pacific Institute for Climate SolutionsUBC University of British Columbia UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 5 of 51 Senbel and PierceThis report compiles cases of climate mitigation ini-tiatives at the community and subnational level from around the world that provide potential lessons to be applied in the BC context.The report is divided into sections, two under the head-er “Preparation” and three under “Action.”  See the introduction for a description of each section and the context of the report. We then welcome the reader to go straight to the section that most interests them.  This report is primarily intended for members of local government in British Columbia (BC).  It is also meant to be useful for other local actors such as community HOW TO USE THIS REPORT# #35 35 5233 14 45 73 11 12 22323KEYInternational Case ClassicationsTarget Engagement GroupsMUNICIPALPROVINCIALNON-GOV’T LEADERSlevelat the regionalcollaborationvericationmeasurementstandard-settingvisioning/goalsplanningpublic engagementgrass-rootsprivate sectormarket incentivespublic mechanismssetting an examplepilot projectsregulationsocialssr. plannerscc plannerssocial plannerseconomistsocialssr. plannerscc plannersrolegov’t watchdogscc activist groupsservice industriescommunity groupsfunding institutionsthink tanksENGOsACTIONPREPARATIONmanufacturing# of connections in each categoryinnovationeco-villagesand business leaders. It seeks to aid these actors in climate mitigation efforts at any stage. The report pre-sumes familiarity with BC’s climate mitigation policy, planning, and economic context.  For an introduction to this context, please see Appendix 1: Climate Mitigation in BC.This report is to be the initial tool to engage target prac-titioners in BC.  We will use it to gather feedback on the usefulness of the cases contained herein from prac-titioners within the groups indicated on the left-hand side of fig. 1.  The figure connects practitioner groups to the corresponding report section.Fig. 1: Diagram of target engage-ment groups connected to the report headings.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 6 of 51 Senbel and PierceThis report is part of the Community Energy Efficiency Project, in an area of applied research entitled Increasing Energy Efficiency in BC’s Built Environment.  This project works at the neighborhood scale and above to generate insight that will provide guidance to increase community energy efficiency in BC, particularly in regards to the area of planning for the built environment.ObjectiveThe aim of this project is to conduct a critical, comprehensive review of international best practices in climate mitigation associated with building of community energy efficiency initiatives and determine their potential applicability to BC urban and rural settings.  We will take these lessons and develop tools and instruments that will work in BC according to feedback from local practitioners.ApproachWe used a customized search strategy to avoid having the typically referenced cases and any innovations associated with them bias our discourse.  To counteract this trend of repeating the same cases, we used a filtration method to select particular countries ac-cording to the following metrics, which are described in more detail in appendix III:1. Feasibility to the BC context at the community or institutional level2. Degree of comparative innovation at the national level3. Effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions or increase energy efficiency4. Replicability and scalability of a local-level initiative across larger scalesThen, we focused more in depth within these countries to find local and regional climate mitigation cases.  We have combined this focused technique with a search of comprehen-sive reports on climate mitigation cases from around the world so as not to miss standard best practices and lessons derived from the more typical international cases.We have organized the resulting cases according to anticipated practitioner engagement groups to facilitate practitioner engagement.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 7 of 51 Senbel and PierceReport ContentsThe report is divided into two main parts, Preparation and Action; both are intended for review by BC practitioners.  The appendices contain additional information for other read-ers, including a description of the BC climate mitigation context, details about municipal mitigation plans, our research methods, and our engagement strategy for the coming yearPart I: Preparation, covers strategies that lay the groundwork for climate mitigation.  This includes planning activities such as goal-setting, measurement and verification, and gov-ernance activities such as regional collaboration, certification systems, and international agreements.  Part II: Action compiles public and private mechanisms for climate mitiga-tion implementation.  It includes grass-roots initiatives, technological innovation, market incentives, pilot projects, city corporate activities, and regulations. Preparation: Choosing a framework and goals for climate mitigationThis section uses the example of international reporting of emissions to illustrate the im-portance of a strong climate mitigation framework and the lack of measurement and veri-fication tools. It compares ghg emission goals set by twenty-one cities in the six countries of interest to those set by Vancouver so that practitioners can get an idea of the range of ghg emissions goals that are selected.   It describes three examples of promising climate mitigation frameworks that subnational governments can use in selecting a plan to ad-dress climate mitigation.  Finally, it encourages combining climate mitigation goals within a more holistic sustainability plan that integrates climate mitigation and adaptation as well as other sustainability-related goals.Preparation: Building regional collaborationRegional collaboration is an often overlooked, but important part of effective climate miti-gation.  Partnering with adjacent jurisdictions has many benefits, such as empowering governments to advocate for themselves and increasing capacity.  This section describes eight subnational and international collaboration schemes for subnational governments.Action: Engaging with the publicThe public is a crucial stakeholder group for local governments, who are close to the communities they serve.  Achieving the buy-in of these groups can make or break climate mitigation initiatives.  If engagement is well done, the public can be a great resource for information, innovation, capacity-building, and political support.This section discusses top-down (government-initiated) and bottom-up (community-ini-tiated) approaches to engaging the public.  It provides two examples of the former and four types of self-organized community-level initiatives that subnational governments can support.  Bottom-up initiatives tend to take a holistic approach to climate mitigation, incor-porating other factors such as livelihoods and well-being into climate change planning.Action: Spurring action in the private sectorPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 8 of 51 Senbel and PierceThe public sector can encourage climate mitigation action in the private sector through market-based incentives and collaborations that encourage the adaptation of desirable technologies. In particular, combined heat and power (CHP) technology has proved to be more efficient than a conventional energy system, with even greater potential when applied at the district level.  Wood products can be encouraged in buildings as part of a carbon storage program and can replace certain fuels to replace less renewable sources of energy.Action: Regulating and taking direct governmental action Subnational governments have the most control over their own policies and regulations, land and infrastructure they control, and their own corporate actions.  The most direct in-fluence they can have is therefore through regulatory measures, land use and transporta-tion planning, pilot projects and other direct investments, and through changing their own activities.  This section describes international lessons and examples from governments taking direct actions such as these.Summary of FindingsClimate mitigation efforts by subnational governments benefit from the adaptation of a standard framework, collaboration with civil society and businesses, and the integration of climate mitigation with adaptation and other sustainable goals.  Many international cases that adopt these recommendations provide examples that could be adopted in BC.Subnational governments should join an existing framework for climate mitigation to capi-talize on its established standards, support structure, and network of like-minded groups. There is a lack of frameworks that include good measurement and verification examples, though this is a crucial aspect of climate mitigation. When selecting a climate mitigation approach, reframing climate change as an opportunity rather than a risk suggests a prom-ising approach that is more comprehensive than just setting a ghg emissions target. By combining climate mitigation, adaptation, and other sustainability goals into one strategy, subnational governments can achieve increased buy-in and a more optimistic narrative around tackling climate change.  Collaborating with other local governments on climate mitigation is an important and often overlooked strategy that empowers local govern-ments and builds capacity.Subnational governments can engage with their communities by not only initiating their own top-down initiatives with public engagement, but also by connecting with bottom-up initiatives that the people have begun.  However, community-led initiatives can be holistic in their approaches to climate mitigation, incorporating related issues such as livelihoods and human well-being.  This means that local governments may need to expand their definition of climate mitigation planning to integrate other sustainability issues in order to recognize the potential of bottom-up activities.  Promising market-based initiatives include bulk purchasing and encouragement of re-newable energy sources, recognition for sustainable acts such as awards and labels. PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 9 of 51 Senbel and PierceParticular technology that should be encouraged includes combined heat and power technology and building with wood products.Governments can take direct action in the areas where they exhibit the most control; regulations, management of their own assets including land, buildings, and infra-structure, and direct investment in initiatives.  For these activities to maximize their effectiveness, they need to integrate them across departments, consider impacts across the whole life cycle of products and buildings, and link them to educational and participatory initiatives.  Next StepsTo determine how we will go about drawing lessons from international examples of climate mitigation gathered here for application in BC, it is essential to collaborate with practitioners in BC.  We must determine the barriers faced by these practitioners and address them accordingly.  If practitioners primarily face an information barrier, then perhaps just a comprehensive report of best practices will suffice.  But, it is likely that practitioners face other barriers, such as lack of capacity and political will.  The resulting tools will there fore need to address these specific barriers in order to have an impact on the ground in BC.  The next step, therefore, is to engage with these practitioners and collaborate with them on how to best utilize the international cases gathered here.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 10 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 1:PreParationWhen planning for climate mitigation, research indicates that the following aspects are all crucial to the success of the plan: (1) selection of a framework in which to set goals, (2) the stringency of these goals, and (3) their verification and enforcement.1  These three parts are linked, and strength in one category alone cannot guarantee success.  Frameworks establish the base assumptions and ways of thinking about the problem, providing legitimacy to plans and comparability across plans.  Goal stringency must be carefully set to provide incentive for additional action that spurs innovation.2  Verification and enforcement ensures that progress is made along the way, and that goals are met.Successfully addressing all three of these factors is an incredible challenge to even the largest and most recognized mitigation programs, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The strength of the UNFCCC lies in setting a standard and transparent GHG inventory submission requirement for developed and developing nations.  Countries report emissions according to five predetermined sectors: energy, industry & products, agriculture, waste, and a combined category called land Use, land use change & forestry (LULUCF).  The first four are used in the calculation of total emissions for the purposes of meeting each country’s target (see Fig. 2).  Unlike the other categories, LULUCF includes both emissions and sinks in its calculations, to account for the carbon sequest that ecosystems with high levels of organic matter such as soil and plants provide.  Effects from land use change due to urbanization, sprawl, and development of built-up areas are therefore accounted for in this category. LULUCF is not included in the total emissions category, though it is tracked.  This is in part due to the fact that this factor can vary widely across the years because of unpredictable factors such as wildfires that are difficult for a country to control directly.  But, without LULUCF included in the totals, the targets lose much of their meaning, particularly for countries like Canada with vast land holdings.  Because countries have been following the UNFCCC protocol for emissions reporting every year since the early 1990s, UNFCCC submission data can theoretically be used to verify emissions goals and to compare between countries.  For older data on emis-sions, the World Bank has national-level emissions from many countries since the 1960s. Unfortunately, this data cannot be directly compared as it uses a different system of ac-counting (See Fig. 2 and 3).  The removal of LULUCF emissions and sinks, however, divorces perceived reductions from reality, giving a perception of GHG emissions that is incorrect. During negotiations, countries may also receive special exemptions for par-ticular industries or even specific emissions-heavy factories, further removing reported numbers from reality.3The UNFCCC program has other flaws. The targets set can be more reflective of the political maneuvering power of the country and its coalition than the country’s capacity or 1 Breidenich and Bodansky 2009; CDP 2012 Zhivov et al. 20142 Zhivov et al. calls for ambitious energy management goals, citing stakeholder involvement, framing goals, road maps, and managing the transition process as the primary factors in setting ambitious goals (2014).3 Iceland, for example, earned such an exemption for a particular aluminum smelter despite its high antici-pated emissions (Hellsing et al. 2016).choosing a framework and goals for climate mitigationPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 11 of 51 Senbel and PierceFig. 