Empower Forest Park: 2035 by maggieschafer3

EMPOWER

FOREST PARK

2035

EMPOWER FOREST PARK 2035

UPP 505/506: Plan-Making Professor Kazuya Kawamura Spring 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EmPower Forest Park 2035 is an

energy plan that strives to provide the Village of Forest Park with greater energy independence, affordable and equitable access to energy resources, and sustainable infrastructure by the year 2035. While Forest Park has already made substantive achievements in sustainability, the inescapability of climate change and the inevitability of fossil fuel depletion means more must be done to ensure a positive future for the Village’s current residents and succeeding generations. Located at the western end of the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)’s Blue Line, Forest Park is a suburban village that sits mere miles away from the City of Chicago. This is reflected in its tag line: big city access with small town charm. The Village is, for the most part, a residential community with both renter-occupied multi-family homes and owner-occupied single-family homes. It is known throughout the region for its many cemeteries, which occupy almost 42% of its land. It also offers an impressive array of retail establishments, including those in the pedestrian-friendly downtown area and those near the Forest Park Plaza

Mall, as well as multiple manufacturing businesses. The Eisenhower Expressway runs through the Village of Forest Park, dividing it between the wealthier north side, and the lower income south side. The Plan builds upon Forest Park’s legacy of taking bold action to address sustainability and equity. From its early days, Forest Park boasted a reputation for inclusivity, as it welcomed people of all races, religions, and backgrounds to its many cemeteries. In the 21st century, it helped pave the way towards sustainability by being one of the first municipalities in the region to replace traditional street and traffic lights with light-emitting diode (LED) lights. The Plan builds upon this momentum with goals and strategies that are grounded in the following principles:

The Plan’s goals and strategies take a twopronged approach to energy, focusing on both generation and efficiency. A cleaner, smarter approach to energy generation will explore renewable sources such as solar, micro-grid technologies, and electrification of both homes and vehicles. Efficiency measures will also be taken through the retrofitting of buildings, educational programs to promote increased efficiency in homes and multi-modal transit, as well as re-evaluation of land use. There is of course some overlap between all goals and strategies; however, in the case of each, equity considerations are brought to the forefront to ensure that the benefits of this Plan can be enjoyed by all residents of Forest Park.

Attainability Economic Sustainability Environmnental Sustainability Equity Resilliancy

— EmPower Forest Park Team

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: GOALS CHART

GOAL DESCRIPTION

WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE

Reduce the energy burden experienced by low-income populations by 10% through 2035.

• Investments in efficient electrical appliances and constructions improvements save low-income families $131 annually in energy costs. • Save very low-income families $143 annually in energy costs. • Save extremely low-income families $124 annually in energy costs.

GOAL 2: PROMOTE

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Reduce the communitywide energy costs by 6% by 2035.

• 100% of the commercial and industrial sectors achieve maximum electricity savings (MES). • 50% of homes in Forest Park achieve MES.

GOAL 3: MODERNIZE THE GRID

Modernize and convert Forest Park’s energy grid to a smart grid by 2035.

GOAL 1: ADDRESS ENERGY BURDEN

GOAL 4: REDUCE

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

GOAL 5: MITIGATE FLOODING AND POWER OUTAGES

Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40% in Forest Park by 2035.

Increase Forest Park’s absorption capacity by at least 2,562,819 gallons to reduce flooding.

PRINCIPLE(S)

• Consumers are able to better manage energy consumption and costs with real time access to current energy usage. • Consumers receive incentives/rewards for reducing their energy consumption during peak demand hours for the rest of the village.

• Municipal and school structures convert to solar energy. • Homeowners and business owners install solar energy and electric home heating systems. • There is a substantial decrease in vehicle miles traveled with improvements in local walkability, bike infrastructure, and transitoriented developments. • Public chargers and home-based chargers are installed to increase usage of electric vehicles.

• Roadside bioswales are installed along all designated streets. • 8% of key asphalt parking lots are repaved with permeable materials. • Native vegetation is planted to cover 12% of Forest Park’s cemeteries and park land areas

To evaluate goals and strategies, the following tools and resources were utilized: Urban Footprint, FEMA maps, Maps provided by NLCD 2016 Percent Developed Imperviousness (CONUS), The Green Values Calculator tool, Google Maps, The SLOPE and LEAD toolsThe U.S. Census Bureau, The Energy Information Administration (EIA), The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) Forest Park Snapshot Studies published by universities and private companies also informed evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the efficacy of each goal and to provide clear metrics to achieve them.

