RHODE ISLAND GREENHOUSE GAS ACTION PLAN

PHASE I: Developing a GHG Reduction Framework

DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS:
SCOPING PAPER FOR THE WORKING GROUP ON 
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND-USE

Tellus Institute
December 11, 2001

This paper was prepared by Steve Bernow, Michael Lazarus and Chella Rajan of Tellus Institute	

1.  Summary of Options for Transportation & Land-Use

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS	
1.  Energy efficient vehicle strategies
1.1  General vehicle efficiency
          1.1.1 If national CAFE standards
          1.1.2 10% of above, using local initiatives
1.2  State-owned vehicle efficiency	
2.  Land use and vehicle miles traveled strategies
2.1  Transit oriented development
2.2  Expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures
2.3  Commuting efficiency
2.4  Reducing commuting trips	
3.  Land use related carbon sequestration
3.1  Cropland management and conversion
          3.1.1 Conversion of marginal cropland to forest
          3.1.2 Conversion of marginal cropland to wetlands
          3.1.3 Conservation/low tillage farming
          3.1.4 Low input agriculture and improved cropping systems
3.2  Forest management 
3.3  Urban/Suburban Land Management 
          3.3.1 Urban and community forestry
          3.3.2 Open space protection	
4.  Other strategies
4.1  Promote smaller autos
4.2  Increase the gasoline tax
4.3  Create VMT-based insurance premium structures
4.4  Fleet fuel GHG content mandate	

2.  The Role of Options for Transportation and Land-Use

The project team presented a preliminary set of options to the second Stakeholders meeting for the RI GHG Action Plan process. In Section 1, we list a revised set of options for the Transportation and Land-Use sector, reflecting feedback received from Stakeholders as well as continued research by the project team. These are still preliminary options that are intended to provide a point of departure for the Transportation and Land-Use Working Group’s identification and assessment of options to include in a state climate change action plan.

Options are designed to change human use of technologies in ways that reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Options represent actions that combine two elements: (1) policies, programs, or projects, and (2) technologies and/or the ways in which people use them. In this paper, both the technological changes and the policy or programmatic components they entail are characterized in broad ways, using representative technologies or the main outlines of initiatives to affect technology use.  Thus each option sets out a key strategy that would need to be refined and specified further at the level of state implementation.

It is critical that options be concrete enough that plausible projections of their costs and effects can be developed for consideration by policymakers. Therefore, we have explicitly identified the technological and policy assumptions for each option.

The Tellus team has prepared a baseline forecast of Rhode Island’s use of energy and emission of energy-related GHGs. The baseline includes expected trends in economic growth, technical innovation, and policies that are relatively fixed from a state perspective. Therefore, some improvements in how Rhode Islanders use energy-related technologies over time are included in the baseline forecast.

The options presented here, by contrast, reflect new policies and programs, and their impacts relative to the baseline forecast. This scoping paper identifies what policies or programs are considered fixed, which are considered options, and the basis for distinguishing the two. As the Working Groups and Stakeholder Group shape priority options for inclusion in a climate change action plan, Tellus will reflect them in a climate change action forecast of state energy use and related GHG emissions that will be developed and compared with the baseline forecast.

In the balance of Section 2, the current set of options is described briefly.  We also provide a broad background discussion on transportation and land/use options related to transportation, and land-use options relating specifically to carbon sequestration.  Section 3 then presents each option in greater detail.

In Section 4, we provide two summary rankings. One lists options in order of their cost of saved carbon. The other lists them in the order of the amount of carbon saved.

1.  Vehicle energy efficiency strategies. These options promote acquisition of higher efficiency light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty vehicles. 
1.1	General Vehicle Efficiency.    This option promotes all households, businesses, and agencies acquiring the most fuel-efficient vehicles: high m.p.g. models, hybrid electric vehicles, and (later) fuel cell vehicles. 
1.1.1	National Level CAFE standards.
1.1.2	State-level incentives to improve vehicle efficiency, including a fee/rebate system for purchase of fuel-efficient light duty vehicles or speed limit enforcement programs. 
1.2	State-owned vehicle efficiency. This option promotes acquisition of the most fuel efficient vehicles for state agencies. It may employ a “green fleets” executive order for procurement of fleet vehicles, or other efficiency standards for state-owned vehicle fleets.

2. Land use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) strategies
2.1	Transit oriented development. This option promotes development requiring less auto use. It may employ incentives for arterial development and high density and mixed use zoning or, conversely, control the amount of parking built and operated in an area.
2.2	Expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures. This option would create more bicycle lanes and paths, as well as pedestrian malls and walkways. Grant programs or regulations may be used to shape municipal action. 
2.3	Commuting efficiency. Increase high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities and park-and-ride lots; give HOVs priority in constrained parking situations and reserve desirable parking locations for HOVs; provide fare reductions for use of transit at commuting levels.
2.4	Reducing commuting. Provide incentives for telecommuting, including employer-shared local tele-working centers (full-service facilities close to home that provide a professional work environment, including internet and tele-conferncing, to employees), and internet commerce.

3.  Land use and carbon sequestration.  Policies, programs, and practices can increase the carbon sequestered in forested, agricultural, as well as developed lands.  While potential potent methods for removing carbon from the atmosphere, they need to be considered carefully, since more than other mitigation options they present accounting challenges.  This is because: a) carbon sequestration may not be permanent (since land uses can change and natural events can damage forests); and b) curtailed or modified land use activities, such as residential and commercial development, may “leak” to other states, if the demand for these activities is not otherwise satisfied.  Options for this sector are grouped as follows.

3.1	Cropland management and conversion.  Alternative farming practices such as conservation tillage improved soil fertility can help to retain carbon in the soil and also reduce fossil fuel consumed by farm equipment.  Conversion of marginal farmlands to forest offers the potential for much higher sequestration rates.
3.2	Forest management.  Changing forest management practices can help forests grow faster or retain more biomass above or within the soil layer, thus sequestering carbon from the atmosphere.  Longer rotations, species selection, optimum stocking, low-impact harvesting, safeguarding regeneration (e.g. from pests and fire), fertilization, and weed control are among the specific techniques that can be used.  Legislative frameworks for forest management could be expanded to include the objective of protecting forests as carbon sinks.
3.3	Urban/Rural Land Management. Urban and community forestry and open space protection not only provide numerous local benefits, but can also be powerful measures for retaining and increasing carbon stocks in Rhode Island.  Furthermore, urban trees can provide considerable energy savings.  They shade buildings in the summertime, reducing air conditioning loads, and slow chilling winter winds, lowering heating bills. 