2 and 3: Because the UNFCCC and the World Bank emissions reporting follow dif-ferent protocols, the chart of UNFCCC data (left, top) doesn’t compare directly to the chart (left, bottom) which uses World Bank data.  Even if we add the LULUCF emissions the two graphs do not match.0.511.51990 1995 2000 2005 2010Percentage	  of	  1990	  EmissionsTotal	  GHG	  Emissions	   Change,	  without	  LULUCFtotal HG emissions change, without LULUcFGHG emissions relative to 1990PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 12 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 1:PreParationambitions in terms of climate mitigation.4  The most clear indicator that the Kyoto targets are not aligned with country’s capacity is by looking at how often certain countries far ex-ceed their targets, such as Sweden (see Fig. 4).Countries can also negotiate specific loopholes that allow for certain activities or projects to not be included in emissions counts.  For example, Iceland negotiated for exemption of the emissions from a particular aluminum smelter that was in the planning stages during negotiations.5At the international level, there are no set repercussions if a country does not meet its emissions targets.  Also, there is no way to verify whether reporting is accurate via third party verification.  At COP 13 in 2007, the UNFCCC adopted verification standards, but did not require third party verification of reported data without a registered complaint.6 So, even this strong framework and excellent reporting standards suffer from inconsistent goal-setting, loopholes in reporting consistency, and lack of verification and enforcement. 4 Sweden and Finland have low targets because of their history of reductions.5 IME 20066 Breidenich and Bodansky 2009choosing a framework and goals for climate mitigationFig. 4: The chart at left illustrates how little cor-relation there is between the Kyoto targets and actual emissions, with and without LULUCF.  The six countries inves-tigated in more depth in this report are labeled.  Data source: UNFCCC GHG Inventories.Canada-­‐140-­‐120-­‐100-­‐80-­‐60-­‐40-­‐20020406080100120140-­‐30 -­‐20 -­‐10 0 10 20 30Actual	  Change	  by	  2012	  (in	  %	  1990	  levels)Kyoto	  Target	  for	  2012	  (in	  %	  1990	  levels)Kyoto	  Target	  vs.	  Actual	  Change	  in	  GHG	  Emissions	  by	  Country	  Source:	  UNFCCCUKIcelandNew	  ZealandFinland SwedenUSAwithout	  LULUCFwith	  LULUCFCalculation	  of	  TotalKyoto target vs. actual change in GHG emissions by country, with and without LULUcF051015Tonnes	  of	  CO2	  eq.	  per	  capitaMunicipal	  Emissions	   by	  SectorBuildings transportation Other wastePICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 13 of 51 Senbel and PierceFig. 6: The graph at right dis-plays municipal emissions by sector as defined by the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC). For sources, see appendix 2.Fig. 5: The graph above com-pares current national, subna-tional, and municipal level emis-sions.  Data sources: national: UNFCCC GHG Inventories; sub-national: ; municipal: (exact dates unknown, but submitted within last 3 years). City abbreviations:  Va = Vancouver,  To = Toronto,  Po = Portland,  Sf = San Francisco,  Ok = Oakland  Sf = San Francisco,  Ny = New York,  Wa = Washington, D.C.,  Ph = Philadelphia,  Bo = Boston,  Vä = Växjö,  St = Stockholm.Municipal emissions by GPc sector!"#!#"$!$"%&'&(& )*+,&'( -.',&'( /+012+&,&'( 30+(+' 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(135&5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG1&'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&'&(& )*+,&'( -.',&'( /+012+&,&'( 30+(+' 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(135&5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG1&'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&'&(& )*+,&'( -.',&'( /+012+&,&'( 30+(+' 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(135&5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG1&'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&'&(& )*+,&'( -.',&'( /+012 &,&'( 30+(+ 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(135&5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG &'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&'&(& )*+,&'( -.',&'( /+012+&,&'( 30+(+' 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(135&5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG1&'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&'&( )*+,&'( -.', '( /+012 &,&'( 30+ +' 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(13 &5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*5 A1E$!#FG1&'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&'&(& )*+,&'( -.',&'( / 0 2+&,& ( 30 (+' 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+(135&5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5 '&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG1&'(35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5HA+.' : AD1I1@A8(H*5:+'+A7D!"#!#"$!$"%&' ( )*+,&'( -.',& ( /+012+ ,&'( 30+( 4'.5+(16.'7(894'.5+ 1 &5+:;8''+:18<1%=$1+>?1@+A1*&@.5&/&5.8'&,1B9.::.8':1 CD13+*58A1E$!#FG1& (35&5+1;85&,1B9.::.8':1 E$!#$G0&:5+&7A.*H,5 A+.'(H:5AD1I1@A8(H*5:+' A7DBC ON QC MAPADCNYCAWAORVa Po Ok Ny Wa Bo StVäPhSfToUNITEDSTATESNEWZEALANDICELAND FINLAND UNITEDKINGDOMSWEDENNational Emissions Sectors (2014)National, Subnational, and Municipal EmissionsSub-National (2012)MunicipalemissionsemissionsCANADASCT JMTnational, subnational, and Municipal emissionsPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 14 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 1:PreParationIf international and national-level governance mechanisms have such a hard time setting, verifying, and meeting ghg emissions goals, how much more difficult it may be for subna-tional governments.Selection of a Framework and GoalsCreating an adaptation plan, setting emissions targets, and annually reporting emissions are essential to the success of climate mitigation by local governments.7 Local govern-ments and communities can benefit from the capacity-building and legitimacy that a stan-dard framework offers. Annual reporting requirements8 and external verification are other benefits offered by some programs. The most common basis for climate mitigation frameworks is to measure one’s current and past emissions and to set a future emissions goal based on a percentage reduction from a historic “base” year.  This is distinct from other options such as adopting particular actions or regulations, restoring carbon sinks, or shifting the economic basis away from fossil fuels.9  This type of shared framework allows for quantitative comparison between entities(see Fig. 5, 6, and 7), but isolates emissions from other climate change impacts such as urban heat island effect and soil loss.  It also separates climate mitigation from adaptation, making synergistic actions more difficult to identify.  To address this, cities and communities often combine an emissions goal with other mea-sures such as reducing waste, increasing tree canopy coverage and supporting local sus-tainable agriculture in a comprehensive climate action plan (CAP).  Linking climate mitiga-tion goals with economic, conservation, quality of life, and social equity goals strengthens climate planning.10Goals must be  realistic, yet specific enough to tie short-term and long-term action.11 Often, this involves the creation of a business-as-usual scenario, and a scenario that meets national goals, then selecting a more stringent local goal.12 Frameworks can help local governments compare their goals to other cities, helping with the selection of goals that meet these criteria.  A list of cities’ emissions goals and their relevant planning docu-ments are available in the appendix.  Local goals can also increase their impact by influ-encing national goals.13Framework Examples7 Based on conclusions from a Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) study comparing 22 emissions-reporting European cities with measures across European cities (2012)8 Recommends annual reporting9 Kronoberg county and its eight municipalities in Sweden have set a regional goal to be fossil fuel free by 2050 (ICLEI Europe 2008); Stockholm’s action plan has the same goal.  (Lönngren 2013)10 Bond 2009; CDP 2012; Kimman et al., eds. 2012; Russell et al. 201411 Kimman et al., eds. 201212 See Oakland, California’s Energy and Climate Action Plan as an example (2012)13 Ibid.choosing a framework and goals for climate mitigationPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 15 of 51 Senbel and PierceThere are several climate mitigation frameworks tailored for the local level and either fo-cused on emissions reduction alone or on comprehensive climate planning.14  Examples of established frameworks that offer ghg reporting standards for local governments can be seen in table 1. Table 1: Frameworks for GHG reporting for local governmentsName Area Members Verification WebsiteGlobal Protocol for Commu-nity-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC)Global Local governments Basic guidelines only Climate Action Registry (CCAR)California membershipPrivate and non-profit institutions and local governmentsStandardized system using an accredited third partyclimateaction-reserve.orgThe Climate Registry USA and CanadaPrivate and non-profit institutions and local governmentsCertification avail-able if usedtheclimatereg-istry.orgThe GPC15 has been used by over 100 cities globally, including Vancouver in BC.  It’s re-porting sectors mirror those of the UNFCCC submissions, but have been adapted to suit the urban context.  The Compact of Mayors climate mitigation and adaptation program 14 The BC Ministry of Environment called for standardized community-level emissions accounting using international protocols such as CCAR and ICLEI (2007).15 The GPC is the result of a partnership between The World Resources Institute, ICLEI, UN-HABITAT and the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.  It integrates previous systems set up by these organizations.Fig. 7: The graph at left visual-izes target emissions for the cities listed in the appendix. The target set date, not the baseline year, is the initial point.  Baseline years for percentage reduction range from 1900 to 2008.For example, Auckland released its 10-year and 30-year strategy to address climate change in 2014, with a long-term goal of re-ducing emissions by 40 percent over 1990 levels by 2040.  Last year, the city joined C40 and the Compact of Mayors initiatives to support their efforts.  The city releases reports on their progress every year.See appendix 2 for more details on the targets and plans of each city.Roanoke,	  VAVancouverBournemouthLondonMontréalStockholmVäxjöPittsburgh,	  PAAlbany,	  NYAucklandOakland,	  CAAll	  othersSeattle,	   WA0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Municipal	  Emissions	   Targets	  from	  Year	  Set	  to	  DeadlineMunicipal emissions targets from Year set to deadlinePICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 16 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 1:PreParationamong other groups also use this standard.16  But, this framework is the weakest in the area of verification, providing only a description of best practices.The CCAR is the only system that offers its own international offset programs in com-bination with ghg reporting and verification standards. The Climate Registry is the only program to offer a verification certification system.Established programs that support comprehensive climate action planning for cities around the world can be seen in table 2.Table 2: Frameworks for comprehensive climate action planning for local governments and neighborhoodsName Focus Members Services WebsiteICLEI - Local Governments for SustainabilitySustain-abilityOver 1,500 local  governmentsNetworks local governments togeth-er, provides training and resourceswww.iclei.org100 Resilient  Cities ProgramResilience Competitive selectionFunding for a resilient cities special-ist, network of cities and service providers www.100resili entcities.orgC40 Cities Climate Leadership GroupClimate changeOver 80  megacitiesCollaboration among cities to share information and support climate actionwww.c40.orgEcoDistricts Sustain-ability30 neighbor-hoodsPlanning framework, technical as-sistance, and certificationecodistricts.orgHolistic MethodsA holistic understanding approaches the battle to stop climate change as being driven by a desire to save species from extinction and people from the ravages of a failing or damaged ecosystem.  Therefore, holistic methods treat these problems as indivisibly linked with climate change. Holistic methods are not ‘watering down’ energy efficiency-based techniques of addressing climate change by diluting them with solutions to other problems, but are instead an attempt to step back and make sure that efforts are being as effective as possible.  Holistic methods draw upon the literature from systems theory, which seeks to understand the parts of a system by exploring the relationships between the elements of the entire system (Meadows, 2008). Holistic solutions address what oth-ers may see as multiple issues, but are actually one interconnected issue.The holistic approach treats GHG emissions as part of a myriad of symptoms, including rising inequality, habitat destruction, water shortages, biodiversity loss, nutrient cycling disruption, psychological alienation, decreased community involvement, and inhibited human well-being, as part of the same flawed system (Waldron  et al. 2013).Holistic methods such as ‘regenerative sustainability’ and ‘transition towns’ seek to move beyond a ‘less harm’ approach to one which builds a new society based on positive impact 16 In BC, Victoria, North Vancouver, Vancouver, and Surrey are part of the Compact of Mayors.  Only Vancouver has completed phases beyond the first commitment phase (cities are given 3 years to complete them).choosing a framework and goals for climate mitigationPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 17 of 51 Senbel and Pierceof the environment and fellow humans.  Cole differentiates the regenerative approach as more systems-based and more ambitious than ‘green’ and ‘sustainable.’  Whereas the green approach seeks to be less harmful and the sustainable approach aims for zero harm, the regenerative approach, instead of reducing harm, focuses on switching the system around to one that is helpful (Cole 2012).  The ‘regenerative’ approach emerges from interdisciplinary practices in design, commu-nity engagement, systems thinking, deep democracy, deep ecology, bioregionalism, per-maculture, political ecology, and more (Waldron  et al. 2013).  