Final Northampton Reduction Strategies Report
City of Northampton
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy &
Wedge Analysis Report
March 2019
Introduction 1
Northampton Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Strategy Analysis
Overview of Project
In 2018, the City of Northampton completed a Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventories (GPC) compliant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory and baseline study for
calendar year 2016. Kim Lundgren Associates, Inc. (KLA) was hired to standardize and conduct the
inventory, analyze results, review the reduction potential of five emissions reduction strategies, and
evaluate those potentials vis-à-vis an intermediate 2030 timeframe. The City confirmed five specific
strategies to be assessed for their potential to reduce GHG emissions. KLA also prepared an analysis of
the effect of CAFE and other vehicle emissions standards for a total of six strategies. The reduction
potential analysis was completed based on best available data, policy priorities, and potential scenarios.
The City of Northampton also requested that infographics, in particular the “wedge diagram s,” portray
emissions out to 2050 in order to show Northampton’s commitment and scope of the challenge ahead in
achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. This report is the culmination of that research and analysis.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
The 2016 GHG Emissions Inventory was used as a guide to identify appropriate strategies that could best
aid the City in reducing emissions as well as a data source and reference for the potential of each strategy.
The six strategies included here pertain to the Transportation Sector, Buildings Sector, and Electricity
Emissions Source. The graphs and table below summarize the results of the 2016 GHG inventory.
Northampton Community 2016 Greenhouse Gas (CO2e) Emissions by Source
228,980
85,800
13,400 960
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Stationary
Energy
Transport Waste AFOLU
Introduction 2
Northampton Community 2016 GHG Emissions by GPC Sub-Sector
2030 and 2050 Reduction Targets
In 2016, GHG emissions in Northampton totaled 329,140 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e). A goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 equals an emissions target in that year of zero MTCO2e.
The reductions per year, from 2016 to 2050, required to achieve the target is roughly 9,861 MTCO2e, and
the 2030 in-line target is therefore 193,612 MTCO2e, or about a 41% reduction from 2016 levels.
Reduction Strategies
The reduction strategies were identified based on the City’s GHG emissions inventory, conversations with
City staff, and research. A high-level analysis, incorporating assumptions and three specific scenarios (low,
mid, and high), was applied to each of the strategies to determine their potential to reduce GHG
emissions. The results of this analysis are estimates and are to be used only as guidance. The degree to
which each strategy meets these potential reductions will depend on a myriad of variables associated with
how local programs are designed and implemented, regional and national trends supporting or inhibiting
related subject areas, and more. Of the three scenarios developed for each strategy, the low case
represents a fairly reliable implementation scenario that is likely to occur in status quo. The mid case
scenario was modeled more aggressively than status quo expectations, while remaining reasonably
achievable with continued effort, support, and focus on reducing emissions. The high case scenario
represents significant market transformation, exemplary achievement, and remarkable progress by the
year 2030 in each topic area. The low and high case are therefore outer boundaries of a range of reduction
potential that may be observed by the year 2030 in each area.
Finally, it is important to note that reducing GHG emissions is not the only driver behind implementing
sustainability strategies. Each strategy brings with it a host of unique and concurrent benefits to
Northampton, from financial benefits to improved air quality and more. Sustainability efforts very often
convey synergistic impacts with positive externalities such as beautification, increased quality of services,
efficiency of use, and more that are real benefits to residents of Northampton. A local action, plan, or
52%
26%
18%
3%1%
0%0%
Commercial
Buildings
On Road
Transport
Residential
Buildings
Wastewater
Treatment and
Discharge
Solid Waste
Disposal
Sector MTCO2e Percent
Commercial Buildings 169,610 51.5%
On Road Transport 85,800 26.1%
Residential Buildings 59,370 18.0%
Wastewater Treatment 11,110 3.4%
Solid Waste Disposal 1,660 0.5%
Livestock 960 0.3%
Incineration and Open Burning 630 0.2%
Total 329,140 100.0%
Introduction 3
initiative (strategy) that carries a comparably lower GHG reduction potential than some other strategy
should not necessarily be passed over based on the singular consideration of GHG emissions.
The low, mid, and high scenarios in the table below show the raw GHG reduction potential, in MTCO2e, of
the implementation of the six strategies by the year 2030, along with what percentage decrease these
amounts represent compared to the 2016 GHG inventory. For example, the low case scenario for the
future impact of stronger CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards has the potential to reduce yearly emissions in
Northampton by 12,320 MTCO2e or 3.7% of the 2016 Community Inventory, which totaled 329,140
MTCO2e. The potential of various strategies can be compared in this way, apples to apples, and the total
potential of all six strategies (low, mid, and high) can be summed.
Strategy Low % Mid % High %
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 13,564 4.1% 19,086 5.8% 24,609 7.5%
Electric Vehicle Deployment 5,927 1.8% 12,281 3.7% 25,418 7.7%
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure 9,061 2.8% 13,710 4.2% 18,861 5.7%
Net Zero Energy New Buildings 5,656 1.7% 11,313 3.4% 22,625 6.9%
Electrification of Thermal Loads 3,831 1.2% 7,931 2.4% 12,301 3.7%
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 12,320 3.7% 19,069 5.8% 28,455 8.6%
Total 50,359 15.3% 83,390 25.3% 132,269 40.1%
Emissions Projection
The emissions projection used in this
analysis forecasts a 0% "business as usual"
(BAU) growth trend. Two population
projections were obtained for
Northampton from PVPC and MISER for the
purposes of studying the need to expand
sewer capacity. However, the projections
disagreed, with one forecasting population
growth and another forecasting a
decrease.12 Ultimately, it was deemed that
an increased need for sewer capacity at the
wastewater treatment facility would not be
expected. This report follows suit.
The three wedge diagrams that follow show the emissions projections for Northampton according to the
low, mid, and high case scenarios. The black line at the bottom represents the pace to meet the carbon
neutral 2050 reduction target. Each colored wedge represents a reduction strategy’s estimated emissions
reduction potential.
1 https://www.northamptonma.gov/759/SewerWastewater
2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-1XA9WgFqjLcHN0QVFpTWpJYkU/view (page 36)
Introduction 4
The reduction strategies analyzed here are a discrete group, representing only some of the myriad efforts
and influencing factors that could shape future GHG emissions for Northampton.
(continued on next page)
Introduction 5
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 6
Northampton GHG Reduction Strategy:
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity
Reduction Potential Summary Table
Scenario Low (35% Meet RPS) Mid (42.5%) High (50% California)
Electricity Emissions Source
GHG Reduction by 2030 13,564 MTCO2e 19,086 MTCO2e 24,609 MTCO2e
% Reduction of 2016 Electricity
Emissions (59,250 MTCO2e) 22.9% 32.2% 41.5%
% Reduction of 2016 Overall
Inventory (329,140 MTCO2e) 4.1% 5.8% 7.5%
Description of Strategy
Carbon free electricity is one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2016,
electricity accounted for 59,250 MTCO2e (20.6%) of Northampton emissions (not counting electricity from
Smith College which was tabulated independently),
comparable to 19.6% for Massachusetts3 and 28.4% of all
US emissions4 according to their respective GHG
inventories. Eliminating all of these emissions would be an
incredible step toward protecting Earth’s climate. The
reduction potential (and scale of the challenge) is yet larger
if factoring in the future load growth potential of vehicle
and building electrification. A scenario of also replacing
half of the 85,800 MTCO2e transportation emissions and
half of the 142,390 MTCO2e fossil fuel commercial and
residential emissions (here also not counting Smith College
emissions) with carbon free electricity represents an
additional 114,095 metric ton reduction for a total of
173,345 MTCO2e, 52.7% of Northampton’s 2016
emissions. No other strategy holds this kind of potential.
However, deep decarbonization also requires nothing
short of an energy revolution in order to achieve its fullest
reduction potential.
To achieve zero carbon electricity, all fossil fuel generation sources must either be removed, offset, or
credited to make up the difference. Setting aside offsets and RECs to consider a pure low carbon supply,
Northampton’s electricity supply would need to transform dramatically. It could be a tightly
interconnected renewables and energy storage dominated system, or one that (while incorporating heavy
3 https://www.mass.gov/lists/massdep-emissions-inventories#greenhouse-gas-baseline,-inventory-&-projection-
(see Appendix C updated July 2018)
4 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 7
renewables and storage) replaces the
predominantly natural gas base with a
functionally similar zero carbon option
such as nuclear or next-generation
technologies like engineered
geothermal or 100% carbon-
sequestration. Recognizing cost and
reliability as essential factors along a
journey toward decarbonization, a
recent seminar put forth a model of
possible generation mix scenarios for an
electricity system under various
emissions caps.5 As CO2/GWh decreases
in this model, the energy share of
different technologies shift. The
characteristics of those resources,
namely their reliability profiles,
cost/scale of deployment, and carbon
content have dramatic effects on overall
system attributes, for example a
movement of net peak demand by two
hours from 5 to 7PM, when solar
resources diminish. In the 100 and 50
ton/GWh models, where solar and wind
play their largest roles, the net peak
demand shifts from a summer
afternoon to a winter evening when
electric heating and lighting loads must
be met while solar is unavailable. The
flexibility of the natural gas base
resource is crucial in these scenarios, as
it is able to respond to the availability of
zero carbon resources and come back
online again as resources, demand, and
seasons fluctuate. In blue, the role of
energy storage grows as emissions are
reduced even further. This model
reaches a divergence point where
current cost and scale of additional
energy storage capacity and increasing
need for reliable baseload ultimately
give way to nuclear as a low cost deep
5 https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/events/getting-zero-pathways-zero-carbon-electricity-systems
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 8
decarbonization option, replacing natural gas by necessity under the emissions caps and here providing a
somewhat flexible base load in the 1-ton scenario at 59% of overall energy share. This is but one
scenario/model/forecast, with its own assumptions about future demand profiles, cost and effectiveness
of technology, etc. A white paper referenced in the presentation claims “strong agreement in the
literature that a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources offers the best chance of affordably
achieving deep decarbonization.”6 In other words, a cost-bound system moving toward decarbonization
is most likely to deploy more, rather than less, technologies in varying amounts, over time, with each
resource contributing uniquely according to its inherent characteristics.
