Methods for State DOTs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Transportation Sector (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D-1 A P P E N D I X D Task 7 Workshop Report Summaries Nevada Format of Workshop and Agenda Due to restrictions on gatherings and travel resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Nevada workshop was held virtually using a platform capable of videoconferencing and breakout groups. The workshop spanned three days during May 2020 and was divided into four sessions originally timed for two hours each (Table D-1). During Sessions 1 and 2, the team walked participants through the content of the guide; Session 2 concluded with a discussion of the guide in breakout groups. Session 3 again split participants into breakout groups to walk through the guide’s self-assessment and action planning tools. Session 4 was originally planned to include additional small-group discussion centered on continued development of action plans, as well as specific technical and institutional issues identified in Session 3. However, the discussion in Session 3 identified that Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) needed to do further internal policy and institutional development work before spending more time on action plans specific to functional areas. As a result, Session 4 ended up being a shorter plenary session (about an hour) to cover additional questions, next steps, and wrap up. Throughout the workshop, participants were able to contribute feedback, ask questions, and find links to resources in the chat box. Workshop evaluation surveys were distributed at the end of Sessions 3 and 4. Table D-1. Nevada workshop agenda. Date and Time Topic Contents Monday 5/4 10:00–12:00 PDT Session 1— Orientation and Guidebook Walk- Through Part 1 Introductions, Overview of Workshop, Objectives Current Status of Addressing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) at NDOT Guidebook Walk-Through Part 1: Sections 1–8 Monday 5/4 1:00–3:00 PDT Session 2— Guidebook Walk- Through Part 2 Guidebook Walk-Through Part 2: Sections 9–18 and Appendices Overall Guidebook Feedback (breakouts) Wednesday 5/6 1:00–3:00 PDT Session 3— Breakouts for Self- Assessment and Action Planning Breakouts by functional area to review guidebook materials, complete self-assessments, and develop action items. 1. Executive, State Partners (Sections 5–8, 17, and 18) 2. Planning, Environmental (Sections 10–12) 3. Construction, Operations, Maintenance, Operations, Districts, and Administration (Sections 9, 13–16) Thursday 5/14 1:30–2:30 PDT Session 4—Plenary Discussion and Wrap Up Additional Questions, Wrap Up, Next Steps, and Evaluation

D-2 Because there was not time to explore all content of the guide in detail, it was recommended that participants review relevant sections independently. Participants were asked to review the entire guide before Session 1 and to explore specific portions of interest in more detail and complete at least two self- assessments prior to Session 3. The project team asked participants to consider the following questions in their review: 1. Does the guide contain information that is useful to you in your job? 2. How is the amount of information presented—too much? Not enough? Or just about right? 3. If “not enough,” what is missing that you would like to see added? 4. Is the organization of the guide logical? Can I easily find what I am looking for? 5. Is the visual presentation and layout of the guide attractive and easy to use? 6. How would you prefer to access the guide—download a single PDF? Access PDF sections through a web portal? Or access all material directly via webpages? 7. What organization, formatting, or other presentation changes would you suggest? Policy Context Recent policy developments at the State level have provided the impetus for NDOT to take a more active role in estimating and reducing GHG emissions. Senate Bill 254, signed into law in June 2019, directs the State’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to issue an annual report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Nevada, as well as a statement of policy options needed to reach the economy-wide GHG emission reduction goals called for in the bill. Executive Order 2019-22 builds on the initial climate report and calls for the completion of a State Climate Strategy by December 1, 2020. The order also called for cross-departmental coordination, directing the Department of Transportation to coordinate with other State agencies. Current NDOT Activities At the Executive level, participants reported ongoing processes to create a group, led by NDOT Division Chief of Environmental Programs, to pen policies and strategies around GHGs. This group’s meetings already had been scheduled. Environmental Programs sees itself as responsible for being compliant with Federal environmental regulations. The program plans to move forward in including GHG considerations in project development and design. Considering the level of engagement of NDOT in addressing GHG, participants from NDOT’s Planning Division placed NDOT at Level 2 and working towards Level 3 on the planning level. Planners are in the process of merging long-range planning projects and are involved in several efforts, such as electric charging, alternative fuels, and ride sharing incentives, that will impact GHGs. Though the Planning Division relies on other agencies’ annual reports for reporting GHGs, the division is considering how reporting could be improved. Planning reports a strong working relationship with the State’s MPOs, which they leverage to “educate the rest of the group.” The division plans to continue working with metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), Federal highway partners, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and others. NDOT’s Maintenance and Asset Management Division plans to approach GHG reduction through several strategies: continuing to change lighting fixtures to light-emitting diodes (LED) and promoting solar usage; continuing to upgrade windows and doors; continue upgrading systems for snow; and looking to reduce unnecessary travel. In some sections and divisions, activities are not yet explicitly tied to GHGs. The Construction Division has not started to work on GHG reduction but expressed openness to future efforts. NDOT reports that it is utilizing the full range of transportation system management and operations (TSMO) strategies available and plans to begin taking measurements of delay reductions to translate into GHG reductions. NDOT