STAKEHOLDERS Local Officials, Agencies and Departments

State & County Officials, Agencies and Departments

1st District Commissioner Brandon Johnson

COOK COUNTY’S CLEAN ENERGY PLAN A plan for 100% renewable electricity and a carbon neutral footprint for Cook County buildings

Mayor Rory Hoskins

F.P. Commissioner Jessica Voogd

Additional Officials, Agencies and Departments

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the following individuals and organizations for their contributions to the EmPower Forest Park Energy Plan:

Village of Forest Park

Antonio Martinez, Jr. President & CEO Oak Park River Forest Community Foundation

Walter “Wally” Kleinfeldt General Foreman Lyons & Pinner Electric Companies

Betty Alzamora, Kamau Jones, Kevin Leonard, Ken Snyder, Marjorie Clark, and the entire Forest Park Against Racism Team

MEET OUR TEAM

TOLU ATOYEBI

Lead Graphic Designer, Data Visualization

SCOTT GREIG

Economic Analyst, Writer, and Copy Editor

NICOLE KIM

Existing Conditions Team Officer, Graphics Team Rep

MARCO AIZEN

NOLAN EYRE

Evaluations Team Officer, Graphics Team Rep

Community Profile Director, Writer and Copy Editor

EVAN WILLIAMSON

FELICIANO OCEGUEDA

EVIN VINSON

SAM BRANDSTRADER

Sustainability Officer

Evaluations Team Officer, Graphics Team Rep

Data Hunter

DAVID OLLIN PESQUEIRA Graphics Director

PAUL MIZNER

MARGARET SCHAFER Writing Director

KARLA VALDEZ

Narrative Director

Project Manager

BRENTON BOITSE

KAZUYA KAWAMURA Instructor

Historian, Writer, Microgrid Researcher, State and Local Finance Analyst.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Background 10 Vision + Principle 13

CONTEXT

Existing Conditions 15 Who is Forest Park? 26 Future Projections 30

IMPLEMENTATION Introduction Goal 1: Implementation Goal 2: Implementation Goal 3: Implementation Goal 4: Implementation Goal 5: Implementation

66 67 69 72 73 77

EVALUATION Goal Evalutations 79

PLANNING PROCESS Timeline Methodology SWOT/TOWS Driving Trends in Energy Scenario Planning Evaluation Methodology

A GREENER FOREST PARK 32 35 36 37 42 44

CONCLUSION 86

Vision Goals/Strategies Overview Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5

46 47 49 53 56 58 63

APPENDIX 89

Chapter 1

Introduction The EmPower Forest Park Plan will create a better Forest Park for future generations, building on the past and working on its present to aim for a greener future. This report gives Forest Park a vision for energy independence, equitable access to energy resources, and sustainable infrastructure. Building upon past sustainability initiatives, the Plan strives to promote equity and cleaner energy generation by 2035.

BACKGROUND

“Building upon past sustainability initiatives, the Plan strives to promote equity and cleaner energy generation by 2035.” Forest Park has a long history of repudiating outdated traditions. As a longtime burial site for Native Americans, Forest Park was the first town in the Chicago area to allow Jewish and African American people to be buried in their cemeteries. Forest Park also welcomed the Haymarket Martyrs to their final resting place, a move that drew criticism at the time. In more recent years, Forest Park has performed pioneering work pertaining to safety and energy with the installation of LED lights on stop signs for better illumination. These big and little

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: INTRODUCTION

steps show that Forest Park has done things that seemed revolutionary at the time, but ended up being honorable and forward-thinking. It is now time for Forest Park to do that again. Looking towards the future, EmPower Forest Park aims for the Village to have greater energy independence. Currently, Forest Park’s energy is mainly supplied by ComEd and Nicor, the region's dominant energy providers. Forest Park sees a higher output of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions due

to its housing stock. Forest Park also suffers from inequalities in its energy cost and output. Forest Park sees a higher energy burden based on wealth disparities, with high-income apartment dwellers clustered on the Village’s north side and many lowerincome residents living in single-family homes on the south side. EmPower Forest Park aims to make sure energy is widely available, and is affordable for all Forest Park residents.