Of course, other zero carbon electricity profiles are possible. Costa Rica’s nearly 100% renewable
electricity, as widely reported in recent years, is an example of a successful, deeply decarbonized
electricity system.7 Blessed with strong hydro and geothermal resources, Costa Rica does enjoy
considerable advantages. Assuming fewer zero carbon options are at hand, a system with massive energy
storage potential is a possibility. Using the same demand profile seen previously, here at a strict near -
zero emissions limit, a
“balanced” resource portfolio
is modeled comparably to a
portfolio without flexible base
resources, but significant “fast
burst resources”, namely
storage charging and fast
ramping solar. This system
utilizes intense deployment of
solar, wind and other “fuel
saving resources” whose
installed capacity necessarily
doubles to exceed daytime
peak demand while also
reliably charging system
storage to satisfy overnight
demand. Curtailment is
necessary when energy
storage limits are reached.
Reliability is increased
primarily through the addition
of more storage capacity, with
demand response and
demand shifting playing
assisting roles.
6 https://www.innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EIRP-Deep-Decarb-Lit-Review-Jenkins-
Thernstrom-March-2017.pdf
7 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/costa-rica-has-run-on-green-energy-for-300-days
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 9
Studies on the concept of an upgraded trans-
continental power grid estimate that
aggregating all 10 FERC regions can reduce
renewable curtailment and local storage
requirements by smoothing out variability
across regions.89 Another important benefit of
such a system is resource optimization, with a
nod to regional resource potentials. Ultimately,
a decarbonization strategy is achieved by
replacing carbon-intensive electricity
generation methods with cleaner alternatives,
reducing emissions intensity while minding
costs and system reliability.
Efforts to reduce US electricity emissions are succeeding, with 2017 total electric GHG emissions 27.8%
below 2005 highs, a down-trending
overall reduction of 672 million
metric tons.10 Switching to cleaner
fossil fuels, adding noncarbon
sources, and demand growth under
the 2% fixed intensity rate assumed
here as a business-as-usual reference
case led to the overall decline.
One technology poised to begin its
unique contributions to the energy
8 https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/16-Frew-Energy.pdf
9 http://www.terrawatts.com/Future_cost-competitive_electricity_syst.pdf
10 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37392
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 10
mix, and expected to play a key role particularly with solar, is energy storage which reached 156.5 MW
nationwide deployment in Q2 2018. Of note, the latest U.S. Energy Storage Monitor11 currently ranks
Massachusetts #2, behind Arizona, in terms of front-of-the-meter energy storage capacity markets. Front-
of-the-meter deployment is consistently strong in most quarters, with major installs seen in California in
Q4 2016 in particular. An encouraging general uptrend in deployments and diversification is tracked
quarterly by segment, with impressive growth seen recently in the residential segment, behind-the-meter,
and overall market. It’s reasonable to expect growing deployment in all three segments in Massachusetts.
Supporting Programs
State efforts including the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard
(APS), Clean Energy Standard (CES), new Clean Peak Standard (CPS) and so forth provide a framework for
advancing clean energy technologies in Massachusetts.12 On August 9, 2018, the governor signed H.4857,
An Act to Advance Clean Energy, into state law.13 Among other things, this Act:
• Increases the RPS by 2% instead of 1% yearly for the 10 years of 2020 to 2029. Currently at 13%
in 2018, the RPS is therefore pegged at 15% for 2020 and 35% for 2030.
• Reinforces the energy storage deployment target of 200 MWh by 2020 with another target of
1,000 MWh by 2025.
• Creates a first-of-its-kind Clean Peak Standard along with a new RPS attribute called “clean peak
certificates” indicating that a resource was not only “clean” but also delivered during a defined
“peak” period. Energy storage qualifies as a clean peak resource. The Department of Energy
Resources will lay out further program rules and methodology for clean peak resources.
• Authorizes procurement for doubling offshore wind to 3,200 MW by the end of 2035.
11 https://www.woodmac.com/our-expertise/focus/Power--Renewables/us-energy-storage-monitor-q3-2018/
12 https://www.mass.gov/service-details/program-summaries
13 https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H4857
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 11
Other programs include the Energy Storage Initiative, which produced the original 200 MWh by 2020
Massachusetts energy storage target, the “State of Charge” case study examining 10 use cases,14 and the
Advancing Commonwealth Energy Storage (ACES) Program $20 million grant pool awarded to 26 projects.
Grant recipient were announced in December 2017.15
The Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) 1,600 MW “declining block” incentive program
began reviewing applications for solar and energy storage projects in November 2018. The additional 1.6
GW is expected to allow solar to meet 10% of MA electricity demand. Because the earliest approved
“blocks” of projects carry the strongest incentives, the program should lead to fairly rapid deployment.16
In terms of specific progress toward low carbon energy sources, Northampton has participated in
MassCEC’s Solarize Mass Program since 2013. Program results are tracked online and currently show 108
systems contracted for a total of 705.7 kW installed, an average system size of 6.53 kW. NREL’s PVWatts
calculator estimates an average yearly output of these projects at 896,425 kWh/year.17 Northampton
accounts for 3.07% of the total capacity contracted through the program and 3.15% of the total projects.
To put this in perspective, Northampton’s population represented 0.42% of the total MA population in
2016. Solar capacity per capita through this program in Northampton is 24.78 W whereas the statewide
average is 3.36 W.
A new effort exploring community-choice aggregation (CCA) also known as community-choice energy
programs in Northampton may pave the way for the next wave of additional local solar, peak demand
14 https://www.mass.gov/service-details/energy-storage-study
15 http://files.masscec.com/ACES%20Project%20Details.pdf
16 https://www.mass.gov/info-details/solar-massachusetts-renewable-target-smart-program
17 https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 12
reduction, or battery storage capacity.18 Northampton will be exploring using the savings derived from a
CCA to promote the deployment of some or all of these technologies locally.
Estimated GHG Emission Reductions
Emissions from electricity accounted for 20.6% of Northampton’s 2016 GHG inventory at 59,250 MTCO2e.
This figure does not include electricity from Smith College which was tabulated independently. Smith
College emissions, 27,340 MTCO2e, are included as a collective item in the inventory within Commercial
Buildings. Of that total, 2,172 MTCO2e or 7.9% of Smith College emissions are attributed to electricity.
This low percentage for Smith College is thanks to CoGen electricity production which accounted for 68.9%
of electricity use at 16,491 MWh. The remaining 7,430 MWh of electricity used were purchased, including
618 MWh purchased from solar sources.
Not counting Smith College, Northampton’s 2016 portion of electricity usage totaled 231,742.92 MWh,
multiplied by an electricity emissions factor of 563.70 lbs CO2e/MWh (EPA eGRID 2016 NEWE - New
England) for the total of roughly 59,250 MTCO2e. NEWE had the fourth lowest emissions factor of all
regions in 2016, behind NYUP, AKMS, and CAMX.19
18 https://www.gazettenet.com/Northampton-is-awarded-$75-000-grant-to-explore-Community-Choice-Energy-
PLUS-22248190
19 https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-egrid
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 13
Newly installed renewable resources in Northampton will have various effects on future GHG inventory
calculations for electricity emissions. Behind the meter renewables (particularly solar) have the primary
effect of reducing total kWh consumption, because electricity required from grid sources is directly
reduced by the on-site supply. In other words, behind the meter renewables reduce total consumption
by eliminating some portion of grid electricity usage which carries an emissions factor. In terms of
impacting the electricity emissions factor, additional front of the meter renewables and/or retirement of
higher emitting electricity supply sources lowers the factor.
The 2016 NEWE eGRID resource mix table is below, as well as a table of Northampton emissions estimates
given the low, mid, and high case assumptions of this reduction strategy.
Zero carbon electricity, which includes nuclear, is also included in light blue as an information item only.
These emissions factors are estimates. Final figures will depend on the survey of specific generating
resources and their specific contributions in 2030. This assumes that renewable resources supplant a mix
of facilities that produce emissions, and the light blue information item in particular simply carries forward
the 2016 percentage of nuclear resource mix, 30.4%.
As a final item, Smith College electricity emissions (2,172 MTCO2e) which would also be reduced by 22.1%,
31.1% and 40.1% respectively per scenario were added to each total: 480,675, and 870 MTCO2e.
Contribution to GHG Emissions Target
The low case scenario represents regionally meeting the updated Massachusetts RPS target of 35% by
2030. Notably, the Massachusetts RPS target for 2016 was 13%, lower than the 16.6% figure achieved as
a region under eGRID. Reductions are estimated to equal 13,564 MTCO2e.
The mid case scenario represents achieving a 42.5% renewable electricity generation mix by 2030.
Reductions are estimated to equal 19,086 MTCO2e.