D-3 estimates, though, that it is two to four years away from quantifying GHG reductions in this way. The Chief Equipment Superintendent noted that NDOT is replacing vehicles every year, an effort not explicitly intended to reduce GHGs, but that generates GHG emission reductions. Desired Status and Activities NDOT workshop participants recognize that the agency is at Level 1 overall; participants discussed several planned steps that would move the agency towards Level 2, in close coordination with its partners. Agencywide, policy recommendations consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order are needed by December 1. The Planning Division’s priority is to continue to work with the State environmental agency to acquire the data needed to improve accuracy of GHG reporting. The division also hopes to develop system-level strategies and policies. Specific strategies include identification of data needs; identification, evaluation, and selection of GHGs in plans; development of better understanding of what measures and forecasts include; and the convening of a statewide working group. The Environmental Division aims to undertake a formal evaluation of GHG reduction at the project level; implement qualitative and quantitative GHG assessment in environmental review; and convene an intra-agency team to develop a strategy to improve traffic operations, safety, and travel time reliability. They also hope to participate in interagency partnerships to increase alternative transit use and other approaches. The Environmental Division also hopes to increase material efficiency use to decrease its carbon footprint, collaborate with the Operations Division to increase energy efficiency in fleet and facilities, and implement vegetation in the NDOT right-of-way in order to reduce emissions. In Construction, participants identified two feasible approaches moving forward: reconsideration of materials and vehicles used in construction and looking to reduce idle times. The Maintenance Division aims to develop baseline GHG emissions for facilities and operations; baselines already have been developed for some facilities, but not for maintenance ones. The division also would like to establish a policy that sets GHG reduction goals and targets and monitors regions and districts. This would help them better measure reduction achieved. There also is an appetite for route optimization efforts. Though NDOT sees itself as active in TSMO, there has not been a push to tie those metrics and functionalities explicitly to the reduction of GHGs; this is a step NDOT could take in the future. The Division of Administration sees the biggest opportunity moving forward as electrification of NDOT’s light-duty fleet. To reduce emissions from other vehicles, the agency also could consider implementing idling policies. The group also discussed potential gains related to switching fuels. Actions to Increase Engagement NDOT has taken important steps at the executive level by assigning lead responsibilities to coordinate the agency’s GHG efforts. Several next steps were proposed to help move these activities forward:  Write an executive charter establishing a working group or task force comprised of leads from each functional area, and outlining meeting and reporting expectations and deliverables for the working group.  Hold an internal “get started” meeting with the working group.  Complete self-assessments from the guide for each functional area, identifying strategies the agency is prepared to undertake and assigning specific action items and timeframes to initiate or complete those strategies.  Develop a GHG inventory for the agency to help identify the greatest opportunities for potential reductions from administration, planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations activities.  Develop a list of partner agencies and entities for statewide cross-sector effort and transportation-sector effort. Start with lists from Governor’s Executive Order and State legislation and add as appropriate, especially for transportation-sector effort. Share with involved NDOT staff.

D-4 Key Questions and Needs Across functional areas, participants asked questions about where to begin and what priority actions should be. Questions raised during discussion included:  How can NDOT GHG emission inventories be coordinated with Nevada’s other statewide inventories, and with other western States?  Where should NDOT start in the construction and administration areas?  How should NDOT develop a baseline for emissions reduced in the maintenance area?  How have other agencies translated TSMO measures, such as reduction in delay, into GHG emission reductions?  What is the role of planning versus project-level evaluation of GHG reductions? Feedback on Guide In workshop Session 2, participants discussed what worked and what could be improved or added to the guide. In addition, facilitators solicited feedback on the level of detail and presentation. What Works? As anticipated, the extent to which certain sections were highlighted as particularly useful was related to participants’ functional area. Different participants highlighted Section 5 (policy), Section 12 (project development and design), and Section 18 (“putting it all together”) as useful, and environmental staff expressed that they found new ways to support other functions. Below are several key reactions that spanned functional areas.  Level of depth and detail. Participants across all breakout groups noted that although the guide was long, the comprehensiveness and level of detail was appropriate; the level of depth was appreciated.  Layout and presentation. The organization of the guide also struck participants as intuitive and thus easy to read and follow. Participants liked the layout of the guide as well as the presentation, including visuals.  Group charter and agenda. Participants liked the idea of establishing a charter and a monthly meeting, and appreciated the sample meeting agenda. From a performance management perspective, the group understood that this kind of structure helps ensure that everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing.  Self-assessment tools. Participants anticipated that the self-assessment tools would be very helpful. The presentation of steps, rather than just high-level actions, would provide a solid groundwork. Organizations outside of NDOT also found the tools instructive; representatives from the Office of Energy and Public Utilities reported that they found them useful and might use them.  Partnerships. Participants appreciated learning about available partnership agencies, considering how other agencies might support DOTs, and learning about how components of the DOT are relevant to other agencies. One participant noted that, “Everything provides a good foundation that can be applied across governments and agencies.” Areas for Improvement  Address induced demand. Participants would like the guide to more explicitly address induced demand—How can agencies balance the need to keep traffic moving to reduce emissions, but compensate for the increased demand, and thus vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), as a result of better traffic flow? The guide could delve into broader policy and behavioral aspects of travel in terms of mode shift and GHGs. What can DOTs do to influence the inputs of a travel demand model?

