Littleton staff presents greenhouse-gas inventory showing about 464,000 metric tons CO2e baseline

Staff presented the findings of a greenhouse‑gas inventory to the Littleton Environmental Stewardship Board, saying the city’s baseline is roughly 464,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year and identifying commercial energy, transportation and residential energy as the largest sectors.

The inventory, compiled with support from ICLEI and using IPCC (2023) emissions factors, separated a community‑wide inventory from a local‑government operations inventory so the city could see which emissions it controls directly. The presenter said commercial energy accounted for the single largest share (about 33.05 percent), transportation and mobile sources were the second largest, and residential energy the third.

The presentation explained scope definitions used in greenhouse‑gas accounting: scope 1 for direct emissions, scope 2 for purchased electricity and heat, and scope 3 for other indirect emissions. The presenter said most of Littleton’s inventory in this first pass covered scope 1 and 2 and that a fuller scope‑3 inventory would require additional resources and a consultant.

The presenter also warned that the local government operations inventory is skewed by Littleton’s joint ownership of the South Platte Renew wastewater facility with Englewood. “We co‑own and co‑operate South Platte Renew with Englewood,” the presenter said, noting that because the city shares operational and financial control of that facility it must claim a share of its emissions in the local‑government inventory even though the facility sits largely in Englewood’s jurisdiction.

Board members and residents asked about accuracy and comparability. The presenter said ICLEI performed a quality‑control check and reported the inventory was within a scientifically valid margin of error — she cited about plus or minus 5 percent and said she would confirm the exact figure. She also acknowledged a presentation slide with numeric formatting problems and said she would circulate a corrected version.

Public commenters and board members emphasized that an inventory is a baseline and not a plan. Resident Pam Chadbourne said she supports tracking emissions but urged clearer links between the inventory and policy options: “I don’t understand the connections between the greenhouse gas inventory and policies and actions that are possible to take,” she said, urging measures on insulation, water use and zoning to avoid heat‑island effects.

The presenter described next steps: climate modeling and “wedge” analysis with ICLEI to identify highest‑impact interventions, development of a climate action plan, and a climate risk and vulnerability assessment to fold mitigation and adaptation together. She asked the board for advocacy help for council consideration and said she would supply the board with a draft letter of support to consider before the plan goes to council.

Board members noted the inventory’s value for prioritizing city actions — for example, fleet electrification, building retrofits and employee commute programs — and discussed timing relative to the city’s budget process. The presenter said that some actions identified would be candidates for funding in upcoming budget cycles but that most policy steps would require further council direction and public engagement.

The presentation and discussion stopped short of recommending binding ordinances; the presenter said the inventory and subsequent climate action planning would inform future proposals that the council would need to consider and adopt.