In a global review, Holden et al. identified 420 ‘ecourbanism’ projects that involve the built environment in a more holistic way, either in progress or complete, of which 27 are in Canada (2015).  They iden-tify seven extreme types within these according to their key principles, calling them econ-urban, ecol-urban, living-urban, local-urban, democ-ruban, diverse-urban, or equi-urban. Regenerative methods are intrinsically local and start with understanding the natural and social ecosystems of place.  They call for engaging local communities in co-creative pro-cesses.  They have primarily been applied at the building scale, and need further applica-tion at the neighborhood and urban scale.  They also rely on qualitative markers rather than only quantitative in order to measure complex relationships between biophysical, so-ciocultural, political, technological, and institutional aspects.  Measurements include not only GHG emissions, but also resource use, biodiversity or habitat status, air and water quality, nutrient cycling, happiness, physical and mental health, social justice, safety, and more (Waldron  et al. 2013).Several tools to guide practitioners to a regenerative design practice have recently been developed and ap-plied to projects, primarily by architectural firms in North America.  Cole describes the following tools in his com-parative paper (2012):• Conceptual Regenerative Design Framework (REGEN) (Svec et al. 2012)• Eco-Balance Planning and Design (Fisk and Vittori 2010)• Living Environments in Natural, Social, and Economic Systems (LENSES) framework (Plaut et al. 2012) • Perkins+Will framework (Cole et al. 2012)Some other more limited systems include Roseland’s Community Capital Tool and STAR Communities Rating System, which provide comprehensive sets of indica-tors, or criteria, for what makes a sustainable community (Roseland 2012; STAR Communities Rating Guide 2012). Spotlight on New Zealand:A comprehensive study of over 1,000 climate change efforts in New Zealand found that some groups reframed climate change as an opportunity rather than a risk.  Support for knowledge networks allowed for effective policies to emerge.  Russsell et al. describe this approach as “moving beyond cli-mate adaptation and mitigation” (p. 768) For exam-ple, ecological restoration projects combine mitiga-tion and adaptation while also addressing flooding, habitat resetoration, and improving public space (Russell at al. 2014).  These more holistic approaches were led by civil society, which may be in part due to the fact that re-sponsibility formitigation is undertaken by the cen-tral gvoernment, whereas adaptation is the charge of local government.  In practice, mitigation and ad-aptation are not so clear cut (Russell et al. 2014).PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 18 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 1:PreParationThe institutional structure of local governments matters in climate mitigation efforts, in-cluding how these institutions work with others. To achieve ambitious goals, the support of at least three types of stakeholders is needed: fellow governments, the public, and busi-nesses. Examples in this section highlight how local governments around the world have harnessed collaboration with one another to strive for greater climate mitigation goals. Connecting with the public and business relationships are discussed in the next section. Regional CollaborationOne often overlooked stakeholder in climate change mitigation are the neighbors just on the other side of a jurisdictional border.  Cooperation across these boundaries can empower local governments when advocating for provincial action, coordinate actions between local governments, apply for funding, and share capacity-building resources and knowledge.  Some collaboration schemes focus on local governments or regions with shared goals rather than shared boundaries. See table 3 for a comparison of collabora-tion schemes.Table 3: Examples of regional collaboration between local governments that include climate mitigation.Name, Date Focus Partners OutcomesSnæfellsnes peninsula 2003 - ongoingSustainable tourism5 municipalities in Iceland- 3rd party verification of the greening of buildings, utilities, land conservation and waste - Peninsula-wide ban on plastic bags - EarthCheck gold certification - Regional 5-year planClimate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe (CLUE) 2012-2014Climate neutral urban development10 European cities,  2 universities- Implementation, monitoring and verification of in-novative pilot projects at the urban district level - Booklet with lessons from the pilot projects in local planning strategies, citizen engagement, local regula-tions, transportation, and building energy - website: Transfor-mation Agenda for Low Carbon Cities  (TRANSFORM) 2012-2015Low carbon cities6 European cities- Implementation plans to create green districts in each city - Smart Energy City Handbook and a prototype of the Decision Support Tool for energy planning - website: 2008-2012Low carbon regional economies7 European regions- Recommendations for five themes: energy effi-ciency, renewable energy, sustainable transport, be-haviour change, eco-innovation, and environmental technologiesEUCO2 80/50 2009-2011Climate mitigation for cities14 European metro regions, 2 universities- GHG inventories, baselines and future scenarios for achieving 80% reduction by 2050 for each region - Participatory engagement in strategy workshops for each city - The ReMAC tool for energy and financial planning - website: regional collaborationPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 19 of 51 Senbel and PierceName, Date Focus Partners OutcomesRegions for  Sustainable Change (RSC) 2008-2011Shifting to a low-carbon economy7 local and provincial governments and 4 research institutions and 3 planning orgs- Baseline economic and emissions assessment of 10 European regions - Low Carbon Indicators toolkit - Guidelines for incorporating climate mitigation into Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs). - Analysis of economy/emissions links for 3 regions - Handbook for building a low carbon economy - website: Florida  Regional CC CompactClimate miti-gation and adaptation4 counties in Florida- Legislative programs and state advocacy resulting in designation of an Adaptation Action Area for fund-ing, technical assistance, and media coverage - Joint Regional Climate Action Plan adopted by all counties - website: of Regional Col-laboratives for Climate Adapta-tion (ARCCA)Health, Environment, Economy5 regions in California- Information and capacity-sharing - Liaising between the state and local governments - Regional Collaborative Toolkit on how to establish a regional adaptation collaborative - website:æfellsnes is a 1479 sq km peninsula in Iceland with a population just shy of 4,000 with a tourism-based economy. The municipalities began programs in waste sorting, green purchasing, invasive species control, and environmental awareness. As a result, the communities and their businesses have experienced greater marketing opportunities for tourism as well as improved environmental outcomes. The project won EarthCheck gold certification in 2008,1 the EDEN award in 2011 and was nominated for the Nordic Council Nature and Environment Prize in 2014.2Europe has many examples of international regional cooperation related to climate miti-gation. Most are temporary initiatives of about three years, combining cities with research institutions, tied to a particular funding stream and resulting in projects on the ground and general recommendations.  They typically bring together cities and knowledge-based institutions across the member states of the European Union rather than focus in on one geographic region.  In table 3, CLUE, TRANSFORM, EUCO2 80/50, and RSC all fit this model.In the USA, two leading regional collaborations stand out: The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and The Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA). In contrast with the European collaborations, these initiatives are partnerships with a particular region that have come together for political influence as well as action. Each serves to empower their members to advocate at the state level and to build capacity through joint funding, training, and planning efforts.1 EarthCheck certification is an involved process, requiring measurement and an annual audit of public buildings’ and utility distribution systems, including electricity, water, purchasing, land conservation, harbour activities, and waste, both internally and by an independent evaluator. It took five years for the partnering municipalities to earn EarthCheck certification.2 Matthíasdóttir 2014PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 20 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 2:Actionengaging with the publicOne of the main barriers to climate mitigation is the lack of public participation and trust.1 Engaging meaningfully with a wide array of stakeholders is considered a best practice to achieve and manage ambitious energy goals.2Increasing public engagement not only presents opportunities for public education and awareness-raising, but can actually increase the effectiveness of mitigation initiatives by activating public support and providing additional pressure on other actors.3  It also has the potential for solutions that require a shift in individual behavior.4 While engaging with the public can be challenging, once the public is on board, initiatives with strong buy-in from diverse groups add resilience that can last beyond political regime changes.5 In the realm of community engagement, projects can fall under two main categories. Top-down projects are initiated by local governments that seek to integrate the concerns of the people within the larger project.  Bottom-up projects start at the community level before being (hopefully) identified and supported by the local government.Top-Down ProjectsTop-down projects require deliberate and sustained efforts to bring in the public.  Long-term and short-term goals should be mutually agreed upon among diverse constituencies in order to build broad support for climate mitigation strategies at the local level.6 Another key tip when engaging the public in climate planning processes is to maintain a positive focus.7 Focusing on what people can do and the potential of the project rather than the immensity of the problem is key to maintaining engagement.Wien Energie, the energy company for the region of Vienna, allows for individual pur-chase of solar panels like shares.  The shareholders get annual dividends of 2.25%. The program allows anyone to invest in solar, even if they do not have the ability to do so on their own property.The Commute Program in the neighborhood of Beach Haven, Auckland, New Zealand reached out to residents door-to-door. After understanding the commute pattern of each person, the City provided alternate options and incentives to ease transition to lower car-bon modes. Services included carpooling coordination, bicycle maintenance workshops, and additional bicycle parking. As a result of the program  52% of residents switched modes.8 1 Elgström et al. 2015; Ewing et al. 2007; Kimman et al. 20122 Zhivov et al. 20143 Weaver et al. 2006; Granberg and Elander 20074 Elgström et al. 20155 Comfort, 20056 Elgström et al. 20157 Moser and Dilling 20048 Auckland Transport 2014PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 21 of 51 Senbel and PierceBottom-Up ProjectsEngagement with grass-roots community-led climate initiatives is one of the low-hanging fruits for local governments looking to increase their climate mitigation efforts.9 Connecting with bottom-up initiatives automatically con-nects to demand for particular change, poten-tially reducing the burden on local government initiatives for public education and awareness-raising.Community-initiated climate projects inherent-ly integrate social aspects into their projects. An example is the key differences between Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) pro-grams and organic products sold at standard supermarkets.10  Grass-roots initiatives are in-herently tied to the local context and culture. To have moved forward, they must have gar-nered support beyond just their leaders.Ecovillages are a perfect example of grass-roots initiatives that integrate social, economic and environmental causes.11  The Transition Initiative, active in small towns and neighborhoods in Canada and around the world, is a grass-roots movement for com-munities to transition beyond fossil fuels.12  It starts with building community and education, with the ultimate goal of creating a living exam-ple of self-sufficient society free of fossil fuels.In the United States, two eco-villages in par-ticular stand out  for climate mitigation.  The EcoVillage in Ithaca has reduced resource use by 70% compared to standard American homes.13 The Dancing Rabbit EcoVillage in Missouri cut their carbon footprint in half.14 9   Bond 2009; Energy Cities 201410 Seyfang and Smith 200711 Litfin 201312 Taylor 201213 on Iceland’s Eco-Villages:Two eco-villages in Iceland are outstanding examples of sustainable living that combine social and environmental is-sues.  Both were nominated for the Nordic Council Nature and Environment Prize in 2014.Sólheimar Ecovillage is a 250 hectare community in the mu-nicipality of Grímsnes-og Grafningshreppur. It started in 1930 as a foster home for several differently-abled children, but has now become a complete community.  Its primary func-tion is an organic, permaculture farm, but it offers a diver-sity of purposes, both social and environmental.  It has 100 employed residents, of whom 43 are differently-abled and around 10 volunteers. They host 35,000 visitors annually, of-fering them an eco-center that hosts lectures on sustainability, and a store selling vegetables, baked goods, beauty products made by the community. The community runs workshops in weaving, ceramics, candles, fine art atelier, paper-making and herbs.  Differently-abled and able-bodied work together in over 20 potential sectors, including farming, carpentry, and workshop crafts.  They use geothermal energy. A prisoner program started in 2004 allows 2-3 prisoners to live onsite with their families.  The program is managed by the onsite priest. They also partner with the Ministry of Labor to provide training and job placement for the longterm unemployed. The community is nearly self-sufficient, exceptions being that they receive some outside funding and children attend school off-site (Solheimar Ecovillage 2016).  Skaftholt Farm in Skeiða and Gnúpverjahreppur is a simi-lar farm just 45 km from Sólheimar Ecovillage, and 94 km East of Reykjavik. Guðfinner Jakobsson runs the 200 hectare farm as an organic, biodynamic farm aiming for sustainabil-ity.  