The mid case scenario represents achieving a 50.0% renewable electricity generation mix by 2030, equal
to California’s current RPS target for 2030. Reductions are estimated to equal 24,609 MTCO2e.
NEWE 2016
Coal
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Oil
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Gas
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Nuclear
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Hydro
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Biomass
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Wind
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Solar
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Geothermal
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Other Fossil
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Other
Unknown /
Purchased
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Total
Nonrenewab
les
(resource
mix)
NEWE 2016
Renewables
(resource
mix)
2.36%0.64%49.78%30.40%5.27%8.20%2.46%0.66%0.00%0.14%0.10%83.42%16.58%
Source 2016 MWh Factor Type 2016 % RE 2016 % Zero 2016 EF MTCO2e 35% RE 2016 % Zero 35% EF MTCO2e
2016 EPA eGRID 231,742.92 eGRID 16.6%47.0%563.70 59,254 35.0%65.4%439.23 46,170
Reduction 22.1%13,084
Source 2016 MWh Factor Type 2016 % RE 2016 % Zero 2016 EF MTCO2e 42.5% RE 2016 % Zero 70% EF MTCO2e
2016 EPA eGRID 231,742.92 eGRID 16.6%47.0%563.70 59,254 42.5%72.9%388.55 40,843
Reduction 31.1%18,411
Source 2016 MWh Factor Type 2016 % RE 2016 % Zero 2016 EF MTCO2e 50% RE 2016 % Zero 50% EF MTCO2e
2016 EPA eGRID 231,742.92 eGRID 16.6%47.0%563.70 59,254 50.0%80.4%337.87 35,516
Reduction 40.1%23,739
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 14
Assumptions and Calculations
Emissions factor estimates assume a portfolio of regional generating resources for 2030 that cannot be
known in advance, only estimated.
PVWatts assumptions and calculations used Northampton City Hall as the general location of installed
capacity and accepted default values for the kWh/year calculation.
Population figures utilized for 2016: Northampton (28,483), Massachusetts (6.824M).
Zero carbon electricity would result in a complete reduction of all electricity emissions, 59,250 MTCO2e,
as well as the full amount of electricity emissions from Smith College, 2,172 MTCO2e.
Grid losses are not accounted for in eGRID emission output rates. Grid losses vary across eGRID
subregions, between 4.32% and 5.35%, in eGRID 2016. Grid loss for NEWE (NPCC New England), which
includes Massachusetts, was 4.49%.
Smith College’s independent effort to reach carbon neutrality by 2030 was not included in this reduction
estimate.20 This effort represents upside for all scenarios and a leading-by-example opportunity for
reducing emissions in Northampton.
This estimate does not take into account the purchase or retirement of RECs at the local level. The
estimate does not delve into the types of RECs and differences between them.21
Finally, this reduction estimate does not take into account future behind-the-meter renewables (solar)
deployment specifically on existing properties which are contributing kWh to the 2016 inventory. Such
future systems would reduce grid electricity usage in each scenario equivalent to the projected emissions
factor: 439.23 lbs CO2e/MWh, 388.55, and 337.87 for low, mid, and high case scenarios respectively. As
grid electricity becomes cleaner, the relative benefit of behind-the-meter solar diminishes. Nonetheless,
behind-the-meter renewables reduce emissions by canceling out grid demand that would have otherwise
existed and been included in the inventory. 1 MWh of behind-the-meter solar that removes existing grid
demand represents 0.256 MTCO2e in the 2016 inventory, 0.199 MTCO2e in the 2030 low case, 0.176
MTCO2e in the mid case, and 0.153 MTCO2e in the high case.
20 https://www.smith.edu/sites/default/files/media/Documents/Sustainability/scamp -update-longform.pdf
21 http://www.sustainround.com/2017/06/07/not-all-recs-are-created-equal/
Electric Vehicle Deployment 15
Northampton GHG Reduction Strategy:
Electric Vehicle Deployment
Reduction Potential Summary Table
Scenario Low (1,500 EVs) Mid (3,000 EVs) High (6,000 EVs)
Transportation Sector GHG
Emissions Reduction by 2030 5,927 MTCO2e 12,281 MTCO2e 25,418 MTCO2e
% Reduction of 2016 Transport
Emissions (85,800 MTCO2e) 6.9% 14.3% 29.6%
% Reduction of 2016 Overall
Inventory (329,140 MTCO2e) 1.8% 3.7% 7.7%
Description of Strategy
Encouraging the shift toward electric vehicles could significantly reduce GHG emissions and improve
street level air quality in Northampton with today’s electricity mix. Increasing the adoption of electric
vehicles (EVs) within the community can be accomplished with a combined approach of:
• Converting more of the City fleet to electric vehicles.
• Continuously expanding EV charging infrastructure throughout the community.
• Providing education and information on existing state and federal incentives for local businesses and
residents.
According to the ChargeHub database22,
which draws on data from the Department of
Energy's alternative Fuels Data Center, there
are 60 public charging station ports (Level 2
and Level 3) within 15km of Northampton.23
77% of the ports are Level 2 charging ports
and 42% of them are offered for free.
Additionally, local citizens and businesses
have installed a good number of private
charging stations for their everyday use. An
ever-expanding network, a growing user base, and sustained supporting efforts for EV deployment are
great signs that this strategy can reap strong benefits for Northampton in coming years.
22 https://chargehub.com/en/countries/united-states/massachusetts/northampton.html?city_id=1187
23 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html
Electric Vehicle Deployment 16
Supporting Programs
Northampton has good information about EV incentives available online for city residents including links
to more resources.24 EV purchasers would be wise to take advantage of federal, state, and other
assistance as well.
• A federal tax credit offers up to $7,500 per vehicle25 and, for qualifying organizations, the Public
Transit Innovation Program26 or the Low or No Emission Vehicle Program27 can provide more funds.
• Assistance and potentially more funding may be had through the Department of Energy’s Clean Cities
Coalition, specifically Massachusetts Clean Cities.28
• State programs include the MOR-EV rebate of up to $2,500 per vehicle29 and, for qualifying
organizations, the MassEVIP Program Fleets30 or Workplace Charging31 initiatives.
• Green Energy Consumers Alliance offers the impressive Drive Green discount program, and many
dealers offer significant perks of their own for EV customers.32
The MOR-EV Program website shows strong demand for EV rebates in Northampton and the surrounding
area. One hundred and thirty-seven rebate applications were received between June 2014 and December
2018 from the 01053, 01060, and 01062 postal codes.33 Rebates for 01063 are included with 01060.
Hampshire County tallies
over 3.4% of overall
participation at 462
rebates to date. In 2018,
the MOR-EV rebate
program had all its
funding either issued or
reserved by September. A
major reason for the
demand spike was
opening the program to
EV leases, with the
requirement that EV
leases last at least 3 years.
A $2,500 rebate on a
three-year lease is a
compelling offer.
24 http://northamptonma.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=606
25 https://www.irs.gov/businesses/plug-in-electric-vehicle-credit-irc-30-and-irc-30d
26 https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/public-transportation-innovation-5312
27 https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/lowno
28 https://www.mass.gov/massachusetts-clean-cities-alternative-transportation
29 https://mor-ev.org/
30 https://www.mass.gov/how-to/massevip-fleets
31 https://www.mass.gov/how-to/massevip-workplace-charging
32 https://www.greenenergyconsumers.org/drivegreen
33 https://mor-ev.org/program-statistics
Electric Vehicle Deployment 17
Demand for rebates
went vertical in
September, climbed
more month-over-
month, and then
skyrocketed in
December with over
1,654 rebates reserved
or issued. Demand was
so strong in December
that the left chart axis
has to be resized if that
month is included.
Thirty-nine of those
rebates were captured
by Hampshire County,
the best month in
program history for the
county. This is great
news for EVs in
Northampton, because
a strong presence in
terms of other EVs and
charging stations in the
larger region strengthens the overall market. The EV market is moving beyond early adopters in
Northampton and Massachusetts at large.
Estimated GHG Emission Reductions
Strong evidence that a market shift
toward electric vehicles is occurring
raises confidence that EV conversion
can manifest as a meaningful strategy
in reducing Northampton’s GHG
emissions. The potential number of
fossil fuel vehicles converted to
electric by a given year can be
increased with greater confidence of
meeting those targets.
The primary barriers to widespread adoption of EV technology are the price of the vehicles, the
functionality of the vehicles' range, and the availability of public and private charging infrastructure. In
terms of price, the 2019 Chevy Bolt is a landmark for pushing the price of EVs down to levels that are
affordable for a greater share of today's drivers at $37,495 MSRP. The Drive Green discount program lists
a dealer that has Bolts available at a price point of $22,495 (40% off MSRP). The Bolt is designed to look
Electric Vehicle Deployment 18
and feel more like a traditional compact car, extending the reach of EVs in terms of vehicle types to a
wider audience. Tesla and other brands offer luxury models that have intrigued the public with their
exceptional performance and style. In particular, Tesla has captured the lion’s share of rebates at 36%.
In short, the number of manufacturers and models is increasing and a great bargain can be had in
Massachusetts. There are more EVs to choose from at lower price points and with better performance
each year. As EV technology continues to march forward in terms of affordability and effectiveness,
barriers to deployment diminish. In terms of charging infrastructure, Northampton’s growing number of
public and private charging stations are positive signs indicating the regional charging network will be able
to accommodate a significant conversion to electric vehicles in coming years.