Forest Park in a Regional Context

Satellite Aerial of Forest Park

EmPower Forest Park will also address environmental issues. Forest Park has long dealt with flooding issues, as it is based along the Des Plaines River. With climate change continuing to make weather events more intense and dangerous, areas along the Des Plaines River are at risk of serious damage. Forest Park is home to five different cemeteries with an astonishing 800,000 people buried in them; most are based along the Des Plaines River. Much of the town's infrastructure and a portion of its residents are also located near the

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: INTRODUCTION

river. In order to make sure these areas continue to be livable, EmPower Forest Park must commit itself to mitigating climate change and improving upon sustainable infrastructure. Forest Park is also both benefited and hindered by its transit connectedness. Forest Park has grown due to its close connection to Chicago, with the CTA, Pace, Metra, and Interstate 290 all having stops located in or near Forest Park. However, this also means that the Village deals with

abnormal levels of pollution as Interstate 290 sees over 100,000 cars pass through Forest Park daily. Additionally, despite its proximity to many bus and train lines, Forest Park saw a decrease in public transportation ridership even before the COVID-19 pandemic. EmPower Forest Park will deal with this by attempting to reduce fossil fuel usage. While Forest Park can only play a role due to pollution being a regional issue, Forest Park will work with its neighbors and do its part.

VISON FOR EMPOWER FOREST PARK Create a future for Forest Park with greater energy independence, affordable and equitable access to energy resources, and sustainable infrastructure. In addition to building upon past achievements in sustainability, Forest Park will implement an energy plan that mitigates the most distressing effects of climate change and reduce fossil fuel dependency by 2035. When thinking through the vision for EmPower Forest Park and its goals and strategies, the following principles were prioritized:

Attainability

Economic Sustainability

Environmental Sustainability

Equity

The evaluation of possible strategies to ensure that they are effective, viable, and reasonable given the restraints within the Village.

The conservation of natural resources and ecosystems on both a local and global scale for future generations.

The support of long-term economic well-being that includes the consideration of energy needs, existing conditions, and current local inequities.

The mitigation of the financial, social, and structural burdens facing the Village’s most disadvantaged residents.

Resiliency

The ability to adapt to and thrive amongst the chronic and acute stressors.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2

Context

EXISTING CONDITIONS

FOREST PARK TODAY The following section was created to evaluate Forest Park’s current conditions and study their past formative circumstances. Demographic and economic factors were cultivated using information from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year Estimates for 2010, 2018, and 2019; the Decennial Census tables for 2000 and 2010; and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics tables from 2002-2018. Land use, zoning, and related housing information were taken from Urban Footprint and the 2014 Comprehensive Plan of Forest Park. Transit ridership information was taken from the RTAMS data portal and CTA annual ridership reports for 2018 and 2019. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

DEMOGRAPHICS

Forest Park Population Projection by Sex and Year

POPULATION The population of Forest Park was 13,704 in 2019. In the last three decades the community has experienced a steady population decline, a trend also true of its neighboring communities of Oak Park and River Forest, and of Cook County as a whole. Between 2000 and 2019, Forest Park’s population decreased by 12.33%. The community’s rate of population decline is greater than Cook County’s rate (-3.32%), and the population decline rates of River Forest (-5.72%) and Oak Park (-0.55%). Forest Park’s population is expected to continue to decline in the near future. The 2030 population estimate of the Village is 11,313, a 13.4% decrease from 2019.

AGE In 2019, the 20-34 age cohort was the largest group in the Village, at 26.67% of the total population. The 65-74 age cohort experienced the greatest positive percentage change between 2010 and 2019. The 19-under age cohort had the greatest population loss between 2010 and 2019; it decreased to 2,015 residents in 2019, an approximately -29.6% percent change.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

RACE AND ETHNICITY In 2019, 57.9% of Forest Park’s population, or 8,068 people, identified as White alone; including residents that identify as Hispanic or Latino. There are approximately 1,280 residents that identify as Hispanic or Latino, and 7,477 residents that identify as White alone, not Hispanic or Latino. 28.5% of the population, or 3,970 residents, is Black or African American, 6% of residents are Asian, 4.3% of residents are Two or More Races, 2.7% of residents are Some Other Race alone, and 0.6% of residents are American Indian and Alaska Native.

Forest Park Population by Race and Hispanic Origin (2019)

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS EMPLOYMENT Forest Park has long been a center of both light-manufacturing facilities and vibrant retail shopping districts along its key thoroughfares, and is also a nexus of economic activity (such as tourism and dining) from traffic related to its cemeteries. Today, most of Forest Park’s residents work outside of the community, with only 257 out of 6,049 local residents working within Village limits. According to Census Bureau statistics, the local economy is today dominated by light manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade, and administrative services.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME In 2019 there were approximately 6,996 occupied housing units in Forest Park. Of that total, 3,262 units were one-person households, constituting 46.6% of the total housing units in the Village. Approximately 2,387 units in Forest Park were two-person households (34.1%), 795 units were threeperson households (11.4%), and 552 households had four or more people (7.9%). There are 1,672 households (23.9%) with

an income of $25,000 to $49,000, 1,140 households (16.3%) with an income of $50,000 to $74,000, and 965 households (13.8%) with an income of $75,000 to $99,000. There are 1,112 households (15.9%) with an income of $100,000 to $149,000, and 909 households (13%) with an income of $150,000 and over in Forest Park. Taken together, these high-income households constitute 28.9% of Forest Park’s total households which is slightly less than the same proportion of high-income households in Cook County (32.3%).