Skaftholt has been a home for handicapped since 1980. There are 28 employees; each differently-abled person is partnered with an able-bodied person. The farm produces meat and dairy (sheep, chickens, cows) sufficient for the community, and also most of their own fruits and vegetables. They sell about 600 rounds of 4-kilo cheese annually, and save the other 30% for internal use.  Cheese is their main export, though they do sell some vegetables when they have extra (Robert 2015).PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 22 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 2:ActionSubnational governments can engage local businesses in climate mitigation strategies through regulations, voluntary cooperation, encouraging innovation, and market-based incentives.  In this section, we will focus on the last two which have shown promise based on international cases. Claims regarding regulations imposed by government versus the voluntary involvement of businesses in decision-making on climate mitigation strategy for local governments are mixed, with some calling for more voluntary agreements with industry,1 and others countering that voluntary agreements are difficult to measure and have no proven effectiveness.2Particular areas of innovation in the six countries targeted by this research are in the area of combined heat and power systems and using wood products in buildings and fuels. Herein we will describe the innovations we have found and their benefits with regards to climate mitigation with the aim of encouraging such innovations to migrate to BC.Combined Heat and Power SystemsFinland is an example of the widespread application of combined heat and power (CHP) systems.  CHP is a mechanical system that provides heat and electricity from one in-tegrated system, rather than having separate machinery in each building and for each purpose (heat and energy).3 CHP systems offer efficiencies of 70-80% compared to 45% efficiency in a conventional system.  CHP is not limited to a particular fuel type or energy generation process, nor must it be used at a particular scale. District energy CHP refers to a scale of CHP that combines several buildings in a neighborhood together.  Additional efficiencies can be achieved by this larger scale by combining demand and seeing ef-ficiencies of scale.3Denmark is the top producer of power from CHP with half of its energy coming from CHP systems. Finland is second, producing nearly 40% of its energy needs from CHP. Canada is just over 5%.  CHP is most commonly applied on college campuses and along-side wastewater treatment plants, where heat can be harnessed from the wastewater. 3 Vancouver is a good example, with a new CHP system serving its UBC campus and an-other associated with wastewater treatment at the Athlete’s Village neighborhood down-town.In the United States, St. Paul produces 80% of energy needs for its downtown using a CHP plant that has an efficiency over 85%.3Wood Building Products and FuelsWood products in buildings, as timber structures or even wood-based facades, present an opportunity for carbon storage and the reduction of embodied energy in buildings that can be thwarted by well-meaning energy codes.4  1 CDP 20122 Kimman et al. 20123 Chittam and Kismohr 20144 Lüking and Hauser 2012; Weight 2011.  Note that embodied energy of wood products is most dependent on harvesting practices (Weight 2011)spurring action in the private sectorPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 23 of 51 Senbel and PierceFinland is a leader in sustainable wood products. The Peltosaari Innova Project, by Peltosaari in Finland, is a renovation of social housing to the high energy efficiency stan-dard of passive-house using TES (Timber-based element system) for the exterior fa-çade.5   This project is noteworthy just as a passive-house renovation, and even more so since it is accomplished using wood products.6Finland also offers up to 12-year feed-in tariff for renewable energy producers intended to encourage the replacement of peat fuel sources with wood chips.7  Another subsidy the country offers is the small diameter trees energy subsidy which up to 12-year feed-in tariff for renewable energy producers intended to encourage replacement of peat with wood chips.Market Incentives Encouraging the spread and innovation of technological solutions is another way that local governments can increase climate mitigation.  In the United States, California has guaranteed bulk purchases to help solar panel manufacturers get started in their state. Cities like San Francisco and Chicago have also tried similar tactics. The City of Chicago encouraged solar panel technologies by guaranteeing a certain amount of purchases if a particular manufacturer would move their production facilities to the city.  One possible benefit was a reduction in photovoltaic panel prices for consumers, but this claimed ben-efit has been challenged.8Declarations such as Fossil Free Sweden9 can be drafted by local institutions to spur dia-logue and promote commitments by businesses. Prizes can recognize and incentivize innovation in climate mitigation. The Nordic Council Nature and Environment Prize has been awarded since 1995.  It is an annual prize given to an individual, company, or organization in the Nordic Region which has contributed to ghg mitigation.  The prize is one of many initiatives of Norden, a cooperation of eight Nordic countries.10Setting standard labeling for sustainable products helps consumers make more informed choices.  In 1989, the Nordic Council of Ministers established a voluntary Nordic Ecolabel for sustainability, the Swan, run by the Nordic Ecolabeling Board (NMN).  There are 60 requirements for products that would feature the label, based on the life cycle of the prod-uct. The NMN has issued over 2000 licenses, labeling over 6000 products.  The label runs in parallel to the EU Ecolabel.  Over two-thirds of revenues are covered by licenses and fees; the remaining portion of 4 million DKK is paid by the Council of Ministers.  The ecolabel is applied to lower emissions fuels and even tires which increase fuel efficiency.115 Bolinger et al. 20029 See more at Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 24 of 51 Senbel and PiercePART 2:ActionLocal governments can take direct action to mitigate climate change through regulating growth and building management and construction.  They can also directly invest in pilot projects and more efficient infrastructure systems.  All of these actions are strengthend by comprehensive planning that integrates land use planning with other sectors.Land Use PlanningThe Energy Cities proposals for energy transition compiled lessons from a reivew of initia-tives by 30 European cities. They recommend the following land use planning measures to increase the energy efficiency of the built environment:1. Use planning to limit sprawl, increase density around transportation hubs, create heat networks, and build non-motorized pathway networks.2. Create an energy retrofitting plan in consultation with local stakeholders.3. Set a 100% renewable goal for new neigborhoods.4. Make a mobility plan that will meet modal use targets.5. Orient neighborhoods around railway hubs.6. Establish a street code that prioritizes non-motorized street usage.7. Rethink the goods delivery system to reduce trips and gas usage.8. Encourage mixed use zoning and promote small shops.1These measures integrate built environment and transportation infrastructure with social and economic considerations, implying that land use planning activities are more effective when integrated with other sectors.Pilot and Temporary ProjectsA pilot project can test certain policies or ideas with the public before rolling out something experimental on the city as a whole. If something is particularly controversial, making the proposal temporary can ease public fears.  This tactic has been used recently by New York City to put in place more pedestrian zones, such as in Times Square.  The zone was used to test traffic repercussions, and was ultimately adopted on a permanent basis.2The City Corporation as an ExampleIn climate action planning, it is not unusual for the city to set a more stringent emissions reduction for itself as a corporate entity than for the city as a whole.  This allows the city as a corporation to serve as a demonstration for and a beta tester of what can be done, to strengthen the market for related goods and services, and to act on its priorities.  For an example, see Boston’s Climate Action Plan from 2014.3Sustainable procurement is a good way for the government to lead and to promote a marketplace for low carbon footprint products, but it must be a progressive policy if it is 1 Energy Cities 20142 and taking direct governmental actionPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 25 of 51 Senbel and Pierceto shift the market.4  ICLEI provides a manual on its Procura+ sustainable public procurement program for Europe which could be adopted to the BC context.4Iceland adopted sustainable procurement requirements for itself starting at inclusion in 30% of tender contracts in 2010 and rising to 80% by 2012, among others.5 Reykjavik is a partner in the Procura+ program, run by ICLEI Europe, that encourages sustainable product procurement, particularly by local governments.  As such, it implemented a Green Cleaning program for its capital building and its kindergartens that has reduced cleaning costs by 50% while also reducing chemical exposure and tripling the demand for green cleaning services in the city.6RegulationsDirect policy-making can have a significant impact, though coordination across government levels are im-portant and it is also easy to be swayed by initial invest-ment costs.7  For example, dramatic policy changes at all levels of government that reduce vehicle miles trav-elled contributed to a reduction in projected transporta-tion emissions of 7-10% by 2050.Buildings constitute more than half of a city’s GHG emissions8 and therefore the regulation of building en-ergy efficiency is vital to a climate mitigation plan. Cities should think of buildings in terms of their life cycle, in-cluding construction and maintenance in efficiency ac-counting.  Green energy audits and retrofits are helpful to address existing building stock.  A building certifica-tion program will increase accountability and provide a framework that can reduce the time needed to set up a city’s green building strategy.4 4 Weber et al. 20145 Iceland 2010?6 ICLEI 20127 CR88  Based on data gathered from 16 cities - see Fig. 6 for a visualization of this data.Spotlight on Reykjavik’ Transportation and Planning:The capital city of Reykjavík faces similar problems to cities in BC: an increasing trend of car dependen-cy and sprawl.  It has only recently begun to plan for these problems in its Municipal Plan and emissions reduction plan, using relatively standard techniques. In 2013, the OECD criticized Reykjavík’s conges-tion and sprawl, caused by weak coordination be-tween municipalities, and between urban develop-ment and infrastructure. (Tepecik Diş 2014).  The next year, Reykjavík responded to these criticisms in their Municipal Plan 2010-2030.  This plan calls for 90% of new housing to be within existing urban areas, and a renewed focus on alternative transpor-tation, density, and urban design.  It calls for public transit use to increase from 4% to 12% and that cy-cling and pedestrian mode share increase from 19% to 30%.  This would reduce car share from 75% to 58%.  The key aspect of this is a reversal of previ-ous policy of widening roads and parking minimums to one of investing in alternative transportation.  It also states that by 2014, all public schools will have sustainability as a visible part of the curriculum (City of Reykjavík 2014).They have completed a baseline emissions study and created a Sustainable Energy Action Plan.  Climate Change issues are addressed in the following areas: • Land use: increase density• Transportation: increase methane usage, improve cycling paths, and renew the municipal fleet to be electric or methane-fueled• Waste management: increase recycling and cap-ture methane• Public awareness eventsPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 26 of 51 Senbel and PierceCurrent Status of Climate Change Mitigation Efforts in BCGHG Emissions in BCThough Canada is responsible for less than 2% of global GHG emissions (726 Mt in 2013), its per capita emissions are one of the highest globally, at 20.7t of GHG per capita in 2013. That year, British Columbia (BC) emitted 63 Mt of greenhouse gases (GHG), ranking 5th highest among Canada’s provinces.  BC’s emissions declined by 2.6% (1.7 Mt) since 2005, and has a more stable emissions record than other provinces due to its use of hydroelectric energy generation (EC 2013).Canada ranks 41st among countries for its environmental performance in climate and en-ergy, which looks at trends in carbon intensity and CO2 emissions per kWh. As of 2013, Canada was well above its Copenhagen Target of 622 (17% below 2005 emissions) for 2020.  Canada has not seen significant drops in emissions since 2009, though emissions intensity has steadily improved since the late 1990s (EC 2013).  In BC, energy intensity has also decreased over that time (Nyboer and Kniewasser, 2012)⁠.1 BC’s emissions by sector differ from Canada in that trans-portation is a larger share (39% in 2013) since much of our electrical grid comes from hydropower.  More than half of this comes from road transportation.  Buildings are the second highest emission by sector with 32% of the total in 2013. Most of this is from mining, oil and gas production facilities (34%), manufacturing (22%), and residential (22%) (see Fig. 1 below).  In 2008, house-holds accounted for 30% of BC’s emissions, and near-ly half (44%) of an individual’s emissions comes from personal vehicle use ( Utilities in BCEnergy is primarily provided by BC Hydro and Power Authority, a crown corporation, serving nearly half the population of BC.  FortisBC, which is a private corpo-ration, owns four hydroelectric plants and two liquified natural gas storage facilities, providing electricity and natural gas to over 3 million customers.2 Five munici-palities own and operate their own electrical utilities: New Westminster, Grand Forks, Kelowna, Penticton, 1 The Climate and Energy index combines trends in carbon intensity, electricity access, and emissions per kWh from 2000-2010.  It is the Climate and Energy component of the Environmental Performance Index by Yale. FortisBC website 1: BC CONTEXTFig 1: BC Greenhouse Gas Emissions by sector in 2013 in kilotonnes CO2e. Note that “other land use” is not included in the total, and amounts to another 6,741 kilotonnes of net emissions. Source: British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Inventory downloaded at Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 27 of 51 Senbel and Pierceand Nelson.  