D-5  More examples. Participants appreciate concrete examples that already existed in the guide and would like more of them. With additional examples, it could be helpful to bring in more “boots on the ground” and geographically diverse examples. Other participants discussed a desire for more examples around processes for consensus on inventory policies and processes.  More content on electric vehicles (EV) and alternative fuel vehicles. Participants would like more information on what the State—and in particular, the Public Utilities Commission—can do to encourage adoption of EVs and alternative fuel vehicles. And though the guide frequently mentions EVs, participants voiced a desire for more information about alternative fuels such as hydrogen.  Expand geography covered. Participants noticed that the guide tended to focus more on the East Coast, particularly with EV examples. In Nevada, the long driving distances present other challenges to adoption; considering rural geography is important. The guide could address this, a participant suggested, by providing detail specific to each State.  Focus on funding. The guide is more focused on external funding. For example, some areas do not receive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding. A participant noted that EV infrastructure is expensive and wondered how it could be funded. This also could include examples of the price tags of what’s been successful so far and timelines associated with those projects. The DOT’s funding system does not really support getting 80 to 90 percent of people in electric vehicles. How can DOTs motivate people to switch to electric vehicles? Attendees Workshop participants included approximately 17 staff from NDOT, as well as another 17 staff from State and regional agency partners, although not everyone participated in every session. The consultant team included 4 presenters/facilitators/technical experts, 1 primary support staff to manage technology, and 3 staff to assist with note-taking in breakout groups. The following positions were represented within NDOT:  Assistant Director, Administrative Services.  Assistant Director, Operations  Assistant Director, Planning and Program Development  Chief Equipment Superintendent  Chief Maintenance Engineer  Chief Materials Engineer  Chief Performance Analysis Engineer  Deputy Director, Transportation  Director, Transportation  Division Chief, Environmental Programs  Division Chief, NV2X Innovation  Environmental Services Support  Transportation Planner The following partner agencies and staff positions were also represented at the workshop:  Governor’s Office of Energy: Deputy Director  Nevada Department of Administration: Administrator of Fleet Services  Nevada Department of Administration: Director  Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles: Manager of Emissions Control Program  Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Deputy Administrator, Regulation Agency CNR  Public Utilities Commission of Nevada: Manager, Policy Analysis  Public Utilities Commission of Nevada: Economist  NV Energy: Electrification Programs Director

D-6  Carson Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Senior Transportation Planner  Clark County: Assistant Director, Department of Environment and Sustainability  Regional Transportation Commission of Northern Nevada: Planning Manager  Regional Transportation Commission of Northern Nevada: Transportation Modeling Program Manager  Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada: Director, Las Vegas Regions Metropolitan Planning  Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County  Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Transportation Division Manager  University of Nevada Las Vegas: Office of Executive VP and Provost  University of Nevada Las Vegas: Senior Fellow, Boyd School of Law, Climate and Sustainability Law Project Colorado Format of Workshop and Agenda Due to restrictions on gatherings and travel resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Colorado workshop was held virtually using a software platform capable of polling and breakout groups. The workshop spanned two days during June 2020 and was divided into two sessions of two and a half hours each (Table D-2). Due to the relatively small size of the participant group, the project team decided that breakout groups were not a necessary element; all sessions involved the participants as a single group. During Session 1, the team walked participants through approximately half of the guide content; Session 2 concluded by covering the rest of the guide and discussing next steps. Table D-2. Colorado workshop agenda. Date and Time Topic Contents Tuesday 6/2 10:00–12:30 MDT Session 1—Guidebook Walk-Through and Self- Assessments Introductions, Overview of Workshop, Objectives Current Status of Addressing GHG at Colorado DOT (CDOT) Guidebook Walk-Through with Feedback/Discussion by Functional Area to Identify:  Current Level of Engagement  Current and Desired Strategies  Questions Thursday 6/4 10:00–12:30 MDT Session 2—Topical Discussions Continuation of Guidebook Walk-Through with Feedback/Discussion by Functional Area Additional Topics based on Day 1 Questions Throughout the workshop, participants were able to contribute feedback, ask questions, and find links to resources in the chat box. A workshop evaluation survey was distributed at the end of Session 2. For the guide walk-through, presentations on Sections 1 to 4 included limited question and answer. The following sections were grouped into modules with more time for interactivity, including poll questions and discussion:  Sections 5 to 8—Policy, Institutional Alignment, Partnerships, and Communications.  Sections 10 to 12—Planning, Programming, Project Development/Environmental.  Sections 9, 13, and 14—Final Design/Construction, Maintenance, Central Administration.