In terms of GHG emissions,
according to the Department
of Energy's Alternative Fuels
Data Center34, the average
conventional vehicle in
Massachusetts produces
11,435 pounds of CO2
equivalent (CO2e) emissions
per year. A fully electric
vehicle would also produce
emissions, as a result of the
fuel source of the electricity,
however Massachusetts is
ahead of the national
average here with almost 1,000 lbs of CO2e less than the national average per EV (4,455 lbs CO2e). Every
fully electric vehicle that replaces a fossil fuel commuter vehicle in Northampton has the average potential
to reduce emissions by 7,939 pounds of CO2e per year (3.6 metric tons). That’s nearly 70% less emissions
per vehicle.
How many EVs will replace fossil fuel cars? A bevy of long-term estimates on the EV market are available
from investment groups, government agencies, and more. BNEF’s Electric Vehicle Outlook 2018 forecasts
an encouraging EV adoption trend with 2025, 2030, and 2040 timetables.35 The International Energy
Agency produces a yearly outlook that reported great strides in 2018 and a stronger outlook for EV market
transformation by 2030.36 A lot of information is available from the DOE related to EVs. The latest figure
found on electric vehicles by state claims 1.29 plug-in EV registrations for every thousand people in
Massachusetts for 2016, up from 0.52 in 2014.3738
34 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
35 https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
36 https://www.iea.org/gevo2018/
37 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1004-november-20-2017-california-had-highest-
concentration-plug-vehicles
38 http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-876-june-8-2015-plug-electric-vehicle-penetration-state-2014
Electric Vehicle Deployment 19
Contribution to GHG Emissions Target
Using the GHG estimates provided by the DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center, some ranges of EV market
penetration and associated impacts can be given in relation to Northampton’s GHG emissions.
• 1,500 new EVs that replace traditional vehicles would reduce emissions by 5,402 MTCO2e.
• 3,000 new EVs that replace traditional vehicles would reduce emissions by roughly 10,803 MTCO2e.
• 6,000 new EVs that replace traditional vehicles would reduce emissions by roughly 21,606 MTCO2e.
The benefits of the Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity strategy (also included in this overall analysis) low
(35% renewable by 2030), mid (42.5% renewable), and high case scenarios (50% renewable) were added
to the DOE calculator figures to model the synergistic effect that a greener electricity supply would have
on per vehicle EV replacements in 2030, under those scenarios.
• 35% renewable electricity by 2030 would increase the benefits of each EV replacement from roughly
3.6 MTCO2e to 3.95 MTCO2e. The final reduction is 5,927 MTCO2e.
• 42.5% renewable electricity by 2030 would increase the benefits of each EV replacement from
roughly 3.6 MTCO2e to 4.09 MTCO2e. The final reduction is 12,281 MTCO2e.
• 50% renewable electricity by 2030 would increase the benefits of each EV replacement from roughly
3.6 MTCO2e to 4.24 MTCO2e. The final reduction is 25,418 MTCO2e.
Assumptions and Calculations
The key assumptions related to these calculations are:
• Use of electric vehicles as a full replacement for a typical commuter vehicle.
• The efficiency of electric vehicles and traditional vehicles in terms of emissions produced.
• The electricity generation mix in terms of CO2e resulting from electricity generation in Massachusetts
(and in Northampton specifically).
Scenario # EVs Base Reduction Base Total Electricity Reduction Electricity Total Total Reduction
Low Case 1,500 3.601 5,402 0.350 525 5,927
Mid Case 3,000 3.601 10,803 0.493 1,478 12,281
High Case 6,000 3.601 21,606 0.635 3,812 25,418
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure 20
Northampton GHG Reduction Strategy:
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure
Reduction Potential Summary Table
Scenario Low (50k sqft+) Mid (25k sqft+) High (10k+ sqft)
Building Sector GHG Emissions
Reduction by 2030 9,061 MTCO2e 13,710 MTCO2e 18,861 MTCO2e
% Reduction of 2016 Building
Emissions (228,980 MTCO2e) 4.0% 6.0% 8.2%
% Reduction of 2016 Overall
Inventory (329,140 MTCO2e) 2.8% 4.2% 5.7%
Description of Strategy
A building energy benchmarking and disclosure policy
requires a set of buildings in the community to assess
their energy use, water use, or other measurable
performance indicators, compare the information
against peers (benchmark), and then report these findings to the city (disclose). Most building owners or
management companies strive to improve performance as a natural consequence of going through the
work of benchmarking and disclosing their building's energy performance, typically achieving between 2-
11%39 energy reductions annually. The average annual energy savings for buildings that benchmark is
2.4%.40 Benchmarking and disclosure policies are often accompanied by further incentives, requirements,
technical assistance, or reduction targets that drive performance improvements over time. The
improvement per year depends on the effectiveness of the benchmarking policy and the will of property
management/owners to see reductions. Finally, disclosure of energy use data will enable greater
understanding of how to reduce emissions from buildings within the community.
Best Practice Programs
New York City, NY - Local Law 8441
Local Law 84 (LL84) requires owners of large buildings to annually measure their energy and
water consumption through benchmarking.42 LL84 standardizes this process by requiring building owners
to enter their annual energy and water use in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) online
tool, ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, and use the tool to submit data to the City. LL84 gives building
owners information about a building's energy and water consumption compared to similar buildings, and
tracks progress year over year to help in energy efficiency planning. The policy covers:
39 https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/buildings/tools/DataTrends_Savings_20121002.pdf
40 https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/reference/research-reports/portfolio-manager-datatrends
41 https://www1.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/plan/ll84.shtml
42 http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/ll84of2009_benchmarking.pdf
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure 21
• City buildings over 10,000 square feet and all other buildings over 50,000 square feet.
• Also, note that additional Local Laws require activities such as energy audits and retro-commissioning
(RCx), submetering, and implementation of specific prescriptive measures such as lighting upgrades.
Boulder, CO - Boulder Building Performance43
In support of community energy and climate goals, the Boulder City Council adopted the Boulder Building
Performance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 8071) on October 20, 2015.44 These rating, reporting, and energy
efficiency requirements move beyond current voluntary programs to require actions that reduce energy
use and improve the quality of Boulder’s commercial and industrial building stock. The policy covers:
• City buildings over 5,000 square feet and commercial and industrial buildings of various square
footage depending on age.
• New commercial and industrial buildings over 10,000 square feet are covered now, as well as existing
commercial and industrial over 50,000 square feet.
• Commercial and industrial buildings over 30,000 square feet began benchmarking and reporting in
2018, with buildings over 20,000 square feet beginning in 2020.
• Like New York City's Local Law, there are additional timelines for activities such as energy
assessments, lighting upgrades, retro-commissioning, and implementation of other cost-effective
measures.
Atlanta, GA - Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance45
Atlanta adopted the Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance on April 21, 2015. The City
projects that the ordinance will drive a 20 percent reduction in commercial energy consumption by the
year 2030, spur the creation of more than 1,000 jobs a year in the first few years, and reduce carbon
emissions by 50% from 2013 levels by 2030. The policy covers:
• City properties with one or more buildings that together exceed 10,000 square feet. These properties
have begun benchmarking and reporting yearly, beginning April 2015 and every June thereafter. The
city has already been benchmarking its buildings but will now disclose information.
• Non-city properties, excluding those with more than 50% of the tenants being residential or lodging
tenants, with one or more buildings that together exceed 50,000 square feet. These properties began
reporting benchmarking information in July 2015 and will report every June thereafter.
• Non-city properties, as above, but in excess of 25,000 square feet began reporting in June 2017.
• Regarding disclosure, the city will publicly disclose benchmarking results and information for all city
covered properties as well as information for the non-city properties that achieve an energy
performance better than or equal to the national median. After the first year, public disclosure occurs
every September.
• Additionally, an energy and water audit must be submitted every 10 years for non-city covered
properties and for city properties over 25,000 square feet. There are a number of exceptions to this
43 https://bouldercolorado.gov/sustainability/boulder-building-performance-home
44 https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT10ST_CH7.7COINENEF
45 https://atlantabuildingefficiency.com/
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure 22
rule including financial hardship, achieving Energy Star certification, above average performance,
strong improvement in performance, and other exceptions.
• Language was included in the ordinance for retro-commissioning, but this activity is not required.
A handy infographic from IMT shows local governments and states who have adopted benchmarking and
disclosure policies.46
Estimated GHG Emission Reductions
In 2016, 228,980 MTCO2e originated from the energy demand of Northampton buildings. This is 69.6% of
all 2016 emissions. Commercial buildings represented 169,610 MTCO2e or 52% of the inventory. It’s
important to note that Smith College is included here in totality at 27,340 MTCO2e, as well as electricity
used by water delivery and wastewater facilities at 500 MTCO2e and 680 MTCO2e respectively. Residential
buildings represented 59,370 MTCO2e or 18% of the inventory.
Data from the Northampton Office of the Assessor indicates Northampton building square footage as
follows with resulting emissions statistics and intensities (lbs CO2e/sqft):
46 https://www.buildingrating.org/graphic/us-building-benchmarking-policy-landscape
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure 23
For the purposes of Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure, we turn here to a discussion of square footage by
property size category. For a more detailed look at building stock vintage and fuel use types, please see
the Net Zero Energy New Buildings and Electrification of Thermal Loads strategies.
• Of the 8,572 properties with buildings, 322 properties have buildings over 10,000 sqft and represent
38.2% of all Northampton sqft. These 322 properties represent 3.76% of all Northampton properties
that have buildings on them.
• 193 properties with buildings between 10k-25k sqft embody 10.4% of all Northampton sqft.