4.	Other strategies. Miscellaneous options to reduce the GHG consequences of transportation:
4.1  Promote smaller autos. This is a life style-oriented option. For example, excise taxes could be reinstated based on weight, not value.
4.2  Increase the gasoline tax to internalize the costs of driving in fuel prices.
4.3  Maintain and enhance VMT-based insurance premium structures.
4.4	Fleet fuel GHG content mandate. This would force additional use of alternative fuels (e.g., ethanol, LPG, CNG, fuel cell, electric).

GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies from Transportation

GHG emissions from transportation in Rhode Island include emissions from personal cars and light-trucks, buses, rail, trucks, marine vessels, pipelines and aviation.  The options we have considered are restricted to personal transportation for two reasons.  First, we expect state policy to have much greater jurisdiction over personal transportation and transit than any of the other modes.  Second, personal transportation dominates the sector in terms of energy use and GHG emissions.  

We recognize that GHG emissions from personal transportation are affected by a number of factors, some of which are influenced by regulation and technology, and others by personal decisions and community planning.  Urban transportation modes, technologies and fuels, as well as land-use, infrastructure, and pricing, all of which affect household choices, figure prominently in GHG emissions growth and opportunities to slow or arrest that growth. The choice (or mix) of transportation modes (car, bus, rail, bicycle, walking) for household activities (commuting to work, shopping, leisure, etc.), the organization of trips, and the choice of vehicle and vehicle fuel will have different GHG impacts, which will depend on evolving technological, infrastructural, and regulatory conditions.    These complex relationships are represented schematically below.   

Land use, forestry and carbon sequestration

The notion of carbon sequestration lies at the heart of many proposed GHG mitigation activities in the agriculture, forestry, and land use sectors.  Similar to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, sequestering carbon dioxide in biomass can help to avert the dangerous buildup of this greenhouse gas.  The natural growth of plants and soil microorganisms converts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into biomass carbon.   Once this plant matter dies and either decomposes (e.g. as fallen branches on the forest floor) or is combusted (e.g. as logs in a woodstove), it releases carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere.  If this cycle is unbroken, a sort of carbon balance is maintained between biomass and atmosphere.     

However, it is possible to alter this balance with either positive or negative implications for carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.  By storing greater amounts of carbon in biomass – in more heavily stocked forests, through litter buildup on forest floors, leaving soils undisturbed, or preserving wood and plant products for long periods -- atmospheric carbon levels can be reduced, slowing human-induced climate change.   Reducing biomass cover (e.g. through fire, tree pests, or conversion of forests and farms to urban or suburban development) or disturbing soils (e.g. though extensive plowing) can have the opposite effect, adding carbon to the atmosphere and accelerating climate change.  

Land use activities can also increase or decrease the formation and release of methane gas.  Methane, which is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, is released by decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen.  These conditions can occur in wetlands, landfills, as well as in the digestive tracts of farm animals.  Thus, attention needs to be paid to the overall net effect of measures that might increase the extent of wetlands or the amount of waste landfilled.  

Forestry and agriculture activities can also produce biomass fuels, including conventional wood fuels used in stoves and boilers and advanced feedstocks such as switchgrass or hybrid poplars grown to produce ethanol or other alternative fuels.  It is important to note that if biomass is used as a fuel, and it is sustainably harvested, the balance of carbon stored in forests or farms and in the atmosphere is more or less unchanged.  Biomass-derived fuels could be solid (wood, bagasse, corn husk, etc.), liquid (biodiesel or ethanol), or gaseous (producer gas, biogas), and could be used for a number of industrial and commercial heating applications as well as for generating electricity.  The carbon dioxide emitted from combustion of biomass is effectively recaptured by the re-growth of trees or energy crops.  At the same time, biomass fuels can be used to substitute for oil, gas, or coal, and thus avoid the long-lived carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion.  As a result, the use of Rhode Island forests and farms to grow biomass fuels, and the conversion of vehicles, boilers, and other combustion equipment to use them, are important strategies for the state to consider. 

With all measures to sequester carbon – forest management, cropland conversion, or urban forestry –efforts must be made to ensure the permanence of the increased carbon stocks.  This is especially true if credit is to be taken in a fashion equivalent to reduced fossil fuel emissions.  Sequestration from streamside planting or faster growing forests could be wiped out by fire, pests, or changes in allowable use.  Forests and other lands protected from development today could, under changed circumstances, be plowed under for buildings or parking lots.  In contrast, a conservation or renewable energy project that directly substitutes for fossil fuel use makes a more or less permanent reduction in atmospheric carbon.  Among those involved in climate policy locally and internationally, there is significant controversy over the possible use of biomass carbon sequestration instead of, rather than in addition to, deep reductions in fossil fuel combustion, especially in the face of emissions targets that appear weak relative to the need for climate stabilization.

Therefore, if carbon sequestration measures are ultimately included in the Rhode Island Climate Action Plan, the possibility of discounting the GHG benefits from these measures should be carefully considered.   A related issue with land use and forestry projects is leakage, the possibility that land use activities limited within Rhode Island, might simply migrate to nearby Connecticut or Massachusetts counties or to elsewhere in the world, thus negating any apparent GHG mitigation benefits.   The possibility for leakage, and means to assure that is adequately accounted for, should be considered closely as well.