KEY ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS Forest Park has the advantage of being strategically located on major transportation routes connecting it to active regional centers of employment, and is adjacent to the economically vigorous community of Oak Park. Its economy has shown healthy growth in administrative services, manufacturing, and wholesale trade, and the Postal Service bulk processing center remains a major local employer. The local economy’s Location Quotient multiplier is 1.52, which EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

means that approximately one supporting job is generated for every two primaryproductive jobs established within the Village. The community is ideally positioned for additional growth in these sectors, though local zoning will likely limit the longterm capacity for growth if left unchanged. Retail trade has shown a minor decline between 2010 and 2018, but the community has established retail centers along major transportation corridors that should offer long-term viability for retail activity.

Housing Tenure in Forest Park FIGURE 1. SOURCE: ACS 2019

OWNER OCCUPIED 51.8% RENTER OCCUPIED 48.4%

HOUSING AND LAND USE HOUSING Residential areas constitute the second greatest land use within the Village, occupying approximately 23.7% of the land. Forest Park offers a variety of housing types, including single-family residences, mostly located within R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, as well as multi-family residences, such as apartments, condominiums, townhomes, flats, and coach homes, which are mostly located within R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. There are 7,637 housing units, with approximately 6,996 occupied units and approximately 641 vacant units. As noted in the Demographics section, of the occupied-housing units, approximately 51.8% are owner occupied and 48.4% are

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

renter occupied, establishing a fairly even renter-to-owner ratio.

ZONING DISTRICTS The Village of Forest Park is a community composed of open land, residential and commercial zoning, and many other unique attributes. As of December 31, 2019 the village adheres to the following zoning codes: residential districts (R-1 low density, R-2 medium density, R-3 high density),

commercial districts (B-1 neighborhood shopping, B-2 community shopping, DBD downtown business), and industrial districts (I-1 general industrial, I-2 limited industrial). A unique indicator, targeted to potential development (which does not appear to exist at present), is a sexually-oriented business overlay district within a southern industrial zone.

River Forest

ive

e Av

Residential Multi-Family Commercial

r n lli St Frankl Franklin Dixon i o Stt

Institutional

S a o p St Randolph

JJackson acksonn Blvdd

Van Buren St V

lai

e rcl Ci

Ae m Ave Harlem Elginn Ave v

A a en o Ave Mare Marengo M

ockfordd Ave Rockford R Av Lathropp Ave

Desplaines D s l i ne A Ave v

Residential Single-Family

Industrial

S s g St Washington W St d oonn St adi Madison

Vacant

Maywood

71 71 ate Rtee 171 State Sta

Green Space

Oak Park II- 290

Transportation /Communication

S a o St Harrison

/Utility

St Yoo k S York

Forest Park

Cemetery

S v St Haarvard

LAND USE Rd o e Roosevelt

S t St 14th

5tt Stt 15th

16th t S Stt

ee e g Rdd Greenberg G

Berwyn

2 St 22nd

North Riverside

.25

.75

1 Miles

Open space occupies 43.4% of Village land, residential space occupies 23.7%, and commercial space occupies 10.1%. It is evident that open space is a dominant land use, however much of this is devoted to a limited role as cemetery space. Cemeteries occupy 41.6% of Forest Park’s land area, making it the highest utilized land use. The second highest land use is residential, at 23.7%, followed by commercial at 10.2%, with all other categories constituting less than 10% of usage. Single-family detached residential housing represents the highest frequency of use at 2,901 parcels, with commercial at 287 parcels and civic/ institutional at 161 parcels. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Forest Park is well served by transportation. The Village is served directly by two CTA Blue Line stops, and is the western terminal for the CTA Blue Line. The Village is also served by several Pace suburban bus routes. These buses terminate at the Forest Park Transit Center, attached to the CTA Blue Line terminal. Forest Park also has access to the CTA Green Line and MetraUnion Pacific West Line directly across from its northeast border, in the town of Oak Park. These transit connections allow for easy access to downtown Chicago, the western suburbs, and O’Hare International Airport. Forest Park has seen an overall decline in the use of public transit within Village boundaries. In 2019, ridership on the Blue Line during weekdays fell 8.4% at the Harlem station and 7% at the Forest Park station. Overall ridership dropped 8.4% at the Harlem Blue Line station and 7.8% at the Forest Park Blue Line station in 2019. The Pace bus system that serves the Forest Park Transit Center has also seen erratic changes in ridership. Except for two bus routes, all other routes (eight in total) saw a decrease in ridership between 2018 and 2019, ranging from a handful of riders to