D-7 Sections 15, 16, 17, and 18 also were presented in a less formal manner. These sections were covered on day 2 of the workshop, after the project team presented information addressing some questions raised on day 1. Because there was not time to explore all guide content in detail, it was recommended that participants review relevant guide sections independently, with the same questions provided for consideration as for the Nevada workshop. Policy Context and Current Activities Colorado House Bill (HB) 19-1261: Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution, was passed and signed into law in 2019 by then newly elected Governor Jared Polis. The legislation outlines GHG emission reduction goals for Colorado from 2005 levels. The act mandates statewide goals to reduce 2025 GHG emissions by at least 26 percent, 2030 GHG emissions by at least 50 percent, and 2050 GHG emissions by at least 90 percent from 2005 levels. In addition, Governor Polis has expressed a goal to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2040. These goals implicate major emission reductions in Colorado’s transportation sector, which is second only to electricity in emissions statewide. CDOT sits with several other State agencies—including the Department of Public Health and Environment, the Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Energy Office, and the Department of Natural Resources—on the Energy and Renewables Working Cabinet Group. The group operates under the direction of the Governor’s Climate Cabinet. The group’s aims are threefold: 1. Support the growth of renewable energy by increasing the number of utilities with an adopted plan to increase renewable consumption, resulting in at least an 80 percent reduction in GHG pollution by 2030, as measured by an increase of State renewable generation from 53 percent to 71 percent by June 30, 2021. 2. By September 30, 2020 finish development of the GHG roadmap, and by June 30, 2021, achieve completion of provisions articulated in the State’s GHG roadmap and the Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP). As part of this goal, CDOT is working with the Colorado Energy Office and the Department of Public Health and Environment. 3. Ensure all potential Goal Transition Communities have the capacity, expertise, and resources to begin to implement comprehensive, locally driven economic transition strategies designed to sustain their economic vitality. The group’s GHG Pollution Reduction Roadmap will evaluate the anticipated outcomes of the participating agencies’ current policies and approaches and begin the process of determining required reduction measures across sectors. This roadmap will help CDOT better understand its role in State climate goals and begin to establish targets. In addition to its participation in the Working Cabinet Group, CDOT is undertaking outreach with additional stakeholder groups. In the realm of vehicle energy, for example, the agency has partnered with both private and public entities to form the Freight Advisory Panel, and is supporting electrification efforts. CDOT also is working with the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) as part of its GHG roadmap efforts. Of Colorado’s three “Wildly Important Goals,” or “WIGs,” for transportation for 2021, one is explicitly geared towards GHG reduction:  Clean Transportation: Reduce pollution in our air and congestion on our roads by reducing VMT, GHGs, and ozone-causing emissions from the transportation sector, through multimodal options, by 1 percent per capita by June 30, 2021, from the pre-COVID-19 estimated calendar year 2019 baseline of 9,300 VMT per capita, 4.2 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per capita, 2.0 pounds of Volatile organic compounds (VOC) per capita, and 9.5 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per capita. CDOT submits reports on measures for each of its WIGs to the Governor’s Office, and metrics are tracked and publicly accessible on the Governor’s website.

D-8 Desired Status and Activities CDOT recognizes several opportunities. First, it may be possible to leverage work addressing ozone precursor emissions to address GHGs in the future. One mechanism for this could be through the statewide transportation improvement plan (STIP), which CDOT is drafting during the summer of 2020. Though the STIP currently does not consider tools that co-benefit GHGs, CDOT sees an opportunity to more explicitly leverage ozone work in the plan. Colorado also sees an opportunity in NEPA decision-making process, perhaps in incorporating secondary goals and objectives under broader environmental stewardship directives. As part of its current NEPA assessment process, CDOT runs the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model to obtain existing, no-action, and design year emissions of methane, NOx, and CO2 for environmental impact statement (EIS) project alternatives. There may be opportunities to expand the scope of this analysis. In addition to the agency’s existing partnerships and coordination efforts, CDOT understands there to be additional existing relationships to be “tapped” in its GHG work. Key Questions and Needs CDOT recognizes that elevating the GHG discussion will involve substantial cultural shift, and workshop participants discussed how to approach this transition. The project team recommended a focus on establishing processes that would sustain the system in the longer term. For example, a task force with monthly meetings and reporting expectations could help guide this process. Participants expressed interest in a model executive charter and model policies. They also seemed to feel that the guide’s functional unit- based approach would be an asset in organizing their activities. CDOT staff also solicited advice on interacting with political leadership, which ultimately establishes the agency’s direction. One participant asked about how to prepare for changes at the executive level, particularly in the case that a new executive establishes a new set of priorities. Participants also discussed the extent to which the GHG roadmap would involve CDOT and how much specific guidance would emerge from the process. The project team recommended a proactive and collaborative approach in order to convey to leadership what the agency can reasonably accomplish; proactive engagement now can help ensure better GHG outcomes for everyone involved. Some discussion also centered on how to integrate GHGs into the planning process. There may be conflicts, participants noted, between bold action on GHGs and local preferences. Colorado’s collaborative approach towards planning can at times amplify these tensions; there are many stakeholders the agency must “bring along” in the decision-making process. The project team recommended clear messaging that would convey to the public and to other stakeholders which projects would help reduce GHGs and what the tradeoffs would be. The team also recommended bringing scale to these conversations, framing the discussion in terms of how the broader GHG benefits of various approaches can synergistically reinforce other objectives. The following questions were asked by participants and followed up on by the project team either at the second workshop session or via a subsequent memorandum.  What is the #1 thing CDOT could do to reduce emissions?  Benefit/cost—what strategies are most cost effective?  How can we change agency culture to seriously address an issue that has only recently been on our radar screen?  How do induced demand effects affect the benefits of TSMO strategies?  What is the best way to couple tools, e.g., planning-level tools such as EERPAT and project-level tools?  What is the appropriate balance of quantitative versus qualitative analysis in project-level analysis?  What are the long-term GHG impacts of telework/work from home?  What are the GHG benefits of concrete versus asphalt?