3.  Characterization of Options for Transportation and Land-Use
This section consists of one-by-one characterizations of options identified to reduce GHGs from Rhode Island’s transportation and land-use conditions and activities. These begin on the next page, with option 1.1. The table accompanying each option description contains a number of key quantitative and qualitative characteristics. These are:
•	The cost of saved energy (CSE) for each option. The CSE measures the increase in costs required to install an energy-savings option, divided by its lifetime energy savings. It is a gross cost, and does not reflect savings in energy supply costs. It is calculated by converting the additional cost of the more efficient equipment, the lower carbon content fuel, the travel mode shift or reduced driving into a series of annual payments over the lifetime of the option, and dividing this annual cost by annual energy savings.
•	The amount of energy saved in 2020. This is the total amount of energy estimated to be saved by an option in the year 2020 as a result of all implementations of the option from 2002 (or later) and on through 2020.
•	The reduction in emissions of carbon to the atmosphere in 2020. As with energy savings in 2020, this is a total impact based on cumulative implementation of an option through 2020.
	The cost of saved carbon (CSC) is the net cost of the option divided by the carbon reductions for the option.

Note that each transportation option has additional benefits besides saving energy and reducing carbon emissions, particularly reductions in other air pollutants that are harmful to human health, the economy and the environment (e.g., water bodies, forests, and wildlife) These include fine particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and ozone, as well as several harmful organic gases and air toxics. Since GHG reductions will most likely be associated with reduced combustion of gasoline, they will produce additional benefits in the form of reductions in local air pollution.  The first table in Section 4 includes estimates of the monetary value of the air pollution “co-benefits” associated with each option. 

VEHICLE EFFICIENCY STRATEGIES OPTION 1.1 -- GENERAL FUEL EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS

Fuel economy standards for motor vehicles are most appropriate and realistic if implemented at the federal level.  Currently, national Corporate Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new light-duty cars and light-trucks are 27.5 and 20.7 miles per gallon, respectively, and these have remained virtually unchanged since the early 1980s.  At the same time the recent rapid shift of the vehicle fleet to light trucks (e.g., SUVs), combined with continued increases in vehicle miles traveled, have eroded the energy savings and emissions reductions that could otherwise have been expected from these modest standards. Several recent studies have indicated that new vehicle technologies exist with fuel economy from 25 to over 100 percent higher than the current standards, and that such improvements could be had at reasonable capital costs that could be recovered and exceeded by users through savings in fuel costs.  

Within this option, we consider two possibilities.  In the first instance, we assume the emergence of new CAFE legislation that would require the fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles to improve by around 100 percent by 2020.  Political support from local and state governments (including coordinated support from New England states) for such federal action can play an important role in breaking the current deadlock in CAFE standards.

The second possibility is that even if national standards were not raised, Rhode Island’s own efforts to encourage fuel efficiency through tax incentives to vehicle owners to purchase vehicles with higher than average fuel economy would result in roughly 10% of the fuel savings of altered national CAFE standards.

Feebates are a financial incentive to encourage purchasers of cars and light duty trucks to take more account of either the energy efficiency or emissions of their motor vehicles. A combination of fee and rebate, the concept applies a sliding scale cost that is either added to, or subtracted from, the purchase price of a new vehicle. Purchases of cars that are highly efficient and low polluting would earn a rebate, while those of cars with poor fuel economy and high emissions would pay a fee.  

Feebate legislation in Rhode Island would be a way to for the state to address both local pollution and climate change through a market mechanism. Feebates produce incentives to both purchasers and manufacturers. Since they reduce the cost of efficient and low polluting vehicles, feebates provide a strong and immediate market signal for consumers to buy more of these vehicles, thereby shifting the sales mix. The presence of a feebate system provides manufacturers with a long-term incentive to incorporate more fuel-efficient and pollution control technologies, thereby gradually affecting the product mix available to the consumer.  Although a feebate in Rhode Island per se would not affect the auto industry, a coordinated regional policy would create a significant market force to cause the industry to be encouraged to develop a niche for more fuel-efficient vehicles.  Moreover, if combined with the following option, government procurement of more efficient and less polluting vehicles, the impacts of the feebate incentive system on consumer vehicle choices could be enhanced by the demonstration and educational impacts of that complementary policy.

OPTION 1.1.1 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Improved national CAFE standards.	
Sector and market	All light-duty vehicles	
Technical elements	Improved materials, engine efficiency, advanced technology, including hybrids 	
Buydown program elements	None 	
Existing policy/program	National level CAFE legislation	
Rationale	Reduce carbon emissions as well as oil dependence.	
Energy saved in 2020	13 trillion BTU (103 million gallons) in gasoline savings	
CSE (cost of saved energy)	$4.69/MMBTU ($0.53/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	250,000 tonnes.	
CSC (cost of saved CO2)	-$300/tonne (2000$).  	

OPTION 1.1.2 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	State incentives to raise the average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased in the state (including feebates).	
Sector and market	All light-duty vehicles	
Technical elements	Improved materials, engine efficiency, advanced technology, including hybrids 	
Buydown program elements	None 	
Existing policy/program	Sales tax incentives for purchasing high efficiency vehicles – revenue neutral feebates 	
Rationale	Reduce carbon emissions as well as oil dependence.	
Energy saved in 2020	1.3 trillion BTU (10.3 million gallons) in gasoline savings	
CSE (cost of saved energy)	$4.69/MMBTU ($0.53/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	25,000 tonnes.	
CSC (cost of saved CO2)	-$300/tonne (2000$).  	

VEHICLE EFFICIENCY STRATEGIES OPTION 1.2 –GOVERNMENT FLEET VEHICLE EFFICIENCY

Local governments as well as the state can adopt a number of “green fleet” policies, including optimizing efficiency of use, purchasing cleaner vehicles, promoting alternative fuels, etc.  Such policies are in effect in many cities around the United States, including Denver, Madison, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. 

OPTION 1.2 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Government fleet vehicle efficiency.	
Sector and market	Fleet vehicles in local and state governments	
Technical elements	Procurement specifications. 	
Policy/program elements	Stakeholder processes, commitments	
Existing policy/program	None	
Rationale	Government sets a good example to help develop a market for cleaner vehicles, to reduce dependence on gasoline while reducing GHGs 	
Energy saved in 2020	1.3 trillion BTU (10.3 million gallons) in gasoline savings	
CSE (cost of saved energy)	Not computed	
Carbon saved in 2020	<25,000 tonnes.	
CSC (cost of saved CO2)	-$300/tonne (2000$).  	