• 76 properties with buildings between 25k-50k sqft embody 9.4% of all Northampton sqft (notably two
properties are listed at exactly 25k sqft and included here).
• 38 properties with buildings between 50k-100k sqft embody 9.2% of all Northampton sqft.
• And finally, 15 properties with buildings over 100k sqft embody 9.1% of all Northampton sqft. This is
only 0.17% of all properties that have a building on them in Northampton. This category of buildings
represents “bang for your buck” in terms of potential impact versus number of affected parties.
• These figures should be carefully vetted for accuracy. Specific language should be included in any
benchmarking and disclosure ordinance that clearly defines which properties are affected.
10k+, 25k+, 50k+, and 100k+ sqft categories are used below to model policy impacts among the various
groups. The data indicated a mix
of residential and commercial
properties; however, the
categories showed some degree of
overlap and would require
verification of each property to
determine its use class. Therefore,
the total average emissions
intensity is applied here as a
starting place for a reduction
calculation (17.73 lbs CO2e/sqft).
Applying the 2.4% average yearly
energy savings figure provided by
Sqft % sqft Emissions % Bldg Emissions lbs/Sqft
Commercial 14,667,834 51.5%169,610 74.1%25.49
Residential 13,809,543 48.5%59,370 25.9%9.48
Total 28,477,377 100.0%228,980 100.0%17.73
# of properties w/ buildings sqft % of total by sqft
All NH properties 8572 28,477,377 100.00%
10k+ sqft 322 10,875,903 38.19%
10k-25k sqft 193 2,970,274 10.43%
25k-50k sqft 76 2,680,821 9.41%
50k-100k sqft 38 2,619,178 9.20%
100k+ sqft 15 2,605,630 9.15%
Energy Benchmarking & Disclosure 24
DataTrends47 to these figures, a ballpark estimate for emissions savings can be applied to the square
footage categories. These figures are converted back to MTCO2e for ease of comparison.
Contribution to GHG Emissions Target
The analysis determined the following emissions reduction potentials by square footage threshold used
for a potential benchmarking and disclosure policy in Northampton, implemented in 2020 through a 2030
timeframe.
• Low case: at a 50k+ sqft threshold, with 53 properties affected representing 5.22M sqft, an
emissions reduction of 9,061 MTCO2e is projected.
• Mid case: at a 25k+ sqft threshold, with 129 properties affected representing 7.91M sqft, an
emissions reduction of 13,710 MTCO2e is projected.
• High case: at a 10k+ sqft threshold, with 322 properties affected representing 10.88M sqft, an
emissions reduction of 18,861 MTCO2e is projected.
As a further information item, the average emissions reduction per property is reduced as more and more
properties are included in the potential ordinance. Smaller buildings have less reduction potential:
• 100k+ sqft properties only: Here we have only the 15 largest sqft properties, with a reduction
potential of 301.2 MTCO2e per property.
• Low: 53 properties @ 171.0 MTCO2e per property. 9,061 MTCO2e is projected.
• Mid: 129 properties @ 106.3 MTCO2e per property. 13,710 MTCO2e is projected.
• High: 322 properties @ 58.6 MTCO2e per property. 18,861 MTCO2e is projected.
Assumptions and Calculations
No modeled growth of new build square footage was performed. The primary justification for this
assumption is that the Zero Net Energy Buildings strategy is included in this write-up, which specifically
addresses new buildings.
Another key assumption related to this policy has to do with its enforceability. This estimate assumes the
policy begins taking full effect in 2020. Some local policies have managed challenges in the initial stages
such as delaying penalties for non-compliance in the first year, delaying the release of data publicly, and
so forth which can postpone the effectiveness of the policy. Planning ahead and a strong outreach effort
is key in avoiding delays, confusion, inaccuracies in reporting, and negative reactions among affected
building owners.
All sqft were assumed to be the same emissions intensity. Larger properties often have more staff and
resources, and are therefore conceivably able to be able to manage energy use more effectively.
However, this is not always the case.
47 https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/reference/research-reports/portfolio-manager-datatrends
Net Zero Energy New Buildings 25
Northampton GHG Reduction Strategy:
Net Zero Energy New Buildings
Reduction Potential Summary Table
Scenario Low (2.5% Redev) Mid (5% Redev) High (10% Redev)
Building Sector GHG Emissions
Reduction by 2030 5,656 MTCO2e 11,313 MTCO2e 22,625 MTCO2e
% Reduction of 2016 Building
Emissions (228,980 MTCO2e) 2.5% 4.9% 9.9%
% Reduction of 2016 Overall
Inventory (329,140 MTCO2e) 1.7% 3.4% 6.9%
Description of Strategy
Generally speaking, a net zero energy (NZE) building
produces at least enough renewable energy to meet
its own annual energy consumption requirements.
Effort has been put into standardizing definitions as
well as measurements for net zero energy buildings.
Key terms are source energy, annual delivered
energy, and exported energy.
DOE has provided basic resources for understanding
calculations.48 Source energy is calculated using the
following formula:
Esource = ∑i (Edel,irdel,i) - ∑i (Eexp,irexp,i) where
Edel,i is the delivered energy for energy type i;
Eexp,i is the exported on-site renewable energy for energy type i;
rdel,i is the source energy conversion factor for the delivered energy type i;
rexp,i is the source energy conversion factor for the exported energy type i;
Conversion factors are used in the equation to
normalize different types of energy into units of raw
fuel consumed or generated on-site. National
average source energy conversion factors for these
calculations were provided, with more information
published in ASHRAE Standard 105-2014.49 These
conversion factors influence the calculations greatly.
Example calculations are on the following page.
48 https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/common-definition-zero-energy-buildings
49 https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-105-2014?gateway_code=ashrae&product_id=1873278
Energy Form Source Energy
Conversion Factor (r)
Imported Electricity 3.15
Exported Renewable Electricity 3.15
Natural Gas 1.09
Fuel Oil (1,2,4,5,6,Diesel, Kerosene)1.19
Propane & Liquid Propane 1.15
Steam 1.45
Hot Water 1.35
Chilled Water 1.04
Coal or Other 1.05
Net Zero Energy New Buildings 26
Other definitions and calculations for determining whether or not a building has achieved NZE compliance
exist, with primary differentiations being how the value of energy delivered or exported is measured.
Essentially, where the DOE calculation above seeks to normalize and simplify calculations with constant
Source Energy Conversion Factors, other definitions and calculations such as the California Energy
Commission’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) metric are more complex through variability of inputs but
also more regionally appropriate and ostensibly more accurate.50 The use of energy modeling software is
standard practice in the energy rating industry, with some examples being REM/Rate, EnergyGauge,
Ekotrope, and EnergyPro. California’s approved list of software conforms to and is able to complete all
calculation methods according to their methodology.51
Additional Information
The Net Zero Energy Buildings resource page at the Whole Building Design Guide is a good resource for
further definitions, information on related energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, federal
goals, commercial and residential examples, and relevant codes or standards.52
50 https://www.ladbs.org/docs/default-source/publications/code-amendments/2016-calgreen_complete.pdf?sfvrsn=6
51 https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/2016_computer_prog_list.html
52 https://www.wbdg.org/resources/net-zero-energy-buildings
Net Zero Energy New Buildings 27
In terms of local policy examples, Santa Monica, CA requires net zero energy construction for all new
single-family homes as well as solar and energy efficiency requirements for commercial new construction
that mimic net zero energy without specifically requiring an Energy Design Rating (EDR) of zero.53 EDR is
functionally equivalent to RESNET’s HERS Index scoring system used in residential energy modeling. The
City created a Zero Net Energy Guide for New Construction54 and provides details on the City website.55
Ultimately, a reliable and industry-friendly solution for modeling net zero energy compliance is essential
for the success of a local ordinance.
Estimated GHG Emission Reductions
An estimated emissions reduction for this strategy could be performed in several ways. One option is to
compare average energy use intensities by building type resulting from compliance with the standing
building energy code to a value of zero or less, corresponding with NZE principles. These figures could be
multiplied by new construction sqft or total floor area estimates according to building type (single family,
multifamily, commercial, etc.). In other words, typical energy use per sqft according to current code and
new construction expectations for Northampton can be combined as one approach.
For the purposes of this analysis, the concept of net zero energy new buildings serves as a backstop
supporting the 0% business as usual emissions growth rate used here for Northampton. A net zero new
construction ordinance would serve as a cap on Building sector emissions growth, resulting in lower
average energy use intensity figures over time as new buildings are constructed to the standard and older
buildings are retired. To capture this turnover effect from any redevelopment and coordinate well with
other assumptions and strategies within this analysis, this emissions reduction estimate assumes no new
emissions from new construction under an NZE ordinance (supporting the 0% BAU) and estimates various
rates of building turnover starting in 2020, through 2030 (providing a further reduction).
Tax assessor data provides insight into the vintages of Northampton building stock. A significant number
of Northampton’s buildings were constructed prior
to 1900. To the right, construction is tabulated by
decade with the information plotted in chart form
on the following page. The most prolific 20th
century decades for Northampton new
construction, in terms of number of buildings,
occurred in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The most prolific
decade in terms of square footage was the ‘80s.
New square footage and buildings have generally
declined since, with a decadal average since 1991
of 352 buildings and 1.46 million square feet. The
yearly average since 1991 (28 years) is 37.7
buildings per year and 156.9k square feet.