Other exceptions include the District of Summerland that distributes its own and Hemlock Valley Utility⁠.3  In 2014, 95% of BC’s electricity was generated through hy-droelectric dams.  BC Hydro operates 31 hydroelectric facilities and 3 natural gas-fueled thermal power plants.  BC Hydro is required by the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act to purchase energy produced by Independent Power Producers (IPP), even if at a loss.  IPPs accounted for 25% of domestic supply in 2014⁠.4  They pro-duce energy primarily from run of river hydro, but also include wind power, wood residue, and organic municipal waste. In 2011, BC Hydro introduced the Smart Metering program which made installation of smart meters mandatory. BC’s policies do not permit produc-tion of nuclear power. The BC Utilities Commission, an agency of the province, overseas rates and service quality of electricity, with the authority to make legally binding rulings. It is funded by a levy on the utilities it regulates.Impacts of Climate Change in BCSince 1900, average temperature in BC has increased by 1.4 degrees Celsius, in that time, precipitation has increased, the glaciers have retreated, and sea level has risen (Aims et al. 2015).Climate Mitigation Planning in BCIn 2007, BC established greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals at 33% below 2007 by 2020 and 80% below by 2050.  In 2008 BC released its Climate Action Plan and introduced a revenue neutral carbon tax.  BC also enacted Bill 27, the “Green Communities” legislation, which required that all municipal community plans include GHG emissions reduction targets and associated measures to meet such targets.  It also al-lowed local governments to provide exemptions for parking requirements if transit or ag-gregated parking is provided and to exempt more sustainable projects from development cost charges (Rizi 2012).  Two-thirds of municipalities adopted targets by the BC deadline two years later (Stevens and Senbel 2012).  BC has the highest percent of the popula-tion (74%) covered by a Community Energy Plan (CEP) in Canada (Littlejohn 2015). Combined, the efforts of the municipalities per capita are projected to meet the provincial goals for the urban population (Senbel, Fergusson, and Stevens 2013).In 2015, BC released the Climate Leadership Plan Discussion Paper with updated goals for 2050.  It is currently in the review process.  The first Area of Action in the discussion paper, called “The Way We Live” is the most relevant for community climate mitigation. Its objectives are as follows: 1.1 Local jobs, recreation, food production, services, and energy production 1.2 Energy neutral or energy positive buildings, with district and distributed energy systems3 BC Utility Regulatory Framework website BC Hydro website Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 28 of 51 Senbel and Pierce 1.3 Land development that respects increasing disaster risk and integrates natural systems (Aims et al. 2015)BC’s government has been carbon neutral since 2010, primarily through the purchase of offsets (BC 2013).BC Climate Action CharterThe BC Climate Action Charter is a voluntary commitment made by local governments to make their corporate actions carbon neutral, to measure and report the GHG emissions of their community, and to create compact and energy efficient neighborhoods.  Grant fund-ing is available to signatories through the reporting mechanism for the charter, the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP). Of the 190 local governments in BC, 182 have signed the charter.  In 2007, the joint provincial - Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Green Communities Committee (GCC) was formed to help communities achieve their goals and strive for carbon neutrality.  They also review the emissions reports submitted by the communities.  Also in 2007, the BC Ministry of Environment began the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory of the GHG emissions released by every local govern-ment in BC.  This emissions data is then available for communities to use as their baseline for generating emissions goals in their Community Energy Plans (Rizi 2012).The BC Climate Action Toolkit for local governments teaches them how to take their oper-ations to a carbon neutral status.  BC provides a guidebook, and requires standard report-ing practices.  Local governments have begun to use these tools, and in 2011 the village of Harrison Hot Springs was the first to achieve carbon neutrality through reductions and offsets.  By 2013, 92% of local governments measured their corporate emission.  21% of these had achieved net neutral carbon emissions, such as the City of Duncan which pri-marily achieved their target through a local carbon credit program called the Community Carbon Marketplace ( reports that community-wide actions by the signatories to the charter focus on transportation (Bike to Work week and carpooling programs), composting programs, solar hot water readiness programs.  CARIP has also reported a decreasing trend in capacity building and policy development in favor of education and engagement, which ti says sug-gests that communities are getting closer to implementation (BCMCSCD 2014).International Networks in BCSeven local governments in BC have become members of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, an association of over 1200 local governments worldwide who collaborate on sustainability. Their names and the year that they joined are indicated here ( Vancouver2002 Metro VancouverPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 29 of 51 Senbel and Pierce2006 Delta2009 Campbell River2009 Columbia Institute2014 Cowichan Valley Regional Institute2014 District of North VancouverICLEI Canada’s climate mitigation program, Partners for Climate Protection (PCP), main-tains a database of actions taken by local governments since 2008.  In 2014, they had 265 members representing 82% of the Canadian population. They have counted over 800 projects amounting to $2.3 billion dollars invested and over 1.8 million tons of GHG reductions (PCP 2013).  The PCP program has five milestones each at the corporate and community levels.Of the 80 local government leaders who have signed onto the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, four are in BC.  These are David Cadman, former Councillor of Vancouver, Joe Trasolini, former Mayor of Port Moody, Dave Bronconnier, former Mayor of Calgary, and Naheed Nenshi, Mayor of Calgary ( This program represents a personal commitment from these leaders to combat climate change and provides support for their initiatives via the World Mayors Council Secretariat and ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability.Community Energy PlansCommunity Energy Plans (CEPs) aim for sustainability via the management of energy production, consumption and GHG emissions within the community’s borders. Jaccard et al. developed CEPs in 1997 to integrate land use planning, transportation manage-ment, site design, and energy supply at the community level (Rizi 2012).   In 2006, the Community Energy Association produced a toolkit for CEPs in BC. The following year, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) produced a CEP guide which also has a CEP-LITE component for more rural communities (Rizi 2012).  BC Hydro offers grants for CEPs (they call them Community Energy and Emissions Plans, or CEEPs). Their assistance includes webinars and a workshop, up to 50% funding, and a follow-up review after form-ing the CEEP.  They also offer a free Quickstart initiative for those with 20,000 people or less.  The Canadian Urban Institute developed an integrated community energy mapping process in Ontario in 2009 (Rizi 2012).There are several recent studies analyzing CEPs in Canada.  These include the National Report on Policies Supporting CEP Implementation which assesses over 50 out of the 180 communities with CEPs, a review of 30 CEPs across Canada by the Community Energy Association, Tozer investigated five CEPs, and St. Denis and Parker analyzed the first ten CEPs in Canada.  Most CEPs were initiated after 2007, though some are several years older.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 30 of 51 Senbel and Pierce The National Report on Policies Supporting CEP Implementation reviewed the provincial-level policies on CEPs and found that while BC is the definitive leader in supporting CEP Development, it loses its edge when it comes to supporting CEP implementation, particu-larly in the area of energy efficiency and alternative energy, where Ontario leads the pack (Littlejohn 2015).CEA’s report of 30 CEEPs across Canada found that CEEPs are highly diverse in goals, scope and process, and are highly innovative (2013).  Creating a CEEP led to at least some implementation, and the majority (91%) of communities were satisfied with their CEEP.  Sectors under consideration are typically residential and commercial buildings and transportation.  Common approaches include energy efficiency, renewable energy, and district energy.  CEEPs usually lack quantification of proposed actions, and lack an implementation strategy.  Smaller communities generally could not hire a staff person for the CEEP and also self-report as the lowest performing.  Barriers identified include lack of funding, staff time, and local government authority.  Communities reported difficulty in maintaining the engagement of senior municipal staff until the end of the CEEP process. Communities also reported that once CEEPs were created, the next steps were unclear. Monitoring and tracking activities were uncommon (only 17% of communities).  Economic benefits of CEEP actions were not typically considered (CEA 2013).Tozer declared successful CEP implementation while also acknowledging barriers in ju-risdictional limitations, cost perceptions and budgetary allocations, resistance to change, communication, and capacity (2013).  Tozer also notes that while the GHG emissions from the municipal corporation itself decreased, the community emissions did not decrease ap-preciably. Tozer recommends greater provincial level support for municipal jurisdictional powers in the area of energy management, to link provincial funding to CEP targets. Tozer also points out that the GHG emissions reductions are insufficient when compared to the UN targets (Tozer 2013).St. Denis and Parker reviewed the first ten CEPs in Canada, implemented from 2003-2007, and found that CEPs emphasize increasing energy efficiency and conservation over switching to renewable energy sources.  They also identified a tendency of greater interest in multiple renewable energy sources by smaller communities.  They criticized the CEPs for tailoring the plans for a municipal expert audience rather than the general community (2009).St. Denis and Parker found that some CEPs included water resource management and waste systems.  All of the CEPs generated a baseline use, consumption, or emissions by sectors: generally, residents, industrial/commercial/municipal, and transportation.  The primary goal of the CEPs was to reduce GHG emissions, with eight of ten setting specific reduction targets, with higher targets for the municipality than for the entire community. They also all included a list of action items for implementation, separated by supply- and demand-side.  Supply-side initiatives rarely stressed decentralization, though they did often call for increased self-sufficiency through local sources of energy. Planning of renew-able energy primarily included increasing public awareness and setting examples through municipal projects.  CEPs with renewable energy measures most commonly encouraged PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 31 of 51 Senbel and Piercebiofuels. Demand-side initiatives were primarily voluntary behavioural changes.  Building regulation amendments to increase energy efficiency were mostly limited to municipal buildings.  During the CEP development, municipalities increased their capacity through social networking across municipalities and bringing in outside experts (St. Denis and Parker 2009).First Nations Energy Planning ProgramsThe First Nations of BC came together in 2007 to form the BC First Nations Energy Action Plan to address climate mitigation and energy development activities on their lands (BC FNEMC 2009).  They also produced an Energy Education and Literacy Report that de-tailed areas regarding energy wherein First Nations have identified that they would like to increase their own literacy (BC FNEMC 2014).BC offers a First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund (FNCEBF) in order to support First Nations’ involvement in the clean energy sector.  Since 2011, $6.9 million in funding has been distributed to over 100 First Nations as part of this program. In 2015, funding has been distributed to support the development of community energy plans, such as those by the Naut’sa mawt Tribal Council (a partnership of eleven First Nations), the K’omoks First Nation, The Snuneymuxw First Nation, and the We Wai Kai Nation (BC Climate Action Toolkit 2015, BC Gov News 2015).Why Look Outside of CEPs?“Some of the most significant increases in emissions have been the result of non-cli-mate policy priorities which have overwhelmed climate mitigation efforts (e.g. decisions in Canada to exploit the tar sands reserves” (Gupta et al. 2007, p. 795).  Community-level initiatives that combat such decisions do not fit under the standard framework of climate mitigation strategies, though they have a sizable potential to stop emissions.Transition CommunitiesRob Hopkins authored the Transition Model in 2006, which emerged from the permac-ulture movement. It is based on the idea that current societal and physical models are dependent on an unsustainable system that will inevitably break down, so communities must prepare to transition into a new era that is not dominated by fossil fuel-based energy. The Transition Model is a movement for local sustainability that is based on grass-roots support and networking.  It is community-led rather than being governmentally-driven, and is action-based (Hopkins 2008).  Membership as a Transition Intitiative requires meeting sixteen criteria (primarily demonstrations of capacity, commitment, and understanding), monitored by the Transition Network.  The Transition Network also offers training, re-sources, and monitoring.  There were nearly 500 official Transition initiatives worldwide as of 2014. In 2009, Peterborough was the first Canadian Transition Community.  Two years later, 18 communities in Canada joined the official ranks of Transition Communities, with 26 more “mullers,” who are in the process of officially joining.  Today, there are 29 official PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 32 of 51 Senbel and Piercemembers in Canada (57 more mulling), and eleven in BC (twelve more mulling): Alberni Valley, Bowen in Transition, Cowichan, Golden Ears Transition Initiative, Nelson, Powell River, Salt Spring Island, Sooke Transition Initiative, Vancouver, Victoria, and Village Surrey Transition Initiative ( IncentivesIn Ontario, Horizon Utilities Corporation is thinking outside the box to get customers to re-duce energy use.  