LAND USE AND VMT STRATEGIES OPTION 2.1 – TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) focuses on urban design to maximize access by transit.  When successful, TOD can reduce automobile use and associated pollution, increase access, create socially and physically more attractive neighborhoods, and increase productivity.  Examples of successful TOD include King County (www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/alts/tod/todindex.htm) in Washington state and Maplewood, New Jersey (www.stationfoundation.org ).

In Rhode Island, the city of Providence has been trying to encourage people to move back downtown since the early 1990s, by promoting walkability, allowing mixed-use zoning, and increasing transit access.  The city is undertaking a major neighborhood revitalization effort in the Olneyville neighborhood, with special emphasis on transit and inter-modal facilities.  We expect the TOD option to extend the planning concepts used in Olneyville to other communities with compact, mixed-use developments situated at or around transit stops and location-efficient development. Such developments would comprise housing, office, neighborhood retail, and civic uses, and be built to become pedestrian-friendly, human-scale communities.

A total saving of 75,000 tonnes of carbon was computed for all the Land-Use and VMT strategies taken together.  Since this was hard to disaggregate further, we have indicated in the summary tables below that each individual option would save a “fraction of 75,000 tonnes.”  

OPTION 2.1 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Transit Oriented Development	
Sector and market	Urban zoning, transit operators	
Technical elements	Minimal – primarily integrated land-use zoning and transit planning	
Policy/program elements	Coordinated support of local governments, private developers and transit agencies	
Existing policy/program	Extension of existing Providence programs, with Smart Growth elements	
Rationale	Increase access, reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs sprawl, congestion and local air pollution 	
Energy saved in 2020	Fraction of 31 million gallons (3.6 trillion BTU)	
CSE	$0.48/MMBTU ($0.05/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	Fraction of 75,000 tonnes 	
CSC	-$500/tonne (2000$).  	

Land use and VMT strategies OPTION 2.2 –Expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures 

In this option, we consider expanding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures through improved paths and bike lanes, taking measures to address specific roadway hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes, etc.) and improve security for cyclists and pedestrians, providing a better connected street network and clustered development, imposing speed and vehicle restrictions for motorized modes (traffic calming), and providing safety education to all road users.

Examples of communities making serious efforts to expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures include Copenhagen (www.cios.com), Portland, OR (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/traffic_management/bicycle_program/BikeMasterPlan/Default.htm), and New York (www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dcp/html/bndprods.html#b and www.transalt.org/blueprint).

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation and DEM have a Bicycle/Pedestrian Program that plans, designs, and constructs bicycle paths and walking trails; designates on-road bicycle lanes and routes through signing and striping; and distributes educational and other materials.  In 2000, the DEM and DOT began building an additional 3.5 miles of the Blackstone River Bikeway and designed 7 more miles, and work continued in 2001 on this segment of the project. When completed, the 17.1 mile Blackstone River Bikeway will stretch from Pawtucket to Woonsocket, and eventually to Worcester, Massachusetts. It is being constructed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and managed by DEM.  The Department also began design for a ten-mile bikeway to connect Providence and Cranston to the Connecticut border through Coventry. This bikeway will be part of the East Coast Greenway, a planned 2,500 mile connection linking East Coast Cities from Maine to Florida.

This program could be expanded further through better integration of bikes with transit, by increasing the length of bicycle lanes, and through policies to encourage bike and pedestrian use in the central business district of Providence through traffic calming and vehicle restrictions, and the innovative use of human-scale street furniture and design (including benches, green traffic islands, street lights, etc.).  

OPTION 2.2 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Expand Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructures	
Sector and market	Urban zoning	
Technical elements	Minimal – primarily integrated land-use zoning, roadway and sidewalk improvements, and bikeways where feasible and desirable	
Policy/program elements	Coordinated support of local governments, private developers and transit agencies	
Existing policy/program	Extension of state DOT program, with Smart Growth elements	
Rationale	Increase access, reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs congestion and local air pollution	
Energy saved in 2020	Fraction of 31 million gallons (3.6 trillion BTU)	
CSE	$0.48/MMBTU ($0.05/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	Fraction of 75,000 tonnes 	
CSC	-$500/tonne (2000$).  	

Land use and VMT strategies OPTION 2.3 – COMMUTING EFFICIENCY

This option considers a number of incentives to improve the efficiency of commuting trips, through special High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) facilities, transit subsidies/vouchers, Park-and-Ride lots, and Guaranteed Ride Home programs to provide an occasional subsidized ride home to commuters who use alternative modes

HOV facilities can be implemented by adding new road capacity designated for HOVs.  They include highway and arterial lanes, High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, preferred parking spaces or parking fee discounts provided to rideshare vehicles.

Examples of programs to improve commuting efficiency include the King County METRO Commute Partnership Program (http://transit.metrokc.gov), Puget Sound HOV expressways (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/northwest/hovpage/hovmain.htm), and the New Zealand Bus Priority System (www.akcity.govt.nz/around/transport/transport_strategies/buses_first)
 
RIPTA currently provides incentives for HOVs such as preferred parking, Guaranteed Ride Home programs, and limited HOV lanes.  RIPTA, DEM and DOT have also jointly developed a program to provide free bus service on days when high levels of ozone are likely.  Further expansion of these programs would include policies that provide for transit subsidies and parking cash-outs, and encourage vanpools.

Another potential way to improve commuting efficiency is to introduce policies to encourage station cars, which is a particular form of car sharing, where several individuals have “shares” in a single car and are charged only on the basis of how much they use it.  For instance, commuters who might otherwise drive long distances to work would have incentives to drive to nearby transit stations and take station cars at the other end to their workplaces.  Station cars may be electric vehicles and require charging facilities near their parking spaces and intelligent electronics for managing reservations, access, user accounts, queques, and station car fleets.

OPTION 2.3 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Commuting Efficiency	
Sector and market	Transportation	
Technical elements	HOV facilities and scheduling/monitoring systems, charging infrastructure and intelligent electronics for station car/shared cars	
Policy/program elements	Coordinated support of state and federal DOT, local governments, transit agencies	
Existing policy/program	Extension of RIPTA, with Smart Growth elements	
Rationale	Increase access, reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs, congestion and local air pollution	
Energy saved in 2020	Fraction of 31 million gallons (3.6 trillion BTU)	
CSE	$0.48/MMBTU ($0.05/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	Fraction of 75,000 tonnes 	
CSC	-$500/tonne (2000$).  	