D-9 Feedback on Guide and Workshop Feedback on the guide was obtained in workshop discussion. Participants felt the presentations were helpful, clearly identified potential levers and tools, and that the material was comprehensive and organized well. The guide structure seems to work well, and the self-assessments were useful in focusing on potential actions during the workshop discussion. The examples presented and discussions of synergies were helpful. Participants seemed to find the guide to be comprehensive and useful in its current form. Three participants completed the evaluation survey distributed to respondents after the workshop. The survey solicited feedback on the structure and flow of both the workshop itself and the draft guide content. The results are described below. Survey responses tended to echo comments offered in the larger group discussion. All three respondents found that the overall workshop length and sequencing was “About right” in length, the presentation materials were helpful, and that the project team seemed knowledgeable. Two comments indicated the breakout groups or the overall workshop were “Too short.” There were mixed responses to the prompt asking whether participants “had sufficient opportunity to engage and provide feedback”; one participant responded “neutral” with the others agreeing. There were mixed responses to the self-assessment tool; asked whether the tool was helpful, there was one each “disagree,” “neutral,” and “agree” response. The respondent who disagreed wrote in part that, “Self- assessment tools are not written as one size fits all. It was rare that a choice was the ‘correct’ choice because only part of it would be true for this DOT. Perhaps that is why there was usually so much variation in how different people assigned levels.” Asked what could be added, one respondent asked for “additional case studies, model policies, etc.” Another asked that more of the type of “advice” conveyed by the project team in the workshop be included in the text of the guide. The survey allowed respondents to choose sections on which to comment. The most responses to these prompts characterized the selected sections as “About right” in length, with some respondents adding comments on specific figures. Attendees Workshop participants included 12 CDOT staff, as well as 1 participant from a consultant to CDOT assisting the agency with related GHG planning activities. Five members of the project team facilitated discussion, managed technology, and took notes. CDOT participants represented the following positions:  Air Quality and Noise Program Manager, Division of Transportation Development  Chief of Innovative Mobility  Director of Electrification and Energy, Office of Innovative Mobility  Director, Division of Transportation Development  Environmental Policy and Biological Resources Section Manager  Environmental Programs Branch Manager  Information Management Branch Manager  Local Government Liaison  Manager, Applied Research and Innovation Branch  Manager, Multimodal Planning Branch  Senior Transportation Advisor, Multimodal Planning Branch

D-10 Delaware Format of Workshop and Agenda Due to restrictions on gatherings and travel resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Delaware workshop was held virtually using a software platform capable of polling and breakout groups (ultimately not used). The workshop was originally planned to take place over three days in three sessions of two hours each (Table D-3). During Session 1, the team walked participants through approximately half of the guide content; Session 2 concluded by covering the rest of the guide and discussing next steps. At the conclusion of Session 2, it was determined that a third session with the entire group was not needed, and instead a 1-hour debrief was held with key Delaware DOT (DelDOT) staff. Throughout the workshop, participants were able to contribute feedback, ask questions, and find links to resources in the chat box. A workshop evaluation survey was distributed at the end of Session 2. Table D-3. Delaware workshop agenda. Date and Time Topic Contents Monday 8/10, 1:00–3:00 p.m. EDT Session 1—Introductions, Guidebook Walk-Through Introductions, Overview of Workshop, Objectives Current Status of Addressing GHG at DelDOT Guidebook Walk-Through: Sections 1–8, 10–12, 15 Wed. 8/12, 1:00– 3:00 p.m. EDT Session 2—Topical Discussions Guidebook Walk-Through: Sections 9, 13–14, 16– 18, Appendices Breakout Groups by Functional Area Guidebook Evaluation Monday 8/24, 1:00–2:00 p.m. EDT Session 3—Leadership Debrief Workshop Evaluation Recommended Next Steps For the guide walk-through, presentations on Sections 1 to 4 included limited question and answer. The following sections were grouped into modules with more time for interactivity, including poll questions and discussion:  Sections 5–8: Policy, Institutional Alignment, Partnerships, and Communications.  Sections 10–12: Planning, Programming, Project Development/Environmental.  Sections 9, 13, and 14: Final Design/Construction, Maintenance, Central Administration.  Sections 16–18: Districts, Monitoring, Putting it All Together. Because there was not time to explore all guide content in detail, it was recommended that participants review relevant guide sections independently, with the same questions provided for consideration as for the Nevada workshop. Policy Context and Current Activities DelDOT is coordinating with a range of State agencies, including the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), as the State develops its Delaware Climate Action Plan. Over the course of the spring and fall of 2020, the State engaged Delaware residents in a series of public workshops to shape the plan. The plan aims to minimize GHG emissions and maximize the State’s resilience to the climate change impacts the State already is experiencing. In doing so, the document considers energy demand as one of three major impacts and adopts economy-wide modeling strategies and emissions. The plan considers solutions in a variety of areas, including renewable energy, clean

