The Parks and Recreation Committee met 03/10/2025. The item they spent the most amount of time discussing was Resolution 2-R-25 regarding the City of Appleton’s emissions reduction goals. Currently, Appleton has a target of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or earlier. This was established by the adoption of Resolution 13-R-19, several years ago. Resolution 2-R-25, if passed as written, would update the city’s emissions target to reduce net emissions by 50% (13,600 metric tons of CO2e) by 2034 and maintain as “aspirational stretch goal” of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 “contingent upon our electrical utility supplier meeting its Scope II target.”
The committee ended up voting 5-0 to recommend the resolution for approval as written.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
The committee heard from two members of the Sustainability Advisory Panel and one member of the Taskforce on Resiliency, Climate Mitigation, and Adaptation that preceded the advisory panel. Charlie Goff, Ron Jones, and Terry Dawson all encouraged the committee to recommend the resolution for approval. Mr. Goff and Mr. Jones both thought the resolution provided a goal that was practical and achievable by the city, and Mr. Dawson stated, “The World Economic Forum notes that most of the carbon emissions around the world come from cities, but cities have the opportunity to improve their local air and noise pollution, public health, as well as lower their municipal operating costs relatively lower. The resolution before you helps us move toward becoming a healthier, more economical city and a healthier planet.”
The emissions reduction goal only applies to city owned buildings, vehicles, and equipment and would not apply to residences and commercial properties within the boundaries of the City of Appleton.
Emissions are divided into two categories—Scope I and Scope II emissions. Scope I emissions are direct source emissions that come from things like vehicle tail pipes, natural gas water heaters, natural gas boilers, furnaces, and the methane combustion at the wastewater treatment plan. Scope II emissions are the emissions that come from generating the electricity that is used within the city. The city has much more control over Scope I emissions but relatively little control over Scope II emissions other than by reducing the amount of energy it purchases or by adding renewable sources of energy to the city. Otherwise, Scope II emissions are the result of how WE Energies choses to generate the electricity it sells to customers.
The reason for the change in goal was that achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions would require action by WE Energies to change how it generates electricity. The city’s Project and Resiliency Manager Steve Schrage told the committee that many other communities have set emissions reduction goals but then essentially kicked the can down the road and said they would wait for technology to improve in order to pursue the goals they had on paper. Likewise, WE Energies was hoping that improved technology would help them reduce emissions while at the same time they trying to build two new natural gas power generation facilities in southeast Wisconsin.
Because the city had no control over Scope II emissions, they wanted to focus on reduction of Scope I emissions. There were several reasons given for this.
- Alderperson Patrick Hayden (District 7), the author of the resolution, said that it was a step of the way of the city eventually finding a path to net zero emissions one day.
- Alderperson Hayden said that it would help Appleton keep pace with cities like Sun Prairie which recently “became the first city to be completely self-sustaining.” [Sun Prairie apparently operates on 100% renewable electricity.]
- Mr. Schrage said that by having achievable goals, the City of Appleton “can show other communities and people within our community that we’re making a difference.”
- Mr. Schrage mentioned the possibility of impacting people in the community by removing pollutants.
- Alderperson Martyn Smith (District 4) who voted in favor of the resolution expressed the belief that it would serve as an imprimatur for the city signaling that it wanted to reduce emissions and influencing their decisions on things like busses.
There was discussion about what the cost would be if city staff actively pursued achieving the goal set forth in it. There was reference to a report put together by the Sustainable Advisory Panel in which it was stated that municipal operations generated around 27,000 metric tons of CO2e with the Wastewater Treatment Plant emitting 12,000 metric tons a year. Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) said that cutting emissions by 13,600 metric tons in ten years would seem to essentially require the city to cut all non-wastewater treatment plant emissions, eliminate the emissions from the wastewater treatment plant, or do some sort of combination of reductions in both areas.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) followed up on Alderperson Doran’s question by asking, “Is that the correct understanding that we would have to get rid of all emissions from the wastewater plant in order to meet this goal?”
Mr. Schrage responded, “Yep, that is, and we’re looking at options, and we feel that there’s a feasible option that we are investigating, and that would that would take it down to zero.”