Land use and VMT strategies OPTION 2.4 – REDUCING COMMUTING TRIPS

This option differs from Option 2.3 in that it provides incentives to reduce vehicular trips through telecommunications, telecommuting (including employer-shared local centers) and internet commerce, all of which can substitute for physical travel.  

Arizona is one of several states that have implemented a telecommuting program at the state level, with the goal of having 15% of government employees in Maricopa County actively participating (http://www.teleworkarizona.com).

Telecommuting is one of several options included in the Rhode Island State Guide Plan (in both the transportation and energy elements).  State government policies to encourage flex-time and tele-working could help prime similar efforts in the private sector.

OPTION 2.4 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Reducing Commuting Trips	
Sector and market	Industrial and Commercial facilities where telecommunications can partially or fully substitute for employee trips	
Technical elements	Remote tele-working facilities, high-speed connectivity	
Policy/program elements	Coordinated support of governments, businesses, employers, employees and labor organizations	
Existing policy/program	No state policy, but private initiatives that could benefit from state support	
Rationale	Reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs, congestion and local air pollution	
Energy saved in 2020	Fraction of 31 million gallons (3.6 trillion BTU)	
CSE	$0.48/MMBTU ($0.05/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	Fraction of 75,000 tonnes 	
CSC	-$500/tonne (2000$).  	

LAND USE AND FORESTRY OPTION 3.1: 
CROPLAND MANAGEMENT AND CONVERSION

In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops, primarily silage, potatoes, and hay.  Agricultural land, including pasture, was in general decline for decades, including a drop from 62,000 to 51,000 acres from 1970 to 1988.  However, recent Department of Agriculture statistics suggest that during the 1990s land under farming has recently grown, increasing 11 percent from 49,601 acres in 1992 to 55,256 acres in 1997. The number of full time farms also increased 11 percent, from 333 farms in 1992 to 370 farms in 1997.   This suggests that active cropping will continue, and that opportunities to remove or reduce GHG emissions should be investigated.

Option 3.1.1. Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest  

In Rhode Island, as throughout the US, there are marginal farmlands, land that is either unsuitable or unprofitable for farming in today’s market.  There are competing viewpoints on how to manage these lands from a public policy perspective, given that farms, even if not actively managed, provide cultural, aesthetic and open space benefits.  At the same time, converting such lands to permanent cover, such as grasses, trees, or wetlands, can reduce farm fuel and chemical use, the emissions associated with their manufacture and use, as well as non-point source pollution and soil erosion.   Conversion of marginal farmlands to forest can increase soil and above ground carbon levels by 1 to 3 tonnes of C per acre per year, depending on the ultimate land cover.  A recent report by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) cites a figure of 19,400 acres for marginal cropland and pasture in Rhode Island. If all this land was converted to forest over the next 20 years, 19,000-58,000 tonnes of C per year could be removed by 2020. 

The potential costs and feasibility of conversion depend in part on the policies used to compensate farmers, and the on tax treatment and financial viability of the avoided farming.  Policies and programs to retire marginal farmland are well established, with the long history of programs such as the Soil Bank and the Conservation Reserve Program to draw upon.   The CRP, for instance, provides cost-sharing for land preparation and planting as well as land rentals that average $50/acre-yr.   Assuming similar payments were required in Rhode Island, the resulting cost would be about $25/tC.

OPTION 3.1.1 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use 	
Option name	Conversion of marginal cropland to forest	
Sector and market	Agriculture 	
Technical elements	Tree planting; site restoration; rental payments or other arrangements with farmers	
Policy/program elements	Financial incentives to farmers 	
Existing policy/program	National Conservation Reserve Program	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration	
Carbon saved in 2020	40,000 tonnes C	
CSC (cost of saved C)	$25/tonne (rental payments only)	

Option 3.1.2  Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Wetland.  

Conversion of cropland to wetland can result in gains of 0.06 to 0.14 tonnes C/acre-yr.  (STAAPA/ALAPCO, 1999).  However, wetlands also can create anaerobic conditions that result in methane emissions, which can ultimately offset any gains from carbon sequestration on a net GWP basis.  While the creation of new – or restoration of original – wetlands could provide many ecological benefits, we do not suggest that this option be considered a GHG mitigation option until the further research is done to establish the net GHG balance (carbon sequestration net of potential methane emissions) from newly created Rhode Island wetlands.  Site-specific research would be required to establish this balance and is thus beyond the scope of this effort.

OPTION 3.1.2 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use 	
Option name	Conversion of marginal cropland to wetland	
Sector and market	Agriculture and Forestry	
Technical elements	Wetland restoration; rental payments or other arrangements with farmers	
Policy/program elements	Financial incentives to farmers 	
Existing policy/program	National Conservation Reserve Program	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration, wetland restoration	
Carbon saved in 2020	<1500 tonnes C (assuming no offsets from methane emissions)	
CSC (cost of saved C)	$25/tonne (assuming rental payments only)	

Option 3.1.3  Conservation/Low Tillage Farming.

Conservation or low tillage farming reduces both soil erosion and the loss of soil carbon.  By aerating the soil, plowing increases the oxidation of soil carbon.  The practice of conservation tillage has grown rapidly, particularly in the Midwestern and Plains states where wind erosion is a major concern, and now accounts for nearly 37% of all acres planted in the US.  Conservation tillage has the attraction of reducing operating costs while providing soil benefits.  In addition to sequestering about 0.22 tonnes C per acre per year, conservation tillage also reduces diesel use by 3.5 gallons per acre-year on average.  

OPTION 3.1.3 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use	
Option name	Conservation/Low Tillage Farming	
Sector and market	Agriculture 	
Technical elements	Changes in tillage and planting techniques; reduced plowing	
Policy/program elements	Education and outreach 	
Existing policy/program	?	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration, soil erosion	
Carbon saved in 2020	<2500 tonnes C  (assuming no more than 10,000 acres at 0.22-27 tC/acre) 	
CSC (cost of saved C)	Net economic benefit from a social perspective.  Conservation tillage credits are selling in ERC market for about $2-$6/tonne.	