They are offering air miles in return for energy savings at the household level in a pilot project they call Take Charge • Save Energy • Earn Rewards.  The project began in October 2014 with Simple Energy, but they still call it a “pilot” (, RecoveryPort Coquitlam, BC has a sewage heat recovery program by International Wastewater Systems, producing energy savings and corresponding ghg emissions reductions of up to 85%.  This method is also used in a residential community in Vancouver (CEC 2014). Guelph, ON is meeting its emissions reduction goals through combined heat and power, waste heat recovery,and district energy systems.  It is also the first North American mu-nicipality to plan an interconnected thermal grid serving residential, commercial, and in-dustrial buildings across the city.EcoDistricts ProgramOf the four EcoDistricts projects in Canada, only one neighborhood in Ottawa is following the Target Cities protocol, a standard system for sustainable districts and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, none have made substantial progress, with Ottawa reporting community gatherings and some alternative transportation campaigns, and measuring existing data, and the other three having either a small scale implementation or not offering any works-on-the-ground. Zibi, located on a river island in Ottawa, is one of eleven neighborhoods in North America, and the only one in Canada, participating in the EcoDistricts’ Target Cities program which launched in 2014.  Zibi is a 37-acre brownfield to be developed into a mixed use walk-able village (Ecodistricts 2014a).   Following the EcoDistricts protocol, Zibi developed a Sustainable Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP).  So far, they have released District Energy data, started electric vehicle and cycling campaigns, held community engage-ment meetings, and hosted social engagement gatherings ( Canadian neighborhoods in BC have been part of the EcoDistricts Incubator proj-ect.  In 2015, the Food Ecology District in Victoria started a collaboration of food-related businesses focusing on local food security through urban gardening.  They also aim to reduce emissions  through district energy, a biofuel food truck initiative, and local food growing.  In 2014, Vancouver began greening False Creek Flats, a 190 hectare industrial neighborhood downtown, in an effort to produce green jobs, reduce building energy use, PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 33 of 51 Senbel and Pierceand boost development potential.  In 2012, the residential neighborhood of Acadia on UBC campus planned a participatory process of increasing density and generating a ‘Living Lab’ for sustainability ( Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) has some neighborhood level pro-grams, but focuses on building-scale solutions.  It offers the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program for the built environment, one of the certifications is LEED-ND for Neighborhood Development.  They maintain a LEED Policy Database to track policies encouraging LEED building. 105 municipal programs and 6 higher-level policies refer to LEED programs, with about half includ-ing programs for private development, mostly tax incentives. Markham and Oakville, ON, Edmonton and Red Deer, AB, and St. John, NB reference LEED-ND as best practices for certain projects to qualify for their incentive programs (CaGBC 2015).They also suggest that the Living Building Challenge is applicable at neighborhood level scale, but there don’t seem to be any projects at that scale despite over 150 projects pursuing certification worldwide (CaGBC 2015). The International Living Future Institute has since developed the Living Communities Challenge 1.0 in re-sponse.  This seems to have one initial project at this time out of Seattle. The CaGBC also encourages smart growth, and offers a Sustainable Communities Toolkit to aid in implementation (CaGBC 2015).Sustainable Procurement ProgramsCanada’s green procurement policy requires that Deputy Heads maintain green procurement policies and targets of their own, but does not quantify requirements.5 BC’s green procurement guidelines are voluntary and vague.6 Vancouver’s Ethical Purchasing Policy does not include environmental criteria other than supporting ex-isting laws.7reFerencesAims, S., Committee, U., & Burks, M. 2015. Climate Leadership Plan Discussion Paper. British Columbia. Retrieved from Government of Canada 20166 BC 2016?7 Vancouver, City of 2012PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 34 of 51 Senbel and PierceBC Climate Action Toolkit. 2015. First Nations to develop community energy plans. June 29. Retrieved from First Nations Energy and Mining Council (BC FNEMC). 2014. Energy Education and Literacy Report. April 15. pdf. Retrieved from (2009). BC First Nations Energy Action Plan. July. pdf Retrieved from Gov News. 2015. Energy plan funding for Vancouver Island First Nations. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Aug 26. Retrieved from Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. 2014. The Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP): Summary Report on Local Government Actions 2013. Nov. Retrieved from BC Ministry of Environment (BCME). 2012. British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. pdf. Retrieved from Columbia (BC). 2013. Carbon Neutral Government: Year in Review 2013. Retrieved from Green Building Council (CaGBC). Programs. website. Accessed Nov 4, 2015. Energy Canada (CEC). 2014. Tracking the Energy Revolution, 1–34. Retrieved from\npapers2://publication/uuid/67ECAF96-0859-4CBE-8AD3-EEDCA748B333Cole, R. J. 2012. Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 39–53. Energy Association (CEA). 2013. Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) Research General Research Summary of Findings.EcoDistricts. 2014a. EcoDistricts 2014 Annual Report. Retrieved from 2014b. EcoDistricts Protocol Executive Summary. Retrieved from Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 35 of 51 Senbel and PierceEnvironment and Climate Change Canada (EC). 2013. National Inventory Report, 1990 - 2013 — Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada - Executive Summary. Ottawa: EC. Accessed 12 Jan 2016 from, P. and Vittori, G. 2010. Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems – 35 Years of Serious Commotion. Centre for Maximum Potential Building Systems, Austin, TX.Gupta, S., D. A. Tirpak, N. Burger, J. Gupta, N. Höhne, A. I. Boncheva, G. M. Kanoan, C. Kolstad, J. A. Kruger, A. Michaelowa, S. Murase, J. Pershing, T. Saijo, A. Sari. 2007. Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. accessed on 11 Jan 2016 from, M., Li, C., & Molina, A. 2015. The Emergence and Spread of Ecourban Neighbourhoods around the World. Sustainability, 7(9), 11418–11437., R. 2008. The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience. Totnes, Devon: Green Books.Jaccard, M., Failing, L. and Berry, T. 1997. From equipment to infrastructure: commu-nity energy management and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Energy Policy, 25(13), 1065-1074.Littlejohn, D. et al. 2015. National Report on Policies Supporting Community Energy Plan Implementation. July.Meadows, D.H. 2008. Thinking in Systems – A Primer, Chelsea Green, White River Junction, Vermont.Nyboer, John and Kniewasser, Maximilian. 2012. Energy and GHG Emissions in British Columbia 1990 - 2010. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. June. Accessed 12 Jan 2016 from for Climate Protection (PCP). 2013. National Measures Report 2013. Retrieved from, J.M., Dunbar, B., Wackerman, A. and Hodgin, S. 2012. Regenerative design: LENSES Framework for buildings and communities. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 112–122.Rizi, B. T. (2012). Community Energy Planning: State of Practice in Canada. Master’s Thesis. York University. Toronto.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 36 of 51 Senbel and PierceSenbel, M., Fergusson, D., & Stevens, M. 2012. Local responses to regional mandates : assessing municipal greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in British Columbia. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8(2), 14.St. Denis, G., & Parker, P. 2009. Community energy planning in Canada: The role of re-newable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 2088–2095., M., & Senbel, M. 2012. Examining municipal response to a provincial climate ac-tion planning mandate in British Columbia, Canada. Local Environment, 17(8), 837–861., P., Berkebile, R. and Todd, J.A. 2012. REGEN: towards a tool for regenerative thinking, Building Research & Information, 40(1), pp 81–94.Tozer, L. 2013. Community energy plans in Canadian cities: success and barriers in im-plementation. Local Environment, 18(1), 20–35., D., Cayuela, A., & Miller, D. 2013. Regenerative Neighbourhoods – scaling up from net positive buildings. In Stream 5– Pushing the Boundaries: Net Positive Buildings (SB13). CaGBC National Conference & Expo (pp. 69–82).PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 37 of 51 Senbel and PiercePICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 38 of 51 Senbel and PierceAPPENDIX 2: MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS GOALS AND PLANS  Emissions* Climate CAP   Interim  2050 Country  per capita Action  Adoption  Base Target Interim Target Code City (kt CO2 eq.) Plan (CAP) Year City Year Reduction Year Reduction Source USA Albany, NY 1.7 CAP 2010 Albany, NY  2004 25% 2020  NZL Auckland 8.5 Low Carbon Auckland 2014 Auckland 1990 40% 2040           plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/energyresiliencelowcarbon           actionplan/Pages/home.aspx  USA Boston, MA 9.2 A Climate of Progress 2011 Boston 1990 25% 2020 80%           %20Progress%20-%20CAP%20Update%202011_tcm3-25020.pdf USA Boulder, CO unreported Climate Commitment (draft) 2015 Boulder  2005  80%           Commitment_ PRINT_READY-1-201605231619.pdfUK Bournemouth unreported none  Bournemouth  30% 2020  UK Bristol unreported Our Resilient Future: A 2015 Bristol  50% 2025 80%    Framework for Climate       Future+A+Framework+for+Climate+and+Energy+Security/2ee3fe3d-    Energy Security       efa5-425a-b271-14dca33517e6USA Des Moines, IA unreported none  Des Moines, IA    80%  UK London 4.6 Climate Change Mitigation 2014 London 1990 60% 2025     and Energy Strategy       cations/mayor%E2%80%99s-climate-change-mitigation-and-energy-           annualCAN Montréal 8.5 Plan de réduction des 2013 Montréal 1990 30% 2020    émissions de gaz à effet de       effet-de-serre/    serre de la collectivité    montréalaise 2013-2020USA New York, NY 6.1 OneNYC 2015 New York, NY 2005   80%  USA Oakland, CA 6.2 Energy and Climate Action 2012 Oakland, CA 2005 36% 2020 83%     Plan       action-plan.pdfUSA Philadelphia, PA 11.9 Greenworks Philadelphia 2009 Philadelphia, PA 1990 20% 2015           vision.pdf  USA Pittsburgh, PA 21.8 CAP 2.0 2012 Pittsburgh, PA 2003 20% 2023           Climate-Action-Plan-Version-2-FINAL-Web.pdfUSA Portland, OR 12.7 CAP 2015 Portland, OR 1990 40% 2030 80%  ISL Rekjavik unreported Baseline Emission Inventory 2011 Rekjavik 2007 35% 2020 73%    and Sustainable Energy       php?page=iframe_graphs&process=download_documents&item_    Action Plan       id=8632&report_id=7290USA San Francisco, CA 6.7 Climate Action Strategy 2013 San Francisco, CA 1990 40% 2025 80%           ClimateActionStrategyUpdate2013.pdfUSA Seattle, WA 5.9 CAP and the Seattle 2013, 2012 Seattle, WA 2008 58% 2030 100%     Community GHG Inventory           GHG%20inventory%20report_final.pdfSWE Stockholm 2.4 Stockholm Action Plan for 2013? Stockholm 1990 70% 2030     climate and energy 2012–2015       plan%20for%20climat%20and%20energy%202012-2015.pdfCAN Toronto 5.9 TransformTO 2015 Toronto 1990 30% 2020 80%           af410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD  CAN Vancouver 4.2 Greenest City Action Plan 2012 Vancouver 1990 6% 2020  SWE Växjö 3.4 Energy Plan for the City of 2011 Växjö n/a 100% 2030     Växjö       webb_2011.pdfUSA Washington, DC 12.5 Sustainable DC Plan 2011 Washington, D.C. 2006 50% 2032 80%             *Dates for emissions per capita are for the most recent year for which the city provided  the data, they range from 2004 to 2012.           PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 39 of 51 Senbel and Pierce  Emissions* Climate CAP   Interim  2050 Country  per capita Action  Adoption  Base Target Interim Target Code City (kt CO2 eq.) Plan (CAP) Year City Year Reduction Year Reduction Source USA Albany, NY 1.7 CAP 2010 Albany, NY  2004 25% 2020  NZL Auckland 8.5 Low Carbon Auckland 2014 Auckland 1990 40% 2040           plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/energyresiliencelowcarbon           actionplan/Pages/home.aspx  USA Boston, MA 9.2 A Climate of Progress 2011 Boston 1990 25% 2020 80%           %20Progress%20-%20CAP%20Update%202011_tcm3-25020.pdf USA Boulder, CO unreported Climate Commitment (draft) 2015 Boulder  2005  80%           Commitment_ PRINT_READY-1-201605231619.pdfUK Bournemouth unreported none  Bournemouth  30% 2020  UK Bristol unreported Our Resilient Future: A 2015 Bristol  50% 2025 80%    Framework for Climate       Future+A+Framework+for+Climate+and+Energy+Security/2ee3fe3d-    Energy Security       efa5-425a-b271-14dca33517e6USA Des Moines, IA unreported none  Des Moines, IA    80%  UK London 4.6 Climate Change Mitigation 2014 London 1990 60% 2025     and Energy Strategy       cations/mayor%E2%80%99s-climate-change-mitigation-and-energy-           annualCAN Montréal 8.5 Plan de réduction des 2013 Montréal 1990 30% 2020    émissions de gaz à effet de       effet-de-serre/    serre de la collectivité    montréalaise 2013-2020USA New York, NY 6.1 OneNYC 2015 New York, NY 2005   80%  USA Oakland, CA 6.2 Energy and Climate Action 2012 Oakland, CA 2005 36% 2020 83%     Plan       action-plan.pdfUSA Philadelphia, PA 11.9 Greenworks Philadelphia 2009 Philadelphia, PA 1990 20% 2015           vision.pdf  USA Pittsburgh, PA 21.8 CAP 2.0 2012 Pittsburgh, PA 2003 20% 2023           Climate-Action-Plan-Version-2-FINAL-Web.pdfUSA Portland, OR 12.7 CAP 2015 Portland, OR 1990 40% 2030 80%  ISL Rekjavik unreported Baseline Emission Inventory 2011 Rekjavik 2007 35% 2020 73%    and Sustainable Energy       php?page=iframe_graphs&process=download_documents&item_    Action Plan       id=8632&report_id=7290USA San Francisco, CA 6.7 Climate Action Strategy 2013 San Francisco, CA 1990 40% 2025 80%           ClimateActionStrategyUpdate2013.pdfUSA Seattle, WA 5.9 CAP and the Seattle 2013, 2012 Seattle, WA 2008 58% 2030 100%     Community GHG Inventory           GHG%20inventory%20report_final.pdfSWE Stockholm 2.4 Stockholm Action Plan for 2013? Stockholm 1990 70% 2030     climate and energy 2012–2015       plan%20for%20climat%20and%20energy%202012-2015.pdfCAN Toronto 5.9 TransformTO 2015 Toronto 1990 30% 2020 80%           af410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD  CAN Vancouver 4.2 Greenest City Action Plan 2012 Vancouver 1990 6% 2020  SWE Växjö 3.4 Energy Plan for the City of 2011 Växjö n/a 100% 2030     Växjö       webb_2011.pdfUSA Washington, DC 12.5 Sustainable DC Plan 2011 Washington, D.C. 2006 50% 2032 80%             *Dates for emissions per capita are for the most recent year for which the city provided  the data, they range from 2004 to 2012.           PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 40 of 51 Senbel and PierceMetHods For identiFYinG tHe internationaL casesFor this report, we considered international projects at the community or district scale that have had some measure of success and show promise in their applicability in BC for inclusion as case studies.  Under limitations of time, we decided to create a framework for identifying case studies geographically. We anticipate that by selecting certain countries on which to concentrate our search for cases, that we will gather a richer set that can provide new lessons for BC.  By determining the criteria first, then finding countries that meet these criteria and seeking cases within these countries, we also hope to minimize a bias for Western projects or projects that have been featured many times. These four APPENDIX 3: RESEARCH METHODSFig. 1: The graph compares nations worldwide by four variables: population density, GDP per capita, CO2 emissions per capita, and oil export rankings.  It shows that there is a cluster of thirteen coun-tries that have similar quantities to Canada in the first three variables, of which many are the top oil exporters.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 41 of 51 Senbel and Piercefactors were considered in gathering an initial set of cases as a first pass for inclusion in the report: 1. Feasibility at the community or institutional level 2. Degree of comparative innovation 3. Effectiveness 4. Replicability and scalabilityEach of these factors is explained in more detail below.  Once these criteria allowed us to identify countries of particular interest, we searched within those countries for cases. We began by gathering a large set of cases, then whittling this list down with practitioner input.Feasibility at the community or institutional level Feasibility refers to the ease of application for the case into the context in British Columbia and it includes feasibility at the community and institutional levels. Institutional feasibility is defined as  “the extent to which a policy of policy instrument is seen as legitimate, able to gain acceptance and able to be adopted and implemented” (Mitchell et al. 2011).  At the community level, this definition expands to include measures that communities could adopt, even if they may not be feasible at the institutional level.  This factor would favor projects that are simple, low cost, and from areas with similar conditions.  To identify countries that are similar institutionally, we compared several factors in turn.  We began with a comparative graph combining GDP per capita, population density, Fig. 2 and 3: The graph and associated table compares rankings for oil exports and natural gas exports for the 14 countries of interest and Canada.  It shows that there is a positive correlation between both variables and justifies the use of oil export ranking as a proxy indicator for the potential influence of fossil fuel industries in the national economy and politics.  An active fossil fuel export industry increases national dependency on fossil fuels economically and has potential ramifications on the culture and feasibility of climate change politics.  The graph indicates Canada in black, and other countries in blue.  Countries with no exports were assigned the lowest rank in the relevant fuel type.Crude&Oil Natural'GasRank%(of% 91) barrels/day Rank%(of% 51) M"cu"mCanada 3 2,733,000 5 77,960Australia 29 235,400 11 31,620Iceland 91 0 51 0Libya 18 735,000 29 5,513Oman 16 833,400 18 11,500Saudi&Arabia 1 7,658,000 51 0Finland 91 0 51 0Norway 14 1,218,000 3 106,600New$Zealand 53 29,620 51 0Sweden 62 12,590 51 0Equatorial*Guinea 24 318,100 30 4,800USA 20 629,400 9 42,730Russia 2 4,625,000 1 201,900Kazakhstan 9 1,365,000 19 11,200UK 19 703,100 20 10,55005101520253035404550550 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95Natural'Gas'Exporter'Rank'out'of'51Oil$Exporter$Rank$out$of$91$Exporting$CountriesRelationship,Between,Fossil,Fuel,Export,RankingsCanadaPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 42 of 51 Senbel and Piercetop oil exporters, and CO2 emissions per capita to identify initial countries of interest (see fig. 1, 2 and 3). This initial comparison resulted in 13 countries.  We added the United Kingdom since it is politically and culturally linked with Canada, to get a total of 14 countries.  We then created a table for more detailed comparison that includes the variables previously considered as well as government type and climate, adding British Columbia (see fig. 4).We then removed countries that differ greatly from Canada in terms of both government type and climate, which eliminated Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Equitorial Guinea. Finally, we settled upon the following countries as showing the most promise in which to identify feasible projects: Australia, Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, the USA, Russia, Kazakhstan, and the UK.Degree of comparative innovationThe degree of comparative innovation is the extent to which the case takes a new ap-proach that is not already utilized in BC or in other cases already under consideration. This factor encourages diversity in the cases, from one another and from what we see in BC already.  Approaches under consideration should range widely, including holistic efforts, gamification, carbon sequestration or capture, ecological solutions, community resilience efforts, behavioral incentives, information and communication technologies ini-tiatives, combined heat and power, building energy codes, and increasing participation in existing efficiency programs.  The Global Innovation Index (GII) is the primary measure of innovation at the national level, though there is also the International Innovation Index (III) (Dutta et al. 2015; Andrew et al. 2009).  The GII ranks 144 countries according to 79 factors related to innovation (Dutta et al. 2015).  The GII ranks Canada in 16th place as of 2015, and III ranked Canada 14th in 2008 (see Fig. 5 and 6). Fig. 4: The table compares all six factors under consideration for feasibility.  Population density ranges from 3.1 people/km2 in Iceland to 32 people/km2 in the USA and 55 people/km2 in the UK.  GDP/capita ranges from $19,600 PPP in Kazakhstan to $49,370 PPP in the USA.  CO2 emissions per capita range from 5.6 in Sweden to 21 in Oman.  Government types vary widely as well as climate, indicating that some of the countries on this list should be removed.Pop$Density GDP/cap CO2$Emissions Oil$Export Government) Type Köppen!Geiger& Climate(/km2) in#PPP$ /capita Rank%(of%91) description abbreviationCanada 3.4 40,770 15.0 3 federal'parliamentary'constitutional' monarchy subarctic,*humid* continental Dfc,"Dfb,"ETBC 4.8 47,579 16.0 n/a n/asubarctic,*humid* continental,* continental)Mediterranean Dfc,"CfbAustralia 2.9 41,330 17.0 29 federal'parliamentary'constitutional' monarchy hot$desert,$ hot$semi!arid,& subtropical BWh,%BSh,% CfbIceland 3.1 38,810 6.1 none unitary(parliamentary( constitutional( republic polar&tundra ETLibya 3.6 30,260 9.3 18 transitioning) electoral) democracy hot$desert BWhOman 9.0 49,190 21.0 16 absolute)monarchy hot$desert BWhSaudi&Arabia 13.0 45,600 17.0 1 absolute)monarchy hot$desert BWhFinland 16.0 39,420 12.0 none unitary(parliamentary( constitutional( republic subarctic Dfc,%DfbNorway 13.0 62,950 12.0 14 unitary(parliamentary( constitutional( monarchy subarctic,* tundra Dfc,%CfbNew$Zealand 16.0 31,820 7.2 53 unitary(parliamentary( constitutional( monarchy warm%temperate%humid Cfb,%CfaSweden 21.0 42,900 5.6 62 unitary(parliamentary( constitutional( monarchy subarctic,* humid*continental Dfc,%Dfb,%CfbEquatorial*Guinea 25.0 34,430 6.7 24 Dominant!party& presidential& republic tropical) savannah AmUSA 32.0 49,370 18.0 20 Federal'presidential' constitutional' republic humid&to&arid;&hot&to&continental Cfa,%Cfb,%Dfa,%Dfb,%Csb,%BSkRussia 8.4 21,660 12.0 2 Federal'semi!presidential+ constitutional+ republic subarctic,* humid*continental Dfb,%DfcKazakhstan 4.9 19,600 16.0 9 Unitary(dominant!party& presidential& republic cold%desert% to%humid% continental BSk,%BWk,%Dfa,%DfbUK 55.0 36,240 8.0 19 unitary(parliamentary( constitutional( monarchy warm%temperate%humid Cfb,"CfaPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 43 of 51 Senbel and PierceThese two rankings have a positive correlation, but for these purposes, the GII is used as a proxy for innovation since it is the most up to date of the two. Cases from countries with a higher GII include Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, the USA, Finland, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Hong Kong, Germany, Iceland, South Korea, and New Zealand.Fig. 5 and 6: The table compares the Global Innovation Index (GII) from 2015 and the International Innovation Index (III) Rank and score from 2008 for the top scoring countries (Dutta et al. 2015; Andrew et al. 2009).  The GII ranges from zero to 100.  The graph illustrates the positive correlation between both rankings.  Canada is shown as a larger, black dot on the graph.0510152025300 5 10 15 20 25Global&Innovation&Index&Rank,&2015International&Innovation& Index&Rank,&2008Comparison6of6Innovation6Index6Ranking6by6CountryCountry GII&Rank III&Rank GII&Score III&ScoreSwitzerland 1 3 68.3 2.23UK 2 15 62.42 1.42Sweden 3 10 62.4 1.64Netherlands 4 12 61.58 1.55USA 5 8 60.1 1.8Finland 6 7 59.97 1.87Singapore 7 1 59.36 2.45Ireland 8 5 59.13 1.88Luxembourg 9 13 59.02 1.54Denmark 10 11 57.7 1.6Hong&Kong 11 6 57.23 1.88Germany 12 19 57.05 1.12Iceland 13 4 57.02 2.17S&Korea 14 2 56.26 2.26New&Zealand 15 26 55.92 0.77Canada 16 14 55.73 1.42Australia 17 22 55.22 1.02Austria 18 17 54.07 1.15Japan 19 9 53.97 1.79Norway 20 18 53.8 1.14France 21 20 53.59 1.12Israel 22 16 53.34 1.36Estonia 23 23 52.81 0.9440506070809010020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Adjusted(EPI(ScoreClimate(and(Energy(SubscoreComparison*of*the*adjusted*EPI*Score*and*the*Climate*and*Energy*Subscore*by*CountryCanadaFig. 7: This graph justifies the need to use the Climate and Energy subscore of the Environmen-tal Performance Index (EPI) rather than the EPI score itself.  It shows how there is no positive correlation between the overall EPI score and the Climate and Energy portion of the score, that makes up 12.5% of the score.  Note that the EPI score has been adjusted in order to remove the effect of the Climate and Energy portion of the score using the following formula: adjusted EPI = EPI/.875 - C&E.125 where C&E is the Climate and Energy subscore.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 44 of 51 Senbel and PierceEffectivenessThe effectiveness factor is the ability of the case to reduce GHG emissions overall or to improve energy efficiency beyond that already achieved in BC.  The Climate and Energy index, part of Yale’s Environmental Performance Index, combines trends in carbon inten-sity and trends in emissions per kWh from 2000-2010 (Hsu 2016). As this is a part of the EPI score, we refer to it as a subscore (see Fig. 7). Trends are compared among econom-ic peers (based on GDP/capita), and adjusted accordingly. Numbers are standardized to a zero to 100 scale for comparability. Canada ranks 65th in this subscore so there is much potential here. Areas of interest for projects with high effectiveness include any of the 64 countries ranked above Canada (see Fig. 8).  In the USA, the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard by ACEEE allows us to further nar-row our search. Massachusetts ranks highest in energy efficiency along with California, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Oregon.  Maryland, Illinois, Texas, California, and the District of Columbia have earned the most improved ratings (Gilleo et al. 2015). Replicability and scalabilityReplicability and scalability is the potential and ease for the case to be implemented in many places or become part of a national-level policy.  Subnational level initiatives independent of national programs have a limited impact on their own, unless they can Climate(and(EnergyElements(of(the(Climate(and(Energy(SubscoreEnvironmental,Performance,IndexCountry Rank SubscoreCarbon'Intensity'TrendCO2$Emissions$/KwH$TrendEPI$Rank2016%EPI%ScoreAdjusted(EPITajikistan 1 99.2 96.6 100.0 72 73.05 71.08Azerbaijan 2 97.9 100.0 91.8 31 83.78 83.51Iceland 3 96.4 94.9 100.0 2 90.51 91.39Romania 4 96.2 97.6 92.9 34 83.24 83.11Singapore 5 95.4 95.6 94.1 14 87.04 87.54Belarus 6 94.9 98.0 86.6 35 82.3 82.20Moldova 7 94.8 89.2 100.0 55 76.69 75.79Uzbekistan 8 93.5 99.0 76.2 118 63.67 61.07Turkmenistan 9 93.3 97.3 83.3 84 70.24 68.62Sweden 10 92.7 95.2 87.4 3 90.43 91.76Czech&Republic 11 91.2 94.2 82.5 27 84.67 85.36Ireland 12 91.2 90.3 95.2 19 86.6 87.57Sri$Lanka 13 91.1 93.5 84.1 108 65.55 63.52Hungary 14 91.1 89.6 93.7 28 84.6 85.30Albania 15 91.0 91.0 100.0 61 74.38 73.63Portugal 16 90.8 86.3 95.9 7 88.63 89.94Slovakia 17 90.8 98.3 68.2 24 85.42 86.28Finland 18 90.2 92.5 85.8 1 90.68 92.36Nicaragua 19 90.2 79.1 100.0 115 64.19 62.09Guatemala 20 89.6 87.0 100.0 89 69.64 68.39Qatar 21 89.4 96.3 72.8 87 69.94 68.76Cyprus 22 89.0 82.8 100.0 40 80.24 80.58Poland 23 88.9 92.8 78.5 38 81.26 81.75Denmark 24 88.7 91.4 86.2 4 89.21 90.87Ukraine 25 87.5 91.8 78.0 44 79.69 80.14Lithuania 26 85.7 80.8 100.0 23 85.49 86.99Jordan 27 85.4 86.6 87.8 74 72.24 71.89Croatia 28 85.2 85.9 83.7 15 86.98 88.75Malta 29 84.8 75.7 100.0 9 88.48 90.52UK 30 84.5 87.8 71.9 12 87.38 89.30Russia 31 84.4 88.9 74.8 32 83.52 84.90New$Zealand 32 83.7 79.6 89.4 11 88 90.11Serbia 33 83.3 94.6 59.4 48 78.67 79.49Climate(and(EnergyElements(of(the(Climate(and(Energy(SubscoreEnvironmental,Performance,IndexCountry Rank SubscoreCarbon'Intensity'TrendCO2$Emissions$/KwHTrendEPI$Rank2016%EPI%ScoreAdjusted(EPILatvia 34 83.2 76.6 100.0 22 85.71 87.56Switzerland 35 82.5 83.6 100.0 16 86.93 89.03Israel 36 82.2 82.0 81.2 49 78.14 79.02Slovenia 37 82.2 81.2 79.8 5 88.98 91.42Nigeria 38 82.2 99.7 29.7 133 58.27 56.32Iraq 39 81.9 97.0 38.8 116 63.97 62.87Spain 40 81.8 74.4 93.3 6 88.91 91.38Indonesia 41 81.6 84.7 73.8 107 65.85 65.06Costa&Rica 42 81.5 77.9 100.0 42 80.03 81.27Philippines 43 81.0 85.1 58.8 66 73.7 74.11USA 44 80.9 82.4 79.4 26 84.72 86.71Belgium 45 80.6 78.7 87.0 41 80.15 81.53Honduras 46 80.1 71.1 100.0 88 69.64 69.57France 47 80.1 83.2 70.3 10 88.2 90.79Cameroon 48 79.4 59.6 100.0 136 57.13 55.36Italy 49 79.4 73.9 88.6 29 84.48 86.63Austria 50 78.8 81.6 77.1 18 86.64 89.17El#Salvador 51 78.7 74.8 100.0 97 68.07 67.96Germany 52 78.2 80.4 72.4 30 84.26 86.52Macedonia 53 77.6 84.0 68.8 50 78.02 79.47Mongolia 54 77.1 76.2 85.0 114 64.39 63.95Bulgaria 55 77.0 87.4 53.2 33 83.4 85.69Taiwan 56 76.8 90.0 31.2 60 74.88 75.97Swaziland 57 76.7 84.4 60.1 124 60.63 59.71Estonia 58 76.6 72.5 81.6 8 88.59 91.67Argentina 59 75.9 88.5 42.0 43 79.84 81.75Botswana 60 75.7 73.4 100.0 79 70.72 71.36Netherlands 61 75.4 73.0 89.8 36 82.03 84.32China 62 74.8 75.3 90.2 109 65.1 65.05Lebanon 63 74.7 85.5 47.6 94 69.14 69.67Canada 64 74.6 71.6 91.0 25 85.06 87.89 Fig. 8: The table shows information for Canada and the 64 countries that rank above it in the Climate and Energy subscore.  