Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br />Commissioner Steinbeck said they are hopeful the recycling and reuse rate will be <br />close to 80% but they will share more information publicly after the project is <br />complete. GRE’s facility has always been important to Elk River as Energy City so it <br />would be a helpful tie in as the site changes to a different use. More to come on this <br />and how it will fit into Energy City’s changing image. <br /> <br />5.2 Social Cost of Carbon <br /> <br />Commissioner Curtis provided more information about the social cost of carbon <br />(SCC) based on discussion from the last meeting. The goal is to eventually bring this <br />information to Council for discussion and possible resolution or actions. The social <br />cost of carbon is a monetary value placed of the economic impacts of adding or <br />reducing one ton of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Commissioner Curtis <br />explained that this metric allows establishes a monetary value for greenhouse gas <br />emissions that can be included in the cost benefit analysis when making decisions. <br />This value could be applied to building codes, property development, renewable <br />energy projects, energy efficiency improvements and more. She explained that <br />monetizing carbon costs can improve the cost benefit analysis of conversation and <br />sustainability initiatives. Including the social cost of carbon value is helpful for <br />understanding energy policy and the long-term impacts for residents and <br />governmental agencies. Commissioner Curtis went on to state that many private <br />businesses including manufacturers are using this to help prioritize projects. The City <br />of Minneapolis is working to utilize their SCC with the goal of reducing greenhouse <br />gas emissions, raise their climate action goals and drive new greenhouse gas <br />reduction implementation pathways. It is possible that the payback requirements may <br />not be met when SCC are included in calculations and decision making. <br />Commissioner Curtis discussed the possibility of the city making a declaration or <br />commitment to a SCC to prioritize projects that reduce carbon overall and include <br />that when evaluating options. <br /> <br />Chair Sagstetter discussed how this could be applied to projects, especially when the <br />focus is often upfront costs and not always considering long term payback. Adding <br />the SCC allows for longer term thinking about cost savings and carbon savings down <br />the road for the overall benefit the project provides. The commission members <br />discussed how best to continue this discussion and share with other staff and council <br />members. Chair Sagstetter shared that the Public Utility Commission has discussed <br />the SCC and created a range of values, rather than picking a specific amount as the <br />City of Minneapolis is working on. Commission Brixius shared that Xcel Energy is <br />required to factor in the high end of the social cost of carbon for their energy <br />planning. Commission Iverson discussed that it would be beneficial to create a <br />specific example to share with city leadership about how this cost would be factored <br />into decision making or discussions. He provided the example of electric vehicles <br />and the carbon reduction from switching to electric or hybrid options. An example <br />like this would help better explain the benefits of the social cost of carbon. <br /> <br />Next steps include finalizing a presentation and providing real life examples of how <br />the SCC would be applied and what the benefits for considering this will be. The <br />goal is to put a value on efficiency and conservation to help drive decision making.