Option 3.1.4  Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems.  

Low input farming techniques, such as integrated pest management and organic farming, have been discussed as a GHG mitigation options (e.g., STAAPA/ALAPCO, 1999).  However, there are little data from which to base the amount of possible reductions, which might result from the reduced application of nitrogen fertilizers (lower N2O emissions) and the incorporation and retention of more organic matter in the soil (C sequestration).  STAAPA/ALAPCO (1999) estimates that other improved cropping techniques such as cover crops and increased fertility could remove about 0.02-0.06 tC/acre-yr.

OPTION 3.1.4 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use	
Option name	Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems	
Sector and market	Agriculture and Forestry	
Technical elements	Minimal	
Policy/program elements	Education and outreach 	
Existing policy/program	None?	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration	
Carbon saved in 2020	<400 tonnes C  (assuming no more than 10,000 acres at 0.02-0.06 tC/acre) 	
CSC (cost of saved C)	Net economic benefit from a social perspective.  Conservation tillage credits are selling in ERC market for about $2-$6/tonne.	

LAND USE AND FORESTRY OPTION 3.2 –
FOREST MANAGEMENT

Forest management is an often-touted mechanism for sequestering carbon. Changing forest management practices can help forests grow faster or retain more biomass above or within the soil layer.  Longer rotations, species selection, optimum stocking, low-impact harvesting, safeguarding regeneration (e.g. from pests and fire), fertilization, and weed control are among the specific techniques that can be used.  In fact, many of these methods are already in wide use today, and are an important reason that US forests are sequestering nearly 288 million tonnes C per year, an amount equal to about 20% of national carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion.  Some estimates have pegged the role of forest management activities themselves at about 100-200 million tonnes C per year, more than 5% of US current net GHG emissions.  The large magnitude of these figures, and the fact that many forest management techniques are already “business-as-usual” practices -- or that they should be for reasons intrinsic to sound forest stewardship -- have led many to question whether they should be considered valid mitigation measures in the context of the Kyoto Protocol or local emissions targets.  

Compared with the US as a whole, forest management has a more limited role and potential in the Northeast, and specifically within Rhode Island.  Northeast forests have been storing carbon annually through their net growth.  The Rhode Island inventory estimates that growth in existing forests increases the stock of carbon by 56,000 tonnes C per year, only 0.02% of the total annual sequestration in the US.  Moreover, some suggest that this rate of accumulation cannot be increased very much (Irland and Cline, 1999).  Only 2% of Northeast forests are cut each year, leaving limited opportunity to improve tree selection and harvest techniques, implement longer rotations, or effect other changes in management practice.  Furthermore, total forest area has been declining steadily due to urban and suburban development.  Nonetheless, there are still opportunities for boosting stand growth rates, and carbon storage in existing forests, especially given the fact that forests still account for 45% of Rhode Island’s total acreage. (Reducing forest loss and urban forestry are discussed separately below).   Options include:

•	Establishing new plantings, forests or plantations (for fuel or fiber).  Some states have programs underway to establish streamside and other riparian plantings in order to provide multiple environmental benefits, including reduced silting and erosion.  Abandoned farmland can also be planted for short or long-rotation woody crops, either for biomass energy, pulp and lumber mill feedstocks, often using fast-growing species.  These efforts can be supported by state policy, and possibly by federal farm funding. 

•	Increasing biomass in existing forests.  Forest practice regulations could be modified to require prompter re-vegetation of cut areas, or restricting harvest in riparian areas. The overall potential and policy priority of such changes is considered to be relatively minor. (Irland and Cline, 1999)   

We have yet to find site-specific analyses on which to base estimates for potentials and costs for these measures in Rhode Island.  The general carbon sequestration literature suggests that forest management projects cost from near zero to over $40/tC, depending on method, forest type, and growth assumptions.  

OPTION 3.2 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use	
Option name	Forest Management	
Sector and market	Forestry	
Technical elements	Improved practices adopted by landowners and users; Establishment of new forests and plantings 	
Policy/program elements	Forest management regulations to support greater biomass retention; support for local landowners 	
Existing policy/program	State and federal conservation programs	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration	
Carbon saved in 2020	No estimate	
CSC (cost of saved C)	Near zero to over $40/tonne	

LAND USE AND FORESTRY OPTION 3.3  –
URBAN/SUBURBAN LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Option 3.3.1 - Urban and Community Forestry 

Given that about 30% of Rhode Island land is already developed, managing and enhancing its tree cover is a natural carbon sequestration strategy with multiple benefits and broad popular appeal.  Urban and community trees can remove both conventional pollutants and carbon dioxide from the air.  They provide shading that is not only aesthetic but also practical, reducing urban heat island effects, and producing real improvements in summer comfort levels and savings in air conditioning bills of 10-50% (STAAPA/ALAPCO, 1999).  They can also reduce winter heat loss by lowering low-level wind speeds.  In general, these energy savings produce considerably more GHG benefit (through avoided use of fossil fuels for air conditioning and heat) than the carbon sequestered through growth each year.

The US Forest Service provides grants and support to urban and rural tree planting and landscape improvements through its America the Beautiful Program, the Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, the Forest Stewardship Program, and Stewardship Incentive Program.  In addition, there are numerous non-profit, private, and community based programs and foundations that support tree planting activities throughout the state.  The RI DEM’s Division of Forest Environment’s Urban and Community Forestry Program is charged with coordination, and 1999 issued the Rhode Island Urban and Community Forest Plan.

According to the Plan, “Rhode Island’s urban and community forests face a variety of challenges. Among the key issues are lack of knowledge of the value of trees, insufficient data on tree resources, little or no legal protection for tree resources, insufficient investment in tree resources, and lack of foresight and planning for protection of tree resources in concert with new development.”  

To tackle these challenges, the Plan has laid out a set of targets and strategies, among them, strengthened legal protection for tree resources.  For example, only one quarter of Rhode Island municipalities have tree ordinances, which require that significant tree resources be identified, maintained, and replaced if damaged or removed.  Municipalities in some parts of the US are now extending these ordinances to include trees on private lands.   The plan suggests several enhancements to ordinances, legislation, and zoning to enhance the urban and community tree resource.