D-11 transportation (public transit, electric vehicles), support for local communities (technical and planning assistance, grant funding), and partnerships with other States, among others. The plan’s first draft will be submitted in December 2020, with the final document slated for release early 2021. DelDOT sees its ongoing activities as aligned with these clean transportation goals, though its long-range planning is not yet formally coordinated with the Climate Action Plan process. The agency has some electric vehicles (EV) and looks for opportunities where possible to expand its EV fleet. Delaware’s transit system is run as a transit corporation (DART) within the DelDOT group, and DelDOT recognizes that higher- quality transit service encourages mode shift and reduces emissions. Overall, the agency’s three primary approaches towards reducing GHGs in transportation are:  Electric charging station installation at facilities.  Provision of alternative fuel transit vehicles.  Work with industry partners (DNREC) on statewide initiatives, including the Climate Action Plan. Actions to Increase Engagement In the leadership debrief held on day 3, the project team suggested a number of next steps for the agency and offered assistance with these, as needed. Next steps for consideration are shown in Table D-4. The DelDOT leadership team meets bimonthly, and expected to develop a more specific roadmap of next steps for the agency at these meetings. Table D-4. Potential next steps for Delaware DOT. Functional Area Description of Activity Executive Develop an Executive Charter expressing the agency’s priority for addressing GHG emissions and assigning responsibilities. All Have functional units perform self-assessments and suggest specific actions they could take, along with interim check-ins/milestones. Executive Create master list of who is doing what, and check in on progress regularly. Planning, Programming, Project Development, Environmental Develop policy for considering GHG in planning and programming, starting with project-level analysis, moving to STIP project and program- level assessment, and finally at the planning level. Executive/Administrative, working with Construction, Maintenance, Operations Develop order-of-magnitude inventory of agency-generated emissions and identify potential low-hanging fruit for emission reductions and reasonable reduction targets. Guide Feedback Several poll questions posed during the workshop solicited general feedback on the structure and organization of the document. Unanimously, participants reported that the guide material was “about right” in length (7/7), agreed that the “organization and presentation of the guidebook work well” (5/5), and that “the self-assessment tools are useful to me and/or my staff” (4/4). One participant added that organizing the guide around a combination of self-evaluation, text, and examples provided helpful variety and made the document more useful. Other participants echoed that examples from other States were particularly helpful.

D-12 Attendees The workshop included 22 participants across a range of organizations, including DelDOT, other State agencies, MPOs, County/City staff, a university, and nonprofits. Five members of the NCHRP project team facilitated discussion, managed technology, and took notes. The following positions were represented within DelDOT:  Assistant Director, Maintenance and Operations  Assistant Director, Planning  Assistant Director, Traffic Operations and Management  Deputy Director, Operations and Support  Director, Planning  Planner The following partner agencies and staff positions also were represented at the workshop:  Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: Climate Adaptation Project Manager, Principal Planner  Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: Environmental Engineer  Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: Clean Transportation Planner  Delaware Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director, Government Support Services  Delaware Office of Management and Budget: Fleet  Delaware River and Bay Authority: Director of Environmental, Health, and Safety  DART: Chief Innovation Officer  DART: Planning and Development Manager  AECOM/RideShare DE: Outreach Coordinator  AECOM/RideShare DE: Project Manager  City of Newark: Planner  Dover-Kent County MPO: Public Outreach Manager  New Castle County: Planner  Wilmington Area Planning Council: Principal Planner  University of Delaware: Professor and Director of the Center for Fuel Cell Research  Delaware Greenways: Executive Director. Hawaii Format of Workshop and Agenda Due to restrictions on gatherings and travel resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hawaii workshop was held virtually using a software platform with capacity to support breakout rooms and polling questions. The workshop was structured as part of the quarterly convening of the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee’s (STAC) staff-level arm, Sub-STAC. Sub-STAC facilitates a coordination committee between the State of Hawaii and the Counties of Honolulu, Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai in the development of the STIP policies and programs. The workshop took place over the course of a single three and a half half-hour session (Table D-5). During the first half of the workshop, the team walked participants through about half of the guide content. The second portion of the day covered the remainder of the guide. Participants split into breakout groups organized by functional area for discussion, sharing topics of discussion and takeaways upon reconvening. Throughout the workshop, participants were able to contribute feedback, ask questions, and find links to resources in the chat box.

D-13 Table D-5. Hawaii workshop agenda. Date and Time Topic Contents Thursday 1/21 8:00–10:35 HAST Guide Walk-Through and Self-Assessments Introductions, Overview of Workshop, Objectives Current Status of Addressing GHG at Hawaii DOT (HDOT) Guide Walk-Through with Feedback/Discussion by Functional Area to Identify:  Current Level of Engagement  Current and Desired Strategies  Questions Thursday 1/21 10:35–11:05 HAST Session 3 – Breakouts for Self-Assessment and Action Planning Self-Assessment Discussion - Breakouts by Functional Area: 1. Policy and institutional issues 2. Planning, programming, project development, and traffic operations 3. Design, construction, maintenance, facilities & administration Report-Backs Thursday 1/21 11:05–11:30 HAST Workshop Evaluation and Wrap Up Wrap up, Next Steps, and Evaluation Because there was not enough time to explore all guide content in detail, it was recommended that participants review relevant guide sections independently. Participants were asked to review the guide, explore specific portions of interest in more detail, and complete a self-assessment worksheet for at least two functional areas that are most closely related to their responsibilities. Policy Context In 2007, Hawaii became the second State to set a binding cap on GHG emissions through Act 234, which declared a policy to reduce GHG emissions statewide to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Act 234 established the GHG Emissions Reduction Task Force within the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, and directed the Task Force to prepare a work plan and regulatory framework for the effort. Act 234 directed the State to adopt rules focused on the “maximum practically and technically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions.”1 The Department of Health now serves as the primary agency with regard to GHG emissions with its Air Pollution Control Permit process regulating emissions. Act 234 also directed the DOH to adopt rules specifying how the State could effectively achieve the required “real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable” reduction in GHG pollution. The rules focus on large existing stationary sources; emissions of GHGs from biogenic, transportation, and smaller sources are not included in these rules.2 Another effort is the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI), launched in 2008 through a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Governor of Hawaii. This initiative aims to transform Hawaii’s economy to 70 percent clean energy by 2030. HCEI formed several working groups 1 State of Hawaii, Department of Health. “Hawaii Greenhouse Gas Program.” 2020. https://health.hawaii.gov/cab/hawaii-greenhouse-gas-program/. 2 Hawaii State Energy Office. “Hawaii Greenhouse Gas Program Update.” 2016. https://energy.hawaii.gov/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/2015-greenhouse-gas-program.pdf