53 https://www.santamonica.gov/press/2016/10/27/santa-monica-city-council-votes-in-the-world-s-first-zero-net-
energy-building-requirement-implementation-begins-in-2017
54 https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Green_Building/SantaMonica_Residential%20ZNE%20Guide.pdf
55 https://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Green_Building/Energy_Reach_Code_and_ZNE.aspx
# bldgs sqft % bldgs % sqft avg sqft/bldg
Pre-1900 3,151 9,847,566 36.8%35.0%3,125
1901-1910 149 521,458 1.7%1.9%3,500
1911-1920 269 1,000,758 3.1%3.6%3,720
1921-1930 455 1,611,190 5.3%5.7%3,541
1931-1940 167 471,440 1.9%1.7%2,823
1941-1950 434 1,089,850 5.1%3.9%2,511
1951-1960 894 2,030,160 10.4%7.2%2,271
1961-1970 786 2,279,066 9.2%8.1%2,900
1971-1980 531 2,392,277 6.2%8.5%4,505
1981-1990 679 2,499,757 7.9%8.9%3,682
1991-2000 399 1,323,426 4.7%4.7%3,317
2001-2010 367 1,746,527 4.3%6.2%4,759
2011-2019 290 1,324,468 3.4%4.7%4,567
Total 8,571 28,137,943 100.0%100.0%3,283
Net Zero Energy New Buildings 28
Utilizing the 17.73 lbs/sqft average
emissions intensity figure calculated
as part of the Energy Benchmarking
& Disclosure section and assumed
yearly rates of redevelopment of the
existing square footage in
Northampton of 0.25%, 0.5%, and
1%, low, mid, and high case emission
reduction scenarios (on top of the
cap on new Buildings sector
emissions supporting the 0%
business as usual growth rate) can
be assembled. One percent of
Northampton’s 28.1 million square feet of existing buildings (281,379 sqft) carries a resulting estimated
average emissions burden of 2,262 MTCO2e. Smith College emissions as a whole were included with
Commercial Buildings in the 2016 GHG inventory, accounting for the difference between this figure and
1% of the overall Buildings Sector emissions totaling 228,980 MTCO2e.
Contribution to GHG Emissions Target
• The low case scenario estimates that 2.5% of existing square footage redeveloped under a net
zero energy new construction ordinance between 2020 and 2030 would result in a reduction of
5,656 MTCO2e by 2030.
• The mid case scenario estimates that 5% of existing square footage redeveloped under a net zero
energy new construction ordinance between 2020 and 2030 would result in a reduction of 11,313
MTCO2e by 2030.
• The high case scenario estimates that 10% of existing square footage redeveloped under a net
zero energy new construction ordinance between 2020 and 2030 would result in a reduction of
22,625 MTCO2e by 2030.
Assumptions and Calculations
Forward looking construction outlooks were unavailable, but would provide more insight into potential
emissions reductions.
Scenario Assumed Redevelopment Rate Sqft MTCO2e 10 year Policy Horizon Total
Low Case 0.25%70,345 566 5,656
Mid Case 0.50%140,690 1,131 11,313
High Case 1.00%281,379 2,263 22,625
Electrification of Thermal Loads 29
Northampton GHG Reduction Strategy:
Electrification of Thermal Loads
Reduction Potential Summary Table
Scenario Low (1,000 ASHPs) Mid (2,000) High (3,000)
Building Sector GHG Emissions
Reduction by 2030 3,831 MTCO2e 7,931 MTCO2e 12,301 MTCO2e
% Reduction of 2016 Building
Emissions (228,980 MTCO2e) 1.7% 3.5% 5.4%
% Reduction of 2016 Overall
Inventory (329,140 MTCO2e) 1.2% 2.4% 3.7%
Description of Strategy
The increased performance and energy efficiency of air-source heat
pumps (ASHPs) manufactured for cold weather climates today is a
result of technical, manufacturing, and installation advances:
• Variable speed inverter-driven compressor designs.
• Thermostatic expansion valves for more precise control of the
refrigerant flow to the indoor coil.
• Internally grooved copper tubing for increased surface area.
• Improved coil design.
• Variable speed blowers.
• Thoughtful placement of outdoor units and improved baffles.
• Growing scale of deployment and level of familiarity within the
service industry reducing equipment, installation, and
maintenance costs while increasing overall system effectiveness.
Lessons learned from cold climate ASHP deployment around the world, as well as US-based research,
deployment, and field testing provide an increasingly reliable fact base for comparative analysis between
heating fuel sources and specific equipment or systems. Cold climate heat pumps now consistently show
cost savings over electric resistance, oil, and propane fueled heating systems.565758 Reductions in GHG
emissions vary on a project-by-project basis depending on the previously employed system, building size,
grade of air sealing and insulation, new ASHP heating system installed, and occupant behavior. Market
penetration of ASHPs is increasing thanks to transformation initiatives such as industry training, consumer
education, incentive programs and support, improving specs, and more.59
56 https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/inverter-driven-heat-pumps-
cold.pdf
57 https://www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/home-energy-savings-program/heating-cost-comparison/
58 https://aceee.org/research-report/a1803
59 https://neep.org/sites/default/files/NEEP_ASHP_2016MTStrategy_Report_FINAL.pdf
Electrification of Thermal Loads 30
Supporting Programs
The first run of the HeatSmart Northampton air source heat pump program helped 54 homeowners
around Northampton make the switch to ASHPs.60 Discounted bulk pricing is a strong value add on top of
existing rebate offers. Full-service community outreach is great for driving participation, particularly the
‘Meet the Installer’ events and house parties with demonstrations and homeowner feedback.
Other supporting programs include the MassCEC ASHP rebate program, the Mass Save ASHP rebate
program, and the Mass Save HEAT Loan program. The MassCEC eligible products list61 and NEEP’s Cold
Climate Air Source Heat Pump (ccASHP) Specification62 have served to identify and drive the market
toward the best available technology. While the MassCEC products list is more straightforward, NEEP’s
specification is more inclusive and ambitious. NEEP has proposed significant future updates to their spec
with target effective dates of January 1st, 2019 (V3.0) and January 1st, 2020 (V4.0).63 In summary, the
January 2019 update to the ccASHP Specification will allow more systems to become eligible by lowering
the Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) requirement, not requiring ENERGY STAR, and lowering the ducted
system Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) requirement. The 2020 V4.0 update proposes to
create a “higher bar” second tier spec, effectively a new category for the most efficient heat pumps, and
set the existing spec as the lower tier.
The MassCEC rebate structure was updated
effective November 2018 with the primary
rebate dropping to $500. The income-based
rebates dropped as well to $750 and $1,000. If
rebate budgets are fully utilized via strong
demand, or a decrease in ASHP equipment or
installation costs, the market may be able to
absorb any reduction in rebate amounts
without loss of momentum in transformation.
In other words, it is possible to
reduce rebates without slowing
market penetration. The Mass
Save rebate structure has been
updated dramatically, with higher
rebates available particularly for
homes with oil or propane heat.
This ought to drive more interest
from homeowners that would see
the greatest benefit.
60 http://wepowr.com/heatsmart-northampton
61 https://files-cdn.masscec.com/get-clean-energy/residential/clean-heating-
cooling/ASHPQualifyingEquipmentNov1.pdf
62 https://neep.org/initiatives/high-efficiency-products/emerging-technologies/ashp/cold-climate-air-source-heat-
pump
63 https://neep.org/sites/default/files/Cold%20Climate%20Air%20Source%20Heat%20Pump%20Specification -
%20Proposed%20Revisions%20Memo%20-%209.11%20Correction.pdf
Electrification of Thermal Loads 31
Data from the MassCEC ASHP program was analyzed to understand regional trends and market
transformation expectations.64 MassCEC data Indicates that 37.8% of rebated heat pump projects
replaced fuel oil heating systems and 37.5% replaced a natural gas system. Overall, 86.6% of projects
replaced a non-electricity fuel source.
Through March 15th of 2018, 88
MassCEC rebates were paid to
homeowners in Northampton with an average of 1.5 outdoor units and 2.4 indoor units per project.
While identified as an incomplete dataset, information at hand
on Northampton’s home heating fuel profile is nonetheless
robust enough to yield general estimates of the fuel types
present in the building sector. Northampton’s profile aligns well
with Mass CEC ASHP rebate program results and the new
incentive structure for the Mass Save program. This suggests
that an optimistic outlook is warranted for ASHP deployment. In particular, aging oil-fueled forced air
systems make good candidates for ASHP replacements and have high energy and GHG savings potential.
Recognizing that a wide array of projects with varying results in terms of efficiency gains and fuel-
switching effects occurs within this type of program, actual project savings in terms of pre - and post-
retrofit energy usage is very useful information for evaluating the overall potential of this strategy.
64 http://files.masscec.com/get-clean-energy/residential/air-source-heat-
pumps/ResidentialASHPProjectDatabase.xlsx
MassCEC ASHP Rebate Projects in Northampton through March 15th, 2018
Electric Resistance Natural Gas Oil Propane Woodstove None Total
Projects 10 45 27 2 2 2 88
Outdoor Units 13 64 43 3 2 4 129
Indoor Units 25 102 70 3 6 7 213
Avg Capacity at 5°F 29,520 27,593 30,493 17,700 36,800 22,300 28,566
Fuel Source Replaced Projects %
Electric 1,568 13.4%
Natural Gas 4,394 37.5%
Oil 4,437 37.8%
Propane 519 4.4%
Wood 101 0.9%
Other or N/A 709 6.0%
Total 11,728 100.0%
Northampton Heating Fuel Type
Natural Gas 3934 47.0%
Electric 1346 16.1%
Oil 3073 36.7%
Other 14 0.2%
Electrification of Thermal Loads 32
Estimated GHG Emission Reductions
Research on an estimated average reduction potential per
project for Northampton revealed a wide range of figures.