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

upwards of a few hundred. Forest Park sees a higher mode share use in transit compared to it’s suburban neighbors, with 19% of Forest Park commuters using public transit, reflecting excellent access to multiple transit services that the village enjoys. The mode share can be even higher if more homes and businesses were located near transit access points, especially rail stations.

ROADWAYS Forest Park was cut directly in half by Interstate 290 in the 1950’s. The Interstate is accessible within Forest Park via Harlem Avenue, Circle Avenue, and Des Plaines Avenue. Along with the highway, the town is served by several major arterial roads, including those mentioned above, as well as by Cermak Avenue, Roosevelt Road, Madison Street, and Randolph Street.

BICYCLING, PEDESTRIAN, AND PARKING Forest Park also has an extensive paidparking system throughout the Village. Permits can be ordered through the Village government. Forest Park is fairly friendly to pedestrians, with a fully fleshed-out network of sidewalks. Despite this, the

majority of transportation trips are made with passenger vehicles. The Village is also the eastern terminus of the Illinois Prairie Path, a 57-mile bicycle path that follows the former right-of-way of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin Railroad, and connects to additional suburban bike trails. .

ELECTRIC VEHICLES There were a total of four electric vehicles registered within Forest Park as of 2016, the most recent available year of information. A notable drawback to local ownership

of electric vehicles is that, despite their increasing affordability, there is only one public charging station within the Village, as compared to a total of eight in neighboring Oak Park.

ENERGY Forest Park’s primary source of electrical generation and transmission services is Commonwealth Edison (ComEd.). The municipality is a participant in the Electric Municipal Aggregation Program, which allows a municipality or county to negotiate the combined electric supply purchased EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

by residents and eligible small businesses. This allows consumers to save money, and may also give them the power to choose a supplier which utilizes a higher percentage of “green” energy. The Village of Forest Park passed a referendum in March 2012, giving the community the option to utilize Integrys Energy Services with a rate of 7.6 cents/ kWh until August 2017. A change in law regarding “capacity performance” allowed for an increase in transmission of electric energy supply in June 2016 at a new rate of 8.1 cents/kWh.

Forest Park Room Estimates for Housing Units (2018)

ENERGY AND HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS Housing Structure And Age The Village of Forest Park is a community where older residential structures outnumber newer homes. Units built before 1940 constitute 2,712 units, or 35% of the total housing units in the community. By contrast, 27 homes were built between 2010 and 2018; these housing structures made up less than 1% of the total housing units. Homes built from 2000 onward only consume 2% more energy than those built prior to 2000.

constitute the greatest proportion, with two rooms being the least. The respective totals of housing units with three or five rooms are fairly close to that of housing units with four rooms. There are 1,562 housing units with three rooms, 1,868 housing units with four rooms, and 1,239 housing units with five rooms. There are 911 housing units with six rooms and housing units with seven, eight, nine, or more rooms each constitute 500 units or less.

Housing Characteristics

FOREST PARK’S ENERGY BURDEN AND COST

In Forest Park, housing units with four rooms

Illinois and Forest Park both have an overall

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

energy burden of 2%. When comparing the energy burden by residential building type with the United States, Forest Park’s overall energy burden is lower in all but two building types: structures with three-to-four units (with a 3% energy burden) and fiveto-nine units(with a 2% energy burden). By taking into account building type and average median income (AMI) the energy burden disparities within the Village become apparent. Building types where occupants earned 0% - 30% (extremely low income) of Forest Park’s median income had a high energy burden, regardless of the building type, with the exception of

buildings with 50+ units. There are 1,019 extremely low income households in Forest Park, constituting 14% of the Village’s total households. The local energy burden is felt most acutely by residents living in 1 unit residential structures; extremely low income residents who live in these structures face an astonishing 25% energy burden, while very low income residents (who earn only 30% -60% of Forest Park’s median income) living in 1 unit buildings face a 7% energy burden. The high energy burden facing low