D-14 composed of government, nongovernmental organization, university, and business leaders; and is on track to meet interim renewable portfolio and energy efficiency portfolio standard targets by 2020. Current Activities Unlike most States, Hawaii allocates transportation GHG emissions within the energy sector. Consequently, the vast majority of carbon emissions fall under this category; in 2016, the energy sector accounted for 86.5 percent of total emissions. Within the energy sector, transportation represents the category with the highest portion of emissions. HDOT anticipates that, without concerted action, the percent of net emissions in Hawaii attributed to the transportation sector will only continue to rise (Table D-6). In particular, the 2019 Hawaii GHG Emission Report anticipates ground transportation’s portion of emissions to rise from 59 percent to 69 percent between 2020 and 2025. Table D-6. Hawaii GHG total and transportation emissions. Source Hawaii GHG Emission Projections (MMT CO2 Eq) 1990 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 Transportation 11.26 12.19 10.16 9.79 10.22 10.32 59% 56% 51% 55% 59% 69% Ground 3.4 4.97 5.28 5.64 5.84 5.73 Domestic Marine 1.82 1.79 0.91 0.39 0.39 0.39 Domestic Aviation 4.66 4.42 2.87 3.23 3.46 3.67 Military 1.38 1.02 1.1 0.53 0.53 0.53 Net Emissions (Including sinks) 19.08 21.71 19.77 17.75 17.34 14.86 Source: Hawaii Greenhouse Gas Emission Report for 2015 and 2019. In response, one area of focus for HDOT has been promoting electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. HDOT currently maintains 286 public EV charging stations, and the agency hosted an electric bus demonstration in 2018 for airport passenger shuttles. Other reduction activities include solar panel installation at airport parking garages; energy-efficient lighting; indices for environmental aspects in the STIP process; and EV exemptions for use of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. After the State enacted a law allowing agencies to contract for vehicle procurement or associated capital investments in charging or fueling infrastructure similar to facility-based energy services contracts in 2019, HDOT Highways entered into a service contract and was replacing 43 internal combustion engine (ICE) light-duty vehicles with EVs in 2021. While not specifically addressing GHG emissions, the HDOT Practical Solutions Action Plan (2016) outlines an outcome-focused approach to decision-making for transportation project development and delivery that supports multimodal solutions and Complete Streets practices that could help reduce vehicle travel over time. HDOT also has taken steps to advance low-carbon materials. The agency is testing a concrete mix injected with waste CO2. To produce this concrete, CO2 is mixed into the concrete, generating a product that traps CO2 in mineral form within the concrete and improves the comprehensive strength of the material. Depending on the final specifications, the use of carbon-injected concrete could reduce embodied carbon by 25 pounds per cubic yard, representing a 6 percent improvement.3 3 Hawaii Department of Transportation. “HDOT Tests Sustainable Concrete Mix Designed to Reduce Carbon Footprint of Road Construction.” 2019. https://hidot.hawaii.gov/blog/2019/05/16/hdot-tests-sustainable-concrete- mix-designed-to-reduce-carbon-footprint-of-road-construction/.

D-15 The draft Hawaii Statewide Transportation Plan (HSTP) update includes an environmental goal to support a transportation system that protects and enhances Hawaii’s unique natural and cultural resources. Reduction of transportation GHG emissions to support the statewide goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is one of the environmental objectives in the proposed HSTP. Overall, much of the current work in Hawaii is happening in adaptation rather than mitigation. One participant offered the Harbor Division’s resiliency plan as an example of this approach. Key Questions and Needs In response to poll questions, a majority or plurality of workshop participants generally their agency (HDOT or partners) as Level 2 for GHG engagement, having taken some actions, but still with much more that could be done. The exception was for partnerships, where the majority rated HDOT as Level 3, working collaboratively with one or more agencies. HDOT considers itself committed to generating further cuts to its GHG emissions. The agency sees the collection and use of data as the most important next challenge, as this information will help to determine where to focus its efforts. Examples of data needs include vehicle fleets (age and composition) to support replacement programs, as well as GHG and other benefits and impacts of mode shift strategies. HDOT wants to be able to quantify the GHG impacts of its actions, indicating a need to comprehensively review the data the agency already collects and understand how that might translate into GHG benefits. Clear communication of this data, and use of the data in decision-making, also are important needs. Some workshop participants had questions about roles and responsibilities of the various agencies involved in GHG emission reduction efforts and the number of “cooks in the kitchen.” There were questions about the extent to which HDOT should be expected to “lead the charge” versus being seen more as a player within a larger effort. Concern over roles and responsibilities can be managed by breaking activity down into a spreadsheet identifying the expected players, deadlines, and deliverables. Conversations at the staff level can support a larger, more formal process of meetings with report-backs on progress and help focus all involved. These regular reports also can help identify which parts of the process are underperforming so that agencies can improve coordination as they go. An example of an issue on which roles could be clarified is the development of specifications. If a county wants to use GHG-friendly pavements, HDOT may need to provide leadership and technical assistance in this area. Enhanced communications procedures could help improve HDOT’s understanding of the needs of local agencies. The dispersed nature of the State creates additional challenges around communication and coordination that need to be addressed across all aspects of a GHG program. However, this dispersed nature also creates opportunities; for example, smaller municipalities or localities often bundle roads and construction projects, allowing for bulk buying of low-carbon materials and fuels. Actions to Increase Engagement HDOT considers itself committed to generating further cuts to its GHG emissions. The agency sees the collection of data as the most important next challenge, as this information will help to determine where to focus its efforts. Following the workshop, actions proposed to increase HDOT’s engagement included:  Action 1. Create an executive charter that establishes a task force or working group that meets regularly (e.g., monthly) to identify action items and report on progress. This group should be charged with investigating, assessing, reporting on, and implementing GHG emission reduction measures for all direct and indirect DOT-related GHG emissions. This group should include key staff representing all of the agency’s divisions/functional areas. (See model charter and meeting agenda in Section 19 of the guide.)

D-16 – Responsibility: Executive leadership. – Timeframe: One month.  Action 2. Functional area leads should work with their staff to complete the self-assessment(s) included at the end of their area’s relevant section(s) of the guide. Share recommended actions with GHG task force; get executive buy-in where needed; and set a process/timeline for checking in on progress. – Responsibility: Functional area leads included in GHG task force. – Timeframe: Two months.  Action 3. Continue working with the Statewide Climate Coordinator and other agencies to develop a roadmap for the State to achieve the State’s goal of a zero-carbon economy by 2045. To the extent it is not being done already, representatives(s) of HDOT should meet regularly with the Statewide Climate Commission and other agencies to communicate what HDOT is doing and can do to estimate and reduce GHGs from the transportation sector. Identify how HDOT and other State agencies can work together and support each other to get to the 2045 goal. – Responsibility: Statewide Climate Commission and HDOT climate or other designated lead per task force. – Timeframe: Ongoing.  Action 4. Develop an inventory of existing data collected by HDOT and analysis tools that can support: a quantification of GHG emission effects of ongoing and to-be implemented HDOT programs and projects; a more detailed inventory and forecast of GHG emissions from transportation sources and sources; and future analysis of GHG reduction strategies. Develop a plan and timeline for quantifying and reporting on emissions. Coordinate with partner agencies (e.g., MPOs) as needed for sharing of data and tools. – Responsibility: Planning lead, working with environment and with support from other functional areas, including sustainability coordinator for operations, construction, and maintenance, or other designated lead per task force. This could be examined further to be included in the ongoing Hawaii Statewide Transportation Plan update. – Timeframe: Four months. Guide Feedback Two poll questions were offered to gauge the usefulness of both the guide and the workshop. Participants generally expressed that the workshop and guide would prove somewhat (53 percent) or very useful (35 percent) to them and/or their staff. That over half the respondents found the guide to be only “somewhat useful” may be due to the relatively low portion of participants from HDOT compared to counties/cities, MPOs, and other agencies, who are not the primary audience of the guide. Similarly, 31 percent of respondents reported that the guide’s self-assessment tools would be “very useful” to them and/or their staff, with 62 percent reporting that the self-assessments would be “somewhat useful.” This result may again reflect the intended audience for the assessments versus the composition of this particular workshop. Attendees Five members of the NCHRP project team facilitated the meeting. The project team participation included staff for one facilitator for each breakout group and one person managing note-taking and live polling. The Sub-STAC includes members from a range of departments, agencies, and localities, including DOTs, Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, and Planning at the county level, as well as State-level representatives. There were 52 total workshop participants, including 22 HDOT staff. Participants included representatives of the following agencies and organizations:  State of Hawaii Department of Transportation. Office of the Deputy Director, Airports Division Engineering Branch Planning Section, Harbors Division Engineering Branch Planning Section, and

D-17 various sections and districts of the Division of Highways, including the Planning Branch, Construction and Maintenance Branch, Project Coordination and Technical Services Office, Traffic Branch, Design Branch, Oahu District, Hawaii District, as well as Statewide Transportation Planning Office.  Other State Agencies. Office of Planning, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Department of Health, Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands.  Cities/Counties: – Hawaii County: Departments of Public Works (DPW), Transit, Planning. – City and County of Honolulu: DOT Services Planning and Transit, Department of Planning and Permitting, Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency. – Kauai County: DPW, Transit, and Planning. – Maui County: DPW, DOT, Planning.  MPOs: – Maui MPO. – Oahu MPO.  Federal Agencies: – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. – Federal Aviation Administration. – Federal Highway Administration. – Federal Transit Administration.  Other: – Consultant to HDOT.