Rhode Island and its communities should seek to manage the state’s urban and community forests as follows:
•	the state as an entirety should seek to maintain forest land cover at approximately 55 percent of total land area through the year 2020.
•	communities having 50 percent or higher forest land cover in the 1995 land use survey, should seek to avoid a more than 2 percent decrease below their 1995 baseline of forest land cover through the year 2020.
•	communities having 20-49 percent forest land cover in the 1995 land use survey, should seek to increase their forest land cover by 4 percent over the 1995 baseline by the year 2010, and by 8 percent over the 1995 baseline by 2020.
•	communities having less than 20 percent forest land cover in the 1995 land use survey, should seek to increase their forest land cover by 2 percent over the 1995 baseline by 2010, and by 5 percent over the 1995 baseline by 2020.

Overall, the plan is to enhance tree canopy by 5-8% by 2020 in 24 urban/suburban communities.

OPTION 3.3.1 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use 	
Option name	Urban Forestry	
Sector and market	Urban and Community Forestry	
Technical elements	Tree planting; enhanced protection and management of existing trees and forests	
Policy/program elements	Raise awareness to decision makers; provide increased legal protections for trees and forests; develop urban design guidelines, etc.  	
Existing policy/program	RI Urban and Community Forestry Plan; existing tree ordinances	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration, aesthetic amenity, community and air quality benefits	
Carbon saved in 2020	30-120,000 tonnes C	
CSC (cost of saved C)	Possible net benefit (societal perspective)	

Option 3.3.2 – Open space protection

The loss of open space in Rhode Island, through conversion to residential as well as commercial development, has been a cause for public concern in terms of reduced recreation, buffer zone, and visual amenity.  Residential acreage climbed from 89,000 acres to almost 140,000 acres between 1970 and 1995.  The state lost 20,000 acres of forest 1985-1998.  

These shifts have also meant significant reductions in carbon storage.  According to the RI inventory, the loss of forestlands translates to 85,000 tonnes C per year in net emissions. 

Open space protection is therefore not only land use policy, but also one with potentially potent carbon mitigation benefits.  Indeed, open space protection is a featured element of climate action plan in New Jersey, a state that faces similar pressures from expanding suburban residential development. (NJ DEP, 1999)

The Urban and Community Forestry Plan targets limiting canopy loss to 2% in 15 rural communities.  But equally important are policies to encourage “urban infill” or revitalization and repopulation of Rhode Island’s core cities. As pointed out in the Grow Smart Rhode Island report, The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Decay in Rhode Island, “Rhode Island can solve its suburban sprawl problem only if it solves its urban decay problem.”

OPTION 3.3.2 – SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land Use	
Option name	Open Space Protection 	
Sector and market	Land use planning	
Technical elements	Reducing sprawl; denser development; land use protections and zoning	
Policy/program elements	Raise awareness to decision makers; zoning and land use planning and ordinances; incentives for urban densification, etc.  	
Existing policy/program	RI Urban and Community Forestry Plan	
Rationale	Carbon sequestration, cultural/historical/aesthetic benefits, buffer zone	
Carbon saved in 2020	60,000 tonnes C  (may include some overlap with urban and community forestry targets above)	
CSC (cost of saved C)	Hard to quantify, driven by co-benefits	

Other strategies OPTION 4.1 – PROMOTE SMALLER AUTOS

This option is meant to encourage lighter vehicles for personal use and could be adopted through excise as well as feebate-type policies (as in Option 1.1b). Smaller cars can decrease emissions, reduce fuel consumption and have a positive impact on congestion.  

There is, nevertheless, a popular perception that smaller cars are less safe than heavier ones.  To some degree, this is borne out in accident statistics, which show that among two vehicle collisions, light-truck crashes with cars are the highest cause of traffic fatalities, with the victims being far more likely to be the passengers in the smaller vehicles than in the light-trucks.  

The problem, however, has to do with the incompatibility in weights of the two types of vehicles, rather than in some intrinsic fault with the lighter cars.  Thus, smaller cars need to be provided with added safety equipment, such as side curtain air bags, and have larger crush zones, while larger vehicles and SUVs need to be made lighter and incorporate safety improvements to reduce the impact of collisions with smaller cars.  In fact, the combination of federal safety standards and CAFE standards since the early 1970s have resulted in dramatic improvements in fatality rates during the same period that fuel economy has improved modestly.  

Very small cars, especially those that run on electric power, can also be encouraged for niche uses (like shopping and childcare trips), especially in households that already own more than one vehicle.  The use of highly efficient and lightweight neighborhood vehicles can displace conventional vehicles for these applications, thereby saving fuel while reducing GHGs and local pollution.  Tax credits and other fiscal instruments could be designed for these purposes.  

OPTION 4.1 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Promoting Smaller Autos	
Sector and market	All light-duty vehicles	
Technical elements	Improved light-weight materials, safety equipment	
Policy/program elements	Incentives for 	
Existing policy/program	No existing program, but could be tied to Option 1.1b	
Rationale	Reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs	
Energy saved in 2020	21 million gallons (2.4 trillion BTU)	
CSE	NA	
Carbon saved in 2020	50,000 tonnes.	
CSC	Net benefit	

Other strategies OPTION 4.2 – Increase the gasoline tax

Gasoline taxes provide an important price signal to road-users to factor in the true costs of driving, including environmental and social costs.  Depending on the level of the tax, they could provide sufficient incentive to users to adopt more fuel-efficient vehicles or be more judicious in their travel and mode choices.  

In several European countries, gasoline taxes are more than eight to ten times the levels in the United States, where in real terms, state and federal taxes have actually declined steadily since 1962.  Part of the reason for the decline is public resistance to taxes, under the false perception that gasoline taxes are more “painful” than taxes on any capital goods, including vehicles.  In fact, however, average gasoline expenditures in the US amount to less than about 2% of median household income, and even a tripling in gasoline prices would actually cause little or no dent in non-gasoline household consumption patterns.

