Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technical Analysis Ghg topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants complete deeper analysis of priority policies; county to set interim greenhouse‑gas targets
Summary
Technical teams completed a level‑2 analysis of high‑priority policies (31 items) and will present interim greenhouse‑gas reduction target options at the next advisory meeting; staff cautioned that analyses are high level and implementation will require further work.
Consultant technical teams presented the advisory group with a deeper, level‑2 analysis of the project’s priority policies and said they will propose interim greenhouse‑gas (GHG) reduction targets at the next advisory meeting.
Jenna and consultant leads described how the project used a two‑stage prioritization process: in fall 2024 consultants ran a level‑1 assessment across a broad draft list and produced a set of priority policies. Tracy (technical consultant) said 15 priority greenhouse‑gas policies and a tied set of 16 priority resilience policies (31 total) received a deeper analysis to assess feasibility, co‑benefits, and likely emissions impacts. The greenhouse‑gas level‑2 analysis includes a relative quantified estimate of emissions‑reduction potential for priority GHG policies, staff said.
Consultants cautioned that the level‑2 analysis is still high level and not a project‑level cost estimate. Jenna told members, “we don't have, like, a number, you know, amount of money it will cost to do x because these are such high level policies.” The analyses include qualitative notes on who would likely bear costs, whether costs are up‑front or accrue over time, and implementation considerations.
Tracy said the remaining work is to recommend interim GHG reduction targets — milestones between current emissions and the state-required net‑zero 2050 goal — and that staff will return to the advisory group with options for setting those milestones. Tracy said that conversation will be part of the next meeting and that the consultant tables are available in the project packet for members who want to review technical scoring and the relative effectiveness estimates for priority policies.
Consultants also reported a few specific content changes based on partner agency and public input: for example, the partner agency review and public engagement prompted new food‑security policies to plan for local and regional food distribution (farmers markets, food hubs, food banks) that could operate during climate disruptions, and staff added a policy reference to mobility‑as‑a‑service principles to improve coordinated transportation options. Staff reiterated the analyses are intended to inform member choices and eventual implementation planning, not to prescribe specific projects.
Ending: Staff invited advisory members to review large technical tables in the packet and to request staff support in interpreting the consultant analyses; members will see proposed interim GHG targets at the next meeting.