One Northeast-focused study indicates a decrease of 5.7 tons
annually (5.17 MTCO2e) for an average fuel oil-heated home
converted to ASHPs.65 The same source indicates a 4.89
MTCO2e reduction from propane and 3.08 MTCO2e reduction
from natural gas.
ASHP replacement case studies collected as further research
offer limited but real-world estimates of energy reduction
potential across projects. An EERE case study on the field
performance of inverter-driven heat pumps in cold climates
revealed difficulty in accurately calculating energy savings
from retrofit projects.66
Extrapolation of report data indicates heat energy savings potential in a range of zero to 39 MMBtu (or
11,430 kWh) over the course of a year. Resulting emissions reductions are therefore calculated to vary
between zero and 2.9 MTCO2e for these projects using Northampton’s 2016 GHG inventory electricity
emissions factor of 563.7 lbs. CO2e/MWh.
A NEEP study provides typical annual
fuel usage and resulting GHG
emissions for a New England home.67
Yearly GHG emissions per range
from 3.58 MTCO2e for ASHP systems
to 8.96 for electric resistance heat.
The study also provides GHG
estimates for various types of fuel
replacements: 2.02 MTCO2e per oil
burner/furnace conversion and 5.38
for electric resistance heat.
65 http://2030.acadiacenter.org/buildings/
66 https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/inverter -driven-heat-pumps-
cold.pdf
67 https://neep.org/sites/default/files/NEEP_ASHP_2016MTStrategy_Report_FINAL.pdf
Electrification of Thermal Loads 33
With the information available, an average estimated GHG reduction per replacement is pegged at 3.5
MTCO2e. As energy usage reduction calculations accumulate for ASHP programs, or for peer programs in
New England, more precise figures may come to light and would represent the best available data. A case
study highlighting a “typical” Northampton home that received a heating system replacement, either
natural gas or oil-fueled via forced air or a boiler, with energy usage quantities by fuel type before and
after the project, may also be helpful as an average reduction per project specific to Northampton.
Contribution to GHG Emissions Target
Using the per-project GHG reduction estimate at hand and Northampton ASHP market penetration rates
based on program participation, associated impacts can be given in relation to GHG emissions.
• 1,000 cold climate ASHPs replacing aged heating systems would reduce emissions by 3,500 MTCO2e.
• 2,000 cold climate ASHPs replacing aged heating systems would reduce emissions by 7,000 MTCO2e.
• 3,000 cold climate ASHPs replacing aged heating systems would reduce emissions by 10,500 MTCO2e.
The benefits of the Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity strategy low (35% renewable by 2030), mid (42.5%
renewable), and high case scenarios (50% renewable) were added to the estimated figures to model the
synergistic effect that a greener electricity supply would have per project under those scenarios. The
5,862 kWh figure from the NEEP assessment, representing yearly ASHP energy consumption in a typical
New England home, is multiplied by an adjusted electricity emissions factor to determine what further
emissions are possible through decarbonization.
• 35% renewable electricity by 2030 would increase the benefits of each ASHP project from roughly
3.5 MTCO2e to 3.83 MTCO2e. The final reduction is 3,831 MTCO2e.
• 42.5% renewable electricity by 2030 would increase the benefits of each ASHP project from roughly
3.5 MTCO2e to 3.97 MTCO2e. The final reduction is 7,931 MTCO2e.
• 50% renewable electricity by 2030 would increase the benefits of each ASHP project from roughly
3.5 MTCO2e to 4.10 MTCO2e. The final reduction is 12,301 MTCO2e.
Assumptions and Calculations
This measure uses a best-known base estimate of 3.5 MTCO2e per project. A wide variety of projects are
possible in terms of building type, size, fuel, and equipment. Where possible, heating energy usage prior
to the ASHP retrofit along with electrical usage specific to the ASHP system afterward would enable better
energy and emissions savings estimates. Building performance areas that may be improved in the same
scope of work as ASHP installations such as air sealing, insulation, and even improving occupant behavior
represent complicating but definitely positive upside factors that can improve results per project.
The emissions reduction potential per project will increase over time as the carbon intensity of electricity
decreases.
Scenario # ASHP Projects Base Reduction Base Total Electricity Reduction Electricity Total Total Reduction
Low Case 1,000 3.500 3,500 0.331 331 3,831
Mid Case 2,000 3.500 7,000 0.466 931 7,931
High Case 3,000 3.500 10,500 0.600 1,801 12,301
Renewable/Low Carbon Electricity 34
Northampton GHG Reduction Strategy:
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards
Reduction Potential Summary Table
Scenario Low Mid High
Transportation Sector GHG
Emissions Reduction by 2030 12,320 MTCO2e 19,069 MTCO2e 28,455 MTCO2e
% Reduction of 2016 Transport
Emissions (85,800 MTCO2e) 14.4% 22.2% 33.2%
% Reduction of 2016 Overall
Inventory (329,140 MTCO2e) 3.7% 5.8% 8.6%
Description of Strategy
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, first enacted by the
U.S. Congress in 1975, are regulations in the United States intended to
improve the average fuel economy of the cars and light trucks produced
for sale in the United States. Over time, CAFE standards have resulted in
more efficient (higher mpg) passenger vehicles on the road. A major
update in 2010 and incremental improvements through 2016 set a
timetable for increasing CAFE standards through 2025 and added the first
fuel economy standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. Separately, EPA greenhouse gas (GHG)
tailpipe emissions regulations also apply to all vehicles, working in coordination with CAFE and
medium/heavy-duty truck standards toward more efficient, less polluting vehicles. These standards
together are commonly referred to as the "National Program."
In August 2018, the DOT and EPA proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule which
would eliminate pending increases in
CAFE and tailpipe emissions standards
by freezing model year 2020 standards
for both programs through model year
2026. An impact analysis of this rule
estimates that freezing standards at
2020 levels will quickly result in lower
fleet average miles per gallon, with a
widening performance gap through
2025.68 The same report forecasts that
US 2025 emissions will be 16 to 37
million metric tons higher as a result of
68 https://rhg.com/research/sizing-up-a-potential-fuel-economy-standards-freeze/
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 35
the rule, with US annual oil demand increasing by 126,000 to 283,000 barrels of oil per day. A fact sheet
produced by the DOT and EPA regarding this rule gives an estimate of 500,000 barrels per day increase in
fuel consumption.69
The bottom line regarding future transportation GHG emissions in Northampton is that fuel efficiency and
per vehicle emissions should continue to improve until 2020, however the new rule creates a plateau
effect thereafter. Prior to this rule change, emissions could be expected to decline through 2025 and
beyond.
Recognizing that there is a lot of detail associated with CAFE standards70 and vehicle GHG emissions
regulations71, let's take a look at some of the main ideas and then apply the expected benefits to
Northampton’s community greenhouse gas inventory. Fuel efficiency standards, and the closely
associated vehicle GHG regulations, are likely to be the most effective mechanism by which GHG
emissions associated with transportation will be reduced in Northampton, and across the US, in the
coming years.
Understanding CAFE Standards - The Basics
CAFE standards affect only light duty vehicles. The Department of Energy infographic on the following
page (figures representing the pre-rule change timetable) highlights the rise of CAFE standards over time
for light duty vehicles and looks ahead to 2025.72 In simplest terms, the average passenger vehicle built
in 2025 would be able to go almost 3 times as far on the same amount of fuel as the average passenger
vehicle built in 1978. In only 5 years, from 2011 to 2016, average efficiency increased by 17.5%. We've
amended the graphic to reflect the July 2016 mid-term evaluation process Technical Assessment Report
(also known as the TAR), which revised estimates for 2025 fuel savings targets downward to between 50
and 52.6 miles per gallon (mpg).73 We’ve also indicated 2025 CAFE levels as determined by the proposed
SAFE Vehicles final rule.
69 https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/rev_fact_sheet_cafe_nprm_by_the_numbers_003-tag.pdf
70 http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy
71 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines
72 http://energy.gov/articles/545-mpg-and-beyond-fueling-energy-efficient-vehicles
73 https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/light-duty-cafe-midterm-evaluation
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 36
While the overall CAFE mpg standards for passenger cars referenced on the infographic are a decent rule
of thumb, there is a lot of detail "under the hood" in CAFE regulations such as the actual formulae for a
manufacturer's yearly CAFE number, penalty fees for CAFE shortfall and/or CAFE credits, gross vehicle
weight rating limitations, a Gas Guzzler Tax for cars that get less than 22.5 mpg, and more.
Without going into every detail of these fuel efficiency regulations, it's important to note that the CAFE
mpg values are different than the "window sticker" fuel economies consumers see at car dealerships. In
a nutshell, the mpg test for CAFE is different than the mpg test for dealer window stickers. The CAFE test
uses ideal driving conditions, such as a flat/smooth surface and minimal braking, whereas window sticker
tests use real world driving conditions to model fuel efficiency. Dealership sticker mpg values are more
reliable and are generally 20-25% lower than CAFE values.74 Starting with 2008 model year vehicles, the
EPA has overseen the protocol for mpg figures presented to consumers which more closely represents
today's traffic, road conditions, and air conditioner usage. The same vehicle will have two different mpg
ratings for different purposes, and the dealer figures are more useful for our estimates. This means that
the 2025 average mpg target for new cars is more realistically in the 31.8-34 mpg range compared to the
42.5 mpg CAFE value under the SAFE Vehicles Rule. A more realistic mpg on the original 54.5 mpg CAFE
value for 2025 would have been 40.8 - 43.6 mpg.
