Analysis: state and regional policies drive most modeled emissions cuts; local measures and financing still required to close Mountain View’s 2045 gap

Mountain View staff and consultants presented a decarbonization goal analysis to the Council Sustainability Committee that showed state and regional policies account for the majority of modeled emissions reductions through 2045, leaving a persistent gap local actions alone would not close.

A Cascadia Consulting analyst said the team evaluated three scenarios: business as usual (no additional policy), an adjusted business‑as‑usual scenario including state and regional policies, and a local‑action scenario testing roughly nine local measures. “Without any climate policy or interventions through the market, our emissions would grow in Mountain View by 13% by 2045,” the consultant said. Including existing regional and state policies, the consultant said, produced roughly a 59% reduction; modeled local measures added about a 7% reduction on top of that, for a total modeled reduction of about 66%.

The analysis identified four primary drivers of the projected reductions: EV market trends, Bay Area Air District appliance rules, California’s SB100 renewable energy standard, and the state low‑carbon fuel standard. The consultant described the appliance rules as particularly consequential: with full implementation, the Bay Area Air District measures were modeled to drive substantial building‑sector cuts, and building electrification could result in a roughly 92% reduction in building emissions by 2045 in the scenarios the team used.

Staff and committee members discussed where local actions could still matter. The consultant said transportation will remain the largest source of emissions (about 63% of core emissions by 2045), and noted that expanding multifamily EV charging produced the largest modeled transportation reduction (~22,000 metric tons), compared with roughly 4,000 metric tons from outreach and education programs.

Committee members and members of the public pressed staff on the model’s assumptions and financing options. A member asked whether the analysis addresses funding and financing; staff replied that the initial analysis focused on emissions potential rather than implementation funding but that staff included financing and funding opportunities in the preliminary list of local actions and noted existing options such as on‑bill financing through PG&E and pilot programs SVCE pursued. “On‑bill financing is something that exists through PG&E,” Ms. Lee said. She also said Silicon Valley Clean Energy applied to offer pilot on‑bill financing and that the city participated in an RFP for financing services.

Public commenters urged greater transparency in assumptions and scenario updates. One commenter challenged the model’s assumption that EV sales would remain at a 41% share of new vehicle sales year‑over‑year through 2045 and requested a year‑by‑year assumptions list; Mary Daddio asked staff to update the analysis to reflect a reported nine‑month postponement of Bay Area Air District Rule 9‑6 and an expected ~38% exemption rate and to estimate how Mountain View’s exemption rate might compare given its high renter share.

Staff responded that the model is designed to be dynamic and can be adjusted as the regulatory and market landscape changes. “If they ultimately end up at 40% exemptions, we could adjust our model and say, well, what 60% compliance look like instead of a 100%?” a staff member said, adding that no formal action by the Air District had been taken at the time and that staff would track developments and report back.

The committee took no formal vote on the analysis; staff said the next step is to return with a final five‑year prioritization plan to the committee and the city council later this year.