CB not ready to adopt Climate Action Plan

Still tweaking details

By Mark Reaman 

With about half of the seven-member Crested Butte town council not quite comfortable with the proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) at the February 3 meeting, adoption of the more than 100-page document was put off until the March 3 meeting.

The detailed plan focuses on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction but covered everything from when to require energy assessments of homes, reducing fees for solar energy, how to electrify the town vehicle fleet, to looking at composting and being willing to consider opening a town geothermal plant if the finances worked. Cost effectiveness of the strategies was a priority for the town council in the plan.

The five-year plan includes a carbon emission audit and it is clear that buildings account for 90% of Crested Butte’s emissions “making them the top climate action priority through 2030. As GCEA’s electricity gets cleaner, natural gas in buildings will dominate emissions. Electrification and improving building efficiency are key to cutting emissions, reducing energy demand and lowering renewable energy transition cost,” the plan states.

Councilmember John O’Neal said he wasn’t prepared to vote for a plan that he didn’t know the cost of, so he had asked staff earlier on Monday what the total cost would be estimated to be over the next five years. 

Crested Butte sustainability coordinator Dannah Leeman said that hadn’t been compiled but she could get that information to the council later.

Councilmember Beth Goldstone said while respecting the question, she felt estimated costs were not relevant. “Costs fluctuate and not everything in the plan will start tomorrow. Having hard costs is not part of every other plan,” she said.

“I disagree,” countered mayor Ian Billick. “Other plans don’t have a list of actions with specific timelines.”

Councilmember Anna Fenerty said costs would harden up during the annual budget period. She said having estimated costs would be a good figure to have but the plan could change along with costs.

“I would just have a hard time voting for something if I don’t know what it would cost,” reiterated O’Neal.

Town manager Dara MacDonald did some quick math in regard to both Billick’s and O’Neal’s cost concerns and reported that without the millions of dollars for a geothermal plant, the cost of the plan to the town over five years would be between $398,000 and $520,000.

But it was the idea in the final draft plan to work toward installing expensive renewable energy generation (a geothermal plant) sufficient to meet 100% of anticipated facilitated electricity use in 2030, that raised the hackles of some council members, particularly Billick, at the Monday meeting. That strategy was the most expensive in the plan and came in at between $2.5 and $3.1 million.

“I am worried something like that undercuts our credibility if we have expensive measures that result in minimal impact,” he said. “The town spending $2.5 to $3 million for sustainable energy production doesn’t pass the red-face test. To me it doesn’t feel like a credible plan, and I won’t support the plan if it includes us running a power company.” 

“I know so much work was put into this plan, but I feel in the same place as Ian on this,” said councilmember Anna Fenerty. “We are in dire need to do something but I’m not sure it is this direction.”

Billick pointed out that GHG emissions would be cut drastically if GCEA’s wholesale energy supplier, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, continued on its path to move from coal generated electricity to sustainable energy generation. “The problem now is that Tri-State has a mandate to cut emissions because of the state,” he said. “But the feds control the money they would use to make that transition. And everything is up in the air with that right now. So is $2.5 to $3 million best spent on doing our own plant or is it better spent if there’s the opportunity to help Tri-State make that transition to sustainable electricity which comes with scale? That would be 100 times more impactful.” 

“I agree totally with Ian on this one,” said councilmember Gabi Prochaska. “There is much more power to helping Tri-State move away from coal. I am open to including language that doesn’t close the door to potentially running a plant if the numbers work but that doesn’t seem likely.”

Councilmembers Mallika Magner and Kent Cowherd said they were convinced to lose the power plant strategy based on Billick’s argument.

Billick said he would not object to the staff including language in the plan stating town was open to exploring and analyzing options for such a move in the future but having it in a strategy to be accomplished within five years wasn’t something he would support.

Fenerty said several times she was not ready to adopt the CAP. “With all the changes at the federal level I worry about the plan in general and the big numbers that we are relying on because of potential Tri-State and the GCEA actions that may or may not happen,” she said. “So much of this now is not under our direct control. That’s my hesitation. There is so much we are relying on that is now undetermined at this point. I want to be absolutely concrete on this. It might be my own existential dread, but I want this plan as tight as we can get it.”

“If Tri-State and GCEA don’t make the moves to reduce their emissions, local action becomes even more important as the federal government steps away,” said Leeman.

Billick said he would like it mentioned in the plan that the town is open to pursuing talks with GCEA and Tri-State about possibly having the town contribute to making their shift from coal to sustainable energy sources if the feds don’t. “To me that’s an interesting conversation,” he stated.

With councilmembers Magner, Fenerty and O’Neal clear they weren’t yet ready to approve the plan, the rest of the council agreed to postpone adoption. Council will relook at the next draft of the CAP at the March 3 meeting.