It also contains the score (0-100) for both of the parts that constitute the Climate and Energy subscore, the EPI score and its rank, and the adjusted EPI.  For the definition of the adjusted EPI, see Fig. 7.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 45 of 51 Senbel and Piercelead to changes in policy at the national level (Gupta et al. 2007). Thus, cases that have already been replicated or become part of a broader policy, and frameworks such as the Local Energy Efficiency Policy Calculator (LEEP-C), C40 cities network, ICLEI’s CCP net-work, BREEAM Communities, Living Community Challenge, and LEED for Neighborhood Development show promise in this factor.  Unlike the first three factors, this factor is not a property of a nation, but is rather a question of geographic spread.  Thus, programs that have been implemented in an array of locations will be prioritized.Combining the FactorsFirst, we generated a list of 23 countries that met some of the factors above.  This resulted in six countries that meet three factors, eight that meet two, and another nine that show potential in more than one area (see Fig. 9).  Then, we sought cases in particular in the first six countries.  We also supplemented these more in-depth reviews with comparative reviews from around the world. There was no simple way to objectively compare these factors directly, and there are challenges inherent in balancing each factor.  Thus, we recommend that practitioners review the filtered set of cases to verify their usefulness in the report.LocatinG MUniciPaL tarGets and PLansTo search for municipal-level targets and plans, first an internet search of major cities in each of the six countries was completed.  Then, all locations within the six countries were reviewed on two websites that gather reporting on ghg targets and actions: 9: The table combines the first three factors, listing any countries that met more than one.  A “yes” indicates that the country met the factor, “no” indicates that it did not.  A “maybe” indicates either that there was insufficient information to determine whether the country met the criteria, or that it was close to meet-ing it.  For example, Australia is ranked just behind Canada in innovation, so it is listed as a maybe for this factor.Country Feasibility Innovation EffectivenessIceland yes yes yesFinland yes yes yesNew?Zealand yes yes yesSweden yes yes yesUSA yes yes yesUK yes yes yesNorway yes yes noRussia yes no yesSwitzerland no yes yesNetherlands no yes yesSingapore no yes yesIreland no yes yesDenmark no yes yesGermany no yes yesEquatorial?Guinea yes maybe maybeAustralia yes maybe noLuxembourg no yes maybeHong?Kong?(China) no yes maybeAustria no maybe yesFrance no maybe yesIsrael no maybe yesEstonia no maybe yesCzech?Republic no maybe yesPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 46 of 51 Senbel and Pierce soUrcesFor other non-state actors, the following two websites provided the majority fo the ex-amples, boosted again by internet keyword searches: The map of actions at The Climate Group’s Compact of States and Regions Disclosure Report from 2015, available at, A. et al. 2016. 2016 Environmental Performance Index (EPI). New Haven, CT: Yale University. available to view at http://epi.yale.eduGilleo, A., Nowak, S., Kelly M., Vaidyanathan, S., Shoemaker, M., Chittum, A., and Bailey, T. 2015. The 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. ACEEE Report U1509. October. pdf. accessed 12 Jan 2016 from, S., D. A. Tirpak, N. Burger, J. Gupta, N. Höhne, A. I. Boncheva, G. M. Kanoan, C. Kolstad, J. A. Kruger, A. Michaelowa, S. Murase, J. Pershing, T. Saijo, A. Sari. 2007. Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. accessed on 11 Jan 2016 from, James P., Stover DeRocco, Emily, and Taylor, Andrew. 2009. The Innovation Imperative in Manufacturing: How The United States Can Restore Its Edge. The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. (March). accessed 28 Jan 2016 at, Soumitra, Lanvin,  Bruno, and Wunsch-Vincent, Sacha, eds. 2015. The Global Innovation Index 2015: Effective Innovation Policies for Development, Fontainebleau, Ithaca, and Geneva. Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. accessed 28 Jan 2016 at Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 47 of 51 Senbel and PierceIn preparation for phase 2 of the PICS Community Energy Efficiency project, we herein outline our engagement strategy. Engagement of local experts and practitioners is criti-cal to this research in order to (1) ensure that the final report is a useful tool with feasible recommendations for practitioners, and to (2) refine lessons gleaned from international initiatives in response to local conditions. The engagement strategy for this 4-phase/4-year research begins in phase 2 and peaks in phase 3.During phase 2, we will conduct an initial outreach program spanning several sectors. This outreach will focus on those with whom the research team has an existing relation-ship, using the snowball method to gather additional participants as needed.  The goals of the initial outreach are as follows:1. Refine international case reports2. Initiate identification of local barriers3. Identify phase 3 participants 4. Inform phase 3 engagement materials5. Review phase 3 engagement activitiesDuring phase 3, engagement will expand in number of participants, scope, and methods. Participants will take part in focus groups and activities intended to foster interaction so that the resulting recommendations are feasible and holistic.  A larger group will be solic-ited to participate in a survey.  The approach for phase 3 will be refined during phase 2.The engagement strategy for phase 2 involves interviewing practitioners in private and public sectors in order to holistically address climate mitigation and to benefit from a va-riety of viewpoints. Based on the inventory and classification of international cases, we have identified two target engagement groups that each provide feedback on particular aspects of climate mitigation initiatives (see Fig. 1):1. The preparation group comments on those aspects that lay the foundation for taking action on climate mitigation.  This includes planning processes such as the selec-tion of a framework for addressing climate mitigation, methods for visioning and goals, standard-setting, measurement, and verification.  It also includes the establishment of regional collaboration with neighboring or other local governments. This group includes municipal and provincial senior planners, climate change planners, municipal and provin-cial officials, social planners, NGO watchdog leaders, industry leaders, and climate activ-ist leaders.2. The action group comments on public and private mechanisms for the implemen-tation of climate mitigation. These mechanisms include grass-roots initiatives, technologi-cal innovation, market incentives, pilot projects, city corporate activities, and regulations. This group includes municipal and provincial senior planners, climate change planners (these are the same as in the process group), think tank leaders, business leaders, fund-ing institution heads, economists, environmental NGO heads, and community leaders.APPENDIX 4: ENGAGEMENT STRATEGYPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 48 of 51 Senbel and PierceEach of these two groups will review a section of the Phase 1 report tailored for them which will include an analysis of international cases compared to local initiatives.  Participants will provide feedback on the report via an open-ended interview by critiquing the interna-tional cases and adding their own experiences and lessons.  The process of practitioner feedback and report refinement will be iterative.  Phase 2 outreach will allow for funda-mental adjustments to the report prior to engaging a larger group.# #35 35 5233 14 45 73 11 12 22323KEYInternational Case ClassicationsTarget Engagement GroupsMUNICIPALPROVINCIALNON-GOV’T LEADERSlevelat the regionalcollaborationvericationmeasurementstandard-settingvisioning/goalsplanningpublic engagementgrass-rootsprivate sectormarket incentivespublic mechanismssetting an examplepilot projectsregulationsocialssr. plannerscc plannerssocial plannerseconomistsocialssr. plannerscc plannersrolegov’t watchdogscc activist groupsservice industriescommunity groupsfunding institutionsthink tanksENGOsACTIONPREPARATIONmanufacturing# of connections in each categoryinnovationeco-villagesFig. 1: Diagram of target engagement groups connected to the international case classifications.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 49 of 51 Senbel and PiercereFerencesAuckland Transport. 2014. 2013/14 Community Transport Evaluation Report. Auckland Council. Accessed online at, Mark, Porter, Kevin, and Wiser, Ryan. 2002. “Using Bulk Purchase Commitments to Foster Sustained Orderly Development and Commercialization of PV”, Case Studies for State Support of Renewable Energy. Berkeley Lab and the Clean Energy Group, September. Accessed online at, Meghan. 2009. Localizing climate change: stepping up local climate action. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 21, 2: 214-225Boston, Alex. 2007. Best Practices and Better Protocols Guidance for a comprehensive community emissions inventory system from a high level review of international best prac-tices. BC Ministry of Environment (Nov).Breidenich, Clare and Bodansky, Daniel. 2009. Measurement, Reporting and Verification in a Post-2012 Climate Agreement. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, April. Accessed online at Columbia (BC). 2016?. Guidelines for Environmentally Responsible Procurement. website accessed 31 March 2016. Disclosure Project (CDP). 2012. Seven Climate Change Lessons from the Cities of Europe. Chittum, Anna nd Kismohr, Steve. 2014. Combined Heat and Power Playbook. Report Number IE1404. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Accessed online at, L. (2005), “Risk, security, and disaster management”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8, pp. 335-56.Elgström, Ludvig, Erman, Michael, Klindworth, Katharina, and Koenig, Cordelia. 2015. Practices, Tools and Policies: European Cities Moving Towards Climate Neutrality. Katharina Klindworth, ed. Climate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe. City of Stockholm. accessed online at Cities 2014. 30 Energy Cities’ proposals for the energy transition of cities and towns. The European association of local authorities in energy transition (January).REFERENCESPICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 50 of 51 Senbel and PierceGovernment of Canada. 2016. Policy on Green Procurement. Public Works and Government Services Canada (5 Feb). website accessed 31 March 2016., M. and Elander, I. (2007), “Local governance and climate change: reflections on the Swedish experience”, Local Environment, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 537-48.Hellsing, Vanda Úlfrún Liv et al. 2016. NATIONAL INVENTORY REPORT Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in Iceland from 1990 to 2014.Iceland. 2010? Welfare for the Future: Iceland’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development Priorities 2010-2013. pdf. accessed 31 March 2016. available at Europe. 2008. County of Kronoberg, Sweden. Case Study. Northumbria University. Accessed online at – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). 2012. “Reykjavík, Iceland: Green cleaning in the City of Reykjavík.” ICLEI Case Studies 146 (April). pdf. accessed 31 March 2016. available at Kimman, Jacques, Broers, Wendy, and Zindel, Hanneke, eds. 2012 IEA ECBCS Annex 51 – Subtask C.DRAFT Version. June 7.Litfin, Karen T. 2013. Ecovillages: Lessons for Sustainable Community. Cambridge, UK, and Malden, MA: Polity, 2014; 224 pp. (ISBN-13:978-0745679501).Lönngren, Örjan. 2013. Stockholm action plan for climate and ener-gy 2012–2015 with an outlook to 2030. Stockholm Environmentand Health Administration. pdf. Accessed online at[1].pdfLüking, Rolf-Michael, RM Luking, and G. Hauser. 2012. Bauphysik: Using solid wood construction methods in order to reduce emissions affecting the climate; principles and options for reducing the CO2 output created by external building components by using solid wood construction as part of the legal requirements for the energy efficiency of build-ings, part 1. 34, 5 (Oct 1): 204.Matthíasdóttir, Theódóra. 2014. Miljöcertificering af kommunerne i Snæfellsnes [EarthCheck certification of Snæfellsnes]. slide presentation for the Vest Island Centret for Naturhistorie [West-Iceland Institute of Natural History]. (3 Sep). accessed 31 March 2016. available at, S. and Dilling, L. (2004), “Making climate hot: communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change”, Environment, Vol. 45, pp. 32-46.PICS Phase 2 | Community Energy Efficiency 51 of 51 Senbel and PierceOakland, City of. 2012. City of Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan. Dec 4. Accessed online at et al. 2014. “Moving beyond “mitigation and adaptation”: examining climate change responses in New Zealand”, Local Environment, 19 (7): 767-785., G. and Smith, A. (2007), “Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 584-603.Taylor, Peter J. 2012. “Transition towns and world cities: towards green networks of cit-ies”, Local Environment, 17:4, 495-508, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2012.678310Vancouver, City of. 2012. Sustainable purchasing. (30 Aug). website accessed 31 March 2016., P., Haxeltine, A., van de Kerkhof, M. and Ta`bara, J. (2006), “Mainstreaming ac-tion on climate change through participatory appraisal”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 238-59.Weber, Ryan, Fredricsson, Christian, Larsson, Veronique, and Reardon, Mitchell. 2014. “Public Investment and Procurement for Greener Buildings - a handbook for European decision-makers.” Regional Policies Towards Green Buildings. Nordregio: Nordic Centre for Spatial Development (September 14). Accessed Online at, David R. 2011. “Embodied through-life carbon dioxide equivalent assessment for timber products”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy 164:4, 167-182.Zhivov, Alexander, Case, Michael, and Liesen, Richard. 2014. “Energy Master Planning Towards Net-Zero Energy Communities/Campuses”, Transactions NY-14-010. ASHRAE. Accessed online at 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items