74 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100IENA.PDF?Dockey=P100IENA.PDF
X
50.0 - 52.6
TAR
X
42.5
SAFE
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 37
Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Rules for this category of vehicles are completely different than CAFE standards. Until 2014, there have
never been fuel efficiency standards for this category of vehicle in the United States. New regulations
involving fuel efficiency and also greenhouse gases have been implemented in two phases: 2014 -2018
(phase one) and 2018-2027 (phase two). The phase two regulations also include standards for trailers
attached to semi-trucks, requiring trailers to likewise pitch in with the performance of the trucks that haul
them.75 The final outcome of these regulations is as follows:
• Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans: Standards for 2018 represent an average reduction in GHG
emissions of 17% for diesel vehicles and 12% for gasoline vehicles from 2010 levels. By 2027, fuel
economy will improve by 16% again, compared to the 2018 standards. The final 2027 figures are
therefore a 35.72% efficiency gain for diesel and 29.92% for gasoline vehicles since 2010.
• Combination Tractors (also known as semi-trucks): 2017 standards will achieve from 9% to 23%
reduction in emissions and fuel consumption from affected tractors over 2010 baselines.76 By 2027,
fuel economy will improve by 24% again, compared to the 2017 standards.77 The final 2027 figures
are therefore a 35.16% to 52.52% increase in efficiency for combination tractors since 2010.
• Vocational Vehicles: 2017 standards for a wide variety of truck and bus types including delivery,
refuse, utility, dump, cement, transit bus, shuttle bus, school bus, emergency vehicles, motor homes,
tow trucks, and many more will achieve emission reductions of 6% to 9% from a 2010 baseline. By
2027, fuel economy will improve by 24% again, compared to the 2017 standards. The final 2027
figures are therefore a 31.44% to 35.16% increase in efficiency for vocational vehicles since 2010.
75 http://www.nhtsa.gov.edgesuite-staging.net/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/ci.md-hd-cafe-final-rule-
08162016.print
76 https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf
77 http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/vehicle-standards#hdv_2014_to_2018
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 38
• Trailers Pulled by Combination Tractors: Not included under Phase 1 standards, trailers would
achieve a 9% reduction in fuel consumption by model year 2027.
Vehicles on The Road
The final piece of information to consider is that although new vehicles are meeting stricter standards, it
takes time for new vehicles to thoroughly supplant older models on the roadway. Obviously, vehicles are
built to last for many years. The average age of cars and light trucks on the road has been increasing, with
consumers hanging onto their cars and trucks for longer. The average age of cars and light trucks,
according to registered vehicles, hit a record 11.6 years in 2016.78
Heavy-duty vehicles exhibit mixed trends in average age by vehicle type and class, with some gross vehicle
weight categories becoming "newer" and some "older" on average. Overall, the average age of
commercial heavy-duty vehicles is 14.8 years as of 2015.79
Contribution to GHG Emissions Target
Federal fuel efficiency and GHG standards for vehicles are likely to be the largest contributing factor to
reducing emissions from the transportation sector in Northampton by 2030.
Given the multiple considerations of efficiency ranges for future dates, increasing average age of vehicles
on the road, possible shifts in models produced by manufacturers in the future, and additional
considerations such as changes in the mix of vehicles that Americans buy in the coming years, exact figures
of emissions reductions are impossible to pinpoint. Thus, presenting a few scenarios (low, mid, and high)
for the kinds of reductions that Northampton can expect to see by 2030 is the most appropriate.
According to the 2016 GHG inventory, transportation emissions represented 26% of city-wide emissions
at 85,796 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions (MTCO2e) out of a total 329,140 MTCO2e for all sectors.
The following table (condensed here) was pulled from the 2016 inventory showing a breakdown of VMT
by vehicle type, mpg, and other figures used to derive the overall transportation emissions figure. Three
scenarios follow regarding possible transportation emissions figures that could be observed by conducting
a GHG inventory in 2030. It is helpful to see them all on one page - an explanation follows:
78 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fact-997-october-2-2017-average-age-cars-and-light-trucks-was-
almost-12-years
79 http://press.ihs.com/press-release/automotive/class-8-commercial-vehicles-continue-drive-overall-us-
commercial-vehicle-de
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 39
Assumptions and Calculations
For all of the 2030 scenarios, overall VMT in Northampton was increased based on the population growth
rate of 3.47% forecast by the PVPC projection for Northampton between 2016 and 2030 .80 While this
projection was not used for the overall business as usual case, including it here simulates growth in the
larger region, acknowledges the trend of people driving more and farther, and makes the emissions
reduction slightly more conservative. The VMT are distributed across vehicle categories according to their
% of vehicle mix.
80 https://www.northamptonma.gov/759/SewerWastewater - see page 36 of the report
2016 GHG Inventory
Vehicle Type Fuel Type % of Vehicle Mix VMT MPG Fuel Use (gallons)MTCO2e
Passenger Vehicles Gasoline 60.6%85,774,354 23.4 3,665,571 33,096
Light Duty Trucks Gasoline 32.4%45,859,556 17.2 2,666,253 23,643
Passenger Vehicles Diesel 0.3%424,626 25.9 16,395 178
Light Duty Trucks Diesel 1.3%1,840,044 19.0 96,844 997
Heavy Duty Trucks Diesel 5.4%7,643,259 2.8 2,729,735 27,882
TOTAL 100.0%141,541,838 85,796
2030 Low Scenario
Vehicle Type Fuel Type % of Vehicle Mix VMT MPG Fuel Use (gallons)MTCO2e
Passenger Vehicles Gasoline 53.0%77,621,955 28.1 2,764,315 24,376
Light Duty Trucks Gasoline 40.0%58,582,608 20.6 2,838,305 25,023
Passenger Vehicles Diesel 0.3%439,370 31.1 14,137 144
Light Duty Trucks Diesel 1.3%1,903,935 22.8 83,506 853
Heavy Duty Trucks Diesel 5.4%7,908,652 3.5 2,259,615 23,080
TOTAL 100.0%146,456,520 73,476
2030 Mid Scenario
Vehicle Type Fuel Type % of Vehicle Mix VMT MPG Fuel Use (gallons)MTCO2e
Passenger Vehicles Gasoline 60.6%88,752,651 30.4 2,917,576 25,727
Light Duty Trucks Gasoline 32.4%47,451,912 22.4 2,122,179 18,709
Passenger Vehicles Diesel 0.3%439,370 33.7 13,049 133
Light Duty Trucks Diesel 1.3%1,903,935 24.7 77,082 788
Heavy Duty Trucks Diesel 5.4%7,908,652 3.8 2,092,236 21,370
TOTAL 100.0%146,456,520 66,727
2030 High Scenario
Vehicle Type Fuel Type % of Vehicle Mix VMT MPG Fuel Use (gallons)MTCO2e
Passenger Vehicles Gasoline 60.6%88,752,651 35.1 2,528,566 22,297
Light Duty Trucks Gasoline 32.4%47,451,912 25.8 1,839,221 16,215
Passenger Vehicles Diesel 0.3%439,370 38.9 11,309 116
Light Duty Trucks Diesel 1.3%1,903,935 28.5 66,805 683
Heavy Duty Trucks Diesel 5.4%7,908,652 4.5 1,765,324 18,031
TOTAL 100.0%146,456,520 57,341
CAFE & Other Vehicle Standards 40
In the low, or most conservative estimate, the % of vehicle mix was revised downward for passenger
vehicles and that difference shifted into the light duty truck category, which increases emissions. It is
important to keep in mind that the vehicle mix can change in coming years depending on consumer
purchasing preferences. Automotive purchasing trends suggest that with cheaper fuel costs, American
vehicle purchases shift toward larger vehicles. There is no way to predict the extent of fuel pricing trends
going forward, but this shift acknowledges the trend. Keeping in mind that the opposite trend can occur
at any time, the mid and high scenarios maintain the same vehicle mixes as observed in 2016 data.
Additionally, in the low or most conservative estimate, passenger vehicles and light duty trucks vehicles
observe a modest increase of 20% in their fuel efficiency from 2016 to 2030. This estimate heavily weights
the concept of ever-increasing age of vehicles continuing to be used as primary transportation rather than
being registered but mostly garaged or used as a back-up vehicle. These figures are roughly the realistic
average mpg of vehicles produced in 2016, with the CAFE average adjusted downward by 20%. Heavy-
duty trucks see a 25% increase in efficiency, less than half of the expected gains and without factoring in
efficient trailers.
The mid case scenario represents a compromise between the low and high scenarios, with passenger
vehicles and light duty trucks seeing an increase of 30% in their fuel efficiency. Heavy-duty trucks are 35%
more efficient.
The high case scenario represents strong market transformation in fuel efficiency across all categories.
Passenger vehicles and light duty trucks are 50% more efficient, slightly above the real-world adjusted
(20-25% discount) CAFE numbers for 2025 after the implementation of the SAFE vehicle rule. With many
car manufacturers ahead of CAFE regulations, a strong consumer appetite for new vehicles, and
penetration of new technologies - it is entirely possible that these figures may be seen in 2030. Heavy-
duty trucks are 60% more efficient, factoring in the effect of efficient trailers.
In all cases, despite growth in overall VMT between 2016 and 2030, transportation emissions are expected
to decrease in Northampton thanks to rising federal fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards for
vehicles.