Although gasoline taxes in Rhode Island are among the highest in the country, a determined policy to increase gasoline taxes by about $0.50/gallon specifically to address greenhouse gases would likely result in significant savings in carbon.  The revenues could be used to fund policies in several of the other options (e.g., Option 1.1b, 2.1-2.4, 4.1), thereby complementing and amplifying the direct impact of the tax itself.

OPTION 4.2 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Increase the gasoline tax	
Sector and market	All light-duty vehicles	
Technical elements	None	
Policy/program elements	Stakeholder processes, commitments, public outreach	
Existing policy/program	No existing program, but could be tied to Option 1.1b	
Rationale	Reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs	
Energy saved in 2020	16.5 million gallons (1.9 trillion BTU)	
CSE	$2.2/MMBTU ($0.25/gallon)	
Carbon saved in 2020	40,000 tonnes	
CSC	$200/tonne (2000$)	

Other strategies OPTION 4.3 – VMT-BASED INSURANCE PREMIUM

Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance provides drivers an incentive to reduce their annual vehicle miles traveled, and could thereby help reduce fuel use and emissions.  It is also economically efficient because it indicates to drivers the true costs of driving, more equitable than current systems because it imposes premium costs based on the level of driving, and progressive because it is likely to lower costs for lower income drivers who tend to use their vehicles less than the median driver does. 

Examples of VMT-Based Insurance include legislation in Oregon (HB 3871: www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/hb3800.dir/hb3871.intro.html) and Texas (HB 45: www.capitol.state.tx.us).

OPTION 4.3 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	VMT-Based Insurance	
Sector and market	All light-duty vehicles	
Technical elements	None	
Policy/program elements	Consultation with all stakeholders, including insurance companies, insurance regulators, state or provincial legislators, transportation agencies, motorists, transportation professionals, public safety officials, environmentalists, consumer groups and organizations concerned with poverty.	
Existing policy/program	No existing program in RI, but support may be forthcoming from the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program	
Rationale	Reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs	
Energy saved in 2020	47 million gallons (5.4 trillion BTU)	
CSE	NA	
Carbon saved in 2020	110,000 tonnes C	
CSC	Net benefit	

Other strategies OPTION 4.4 – Fleet fuel GHG content mandate

This option considers policies at the national and state level that are aimed to reduce the GHG content of the fuels themselves. Some fuels, such as ethanol blends, are in limited use nationally.  Others, such as ethanol made from biomass, will require new production technologies, minor changes in vehicles and engines, and new fuelling infrastructures.  

In Rhode Island, $4.5 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Plan (CMAQ) funds have been awarded to the Ocean State Clean Cities Coalition, a locally-based government/based partnership, to build or upgrade Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) stations to support buses and state fleet vehicles. The coalition will also use the CMAQ money to fund the incremental cost of 250 Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs) and to support training and public outreach activities.  In addition, the Rhode Island AFV Incentives Act of 1997 provides tax incentives for using alternative fuels.

We consider in this option further incentives aimed specifically to reduce GHG fuel content by displacing 7% of gasoline use in the state with ethanol by 2020.  

OPTION 4.4 -- SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	Value	
Working group	Transportation and Land-Use.	
Option name	Fleet fuel GHG content mandate	
Sector and market	All light-duty vehicles	
Technical elements	AFVs, Re-fueling Infrastructure for AFVs	
Policy/program elements	Stakeholder processes, commitments, public outreach	
Existing policy/program	AFV Incentives Act, and extension of state CMAQ Plan to cover cellulosic ethanol with supplementary EPACT support.  Additional outreach and incentives for private vehicles.	
Rationale	Reduce dependence on gasoline, reduce GHGs, reduce local air pollution	
Energy saved in 2020	16.5 million gallons (1.9 trillion BTU)	
CSE	NA	
Carbon saved in 2020	40,000 tonnes	
CSC	$100/tonne (2000$)	

4.  Rankings of Options for the Buildings & Facilities Sector

Options Ordered by Cost of Saved Carbon

Number	Name	CSC	Co-Benefits	
2.1	Transit oriented development	-500	-22 to –32	
2.3	Commuting efficiency	-500	-22 to –32	
2.4	Reducing commuting trips	-500	-22 to –32	
1.2	Government-owned vehicle efficiency	-300	-22 to –32	
1.1.1	National CAFÉ standards	-300	-22 to -32	
1.1.2	Fuel efficiency improvements, using local initiatives	-300	-22 to –32	
3.2	Forest management	0-40	NEB	
3.1.3	Conservation/Low Tillage Farming	2-6	NEB	
3.1.2	Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems	2-6	NSB	
3.1.2	Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Wetlands	25	NSB	
3.1.1	Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest  	25	NSB	
4.4	Fleet fuel GHG content mandate	100	-22 to -32	
4.2	Increase the gasoline tax	200	-22 to -32	
				
2.2	Expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures	NSB	-22 to –32	
3.3.1	Urban and Community Forestry	NRA	NSB	
3.3.2	Open Space Protection	NRA	NSB	
4.1	Promote smaller autos	NSB	-22 to -32	
4.3	Create VMT-based insurance premium structures	NEB	-22 to –32	

NEB—Net Economic Benefit, but not readily quantifiable
NSB—Net Social Benefit, may include economic benefits or costs, but not readily quantifiable

Options Ordered by the Amount of Carbon Savings in 2020

Number	Name	Saved Carbon	
1.1.1	National CAFÉ standards	250	
3.3.1	Urban/Suburban Forestry	<120	
4.3	Create VMT-based insurance premium structures	110	
3.3.2	Open Space Protection	60	
4.1	Promote smaller autos	50	
4.2	Increase the gasoline tax	40	
4.4	Fleet fuel GHG content mandate	40	
3.1.2	Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Wetlands	<1.5	
3.1.1	Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest 	40	
1.1.2	Fuel economy improvements, using local initiatives	25	
3.2	Forest management	NRA	
2.1	Transit oriented development	19	
2.2	Expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures	19	
2.3	Commuting efficiency	19	
2.4	Reducing commuting trips	18	
1.2	Government-owned vehicle efficiency	15	
3.1.3	Conservation/Low Tillage Farming	<2.5	
3.1.4	Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems	.4	

NRA – Not readily available (estimated to be around 20 ktonnes C)