Alderperson Doran wanted to get some more specifics about how these emissions reductions might happen and how much they would cost, but Alderperson Van Zeeland who was the chair of the committee was not sure they could go into specifics because those things were not included as part of the resolution. She did note that any actions to reduce emissions would need to be approved by the committee and Common Council anyway.
Alderperson Doran expressed a desire do know what staff’s overall plan was to meet this emissions reduction goal and what the cost of that would be. “If this is something that council is being asked to approve, I think it’s important for us to know sort of specifically what the plan to achieve that goal is and what it would cost. So, I’m just curious if there’s been any discussion about that, because it just wasn’t included in the resolution at all.”
Mr. Schrage said, “[W]e’re not looking at any major projects that are going to cost this city significant amount of money.” He also confirmed that “this city” included utility rate payers.
Alderperson Doran asked if there was a ballpark figure of what the costs would be to reduce emissions by 50%.
Mr. Schrage responded, “We have not got that far in the planning. That’s what we’ll be working on this year.” He said that any initiatives or projects would be brought to the Common Council for a vote.
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked if they could place any sort of dollar figure the savings the city could experience by reducing emissions. Mr. Schrage said they could put a dollar value on that, and Alderperson Van Zeeland asked for that information to be provided to the Common Council.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) said a couple of somewhat contradictory statements. One the one hand he said, “I just want to point out that as long as a suggestion that comes before us could lead to cost savings, I don’t necessarily think you should be worried about bringing anything to us,” but he then went on to say, “I want to reassure you that when it comes to clean water, clean air, and the environment, there is no cost that’s too high, especially when it can save us money.” [So, I don’t know if expected these emissions reductions to save the city money or if he was in favor of reducing emissions even if it cost a lot of money.]
Alderperson Doran wanted to have more information about scope and costs, stating, “I think saying that you know that that clean air and water, you know, cost doesn’t matter is just a luxury that the city doesn’t have. Everything we do has a cost to it, and we have to be mindful of that as we make comparisons and trade offs.”
Alderperson Smith was in favor of the resolution and said that they would have to look at any ideas for Scope I emissions reductions on a case by case basis. “Let’s adopt a strong goal that will guide us in our decision making, but that doesn’t tie our hands as far as when we get these individual choices about updating, be it busses or wastewater treatment plant. We’ll look at those as they come, and this will be maybe a goad for us to be more ambitious than we would have otherwise.”
The committee ended up voting 5-0 to recommend the resolution for approval.
[I would have appreciated a clearer explanation of why reducing emissions is something the city should pursue. Setting these goals so that we can be like Sun Prairie doesn’t seem like a good reason to me. Does Sun Prairie have lower operational costs, lower taxes, a better standard of living, better public safety or anything that objectively might make it a more desirable place to live than Appleton? And are those desirable qualities the result of relying on 100% renewable energy sources? If that is the case, then perhaps it would make sense for Appleton to follow its example.
All the alderpersons and city staff seemed to take reduction of CO2 emissions as an inherent good in and of itself. I don’t know why. Society as a whole seems to be on the cusp of moving away from the weird environmentalist alarmism that was so in vogue for the last decade or so, and at this point it seems like at best that environmentalist fervor is driven by personal preference and at worst is a pseudo-religious belief that should not be given special preference by a municipal government.
If reducing emissions actually leads to improved operational efficiency within the city and tax cuts for residents, then obviously everyone will be in favor of it. If it leads to increased costs, increased debt, or increased taxes, then there should be a larger and more in-depth conversation about that.
It’s concerning to me that everything was so opaque about how the city plans to cut its emissions by 50% in the next 10 years or how much that would potentially cost. It was noted during the meeting that WE Energies and other municipalities have emissions reduction goals that they don’t take seriously and aren’t planning to pursue unless technology changes and makes doing so feasible. So why is Appleton going ahead and actively pursuing something that multiple other entities have found to be infeasible?
I think it’s important for people to know: if the city is going to be pursuing goals inspired by pseudo-religious environmentalist beliefs will doing so at least result in financial benefit to the taxpayers and utility ratepayers or are we all going to find ourselves forced to choke down fiscal Flavor Aid in the end?]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1281727&GUID=B1FCE7A0-8CED-4EE7-9157-42647F377CB4
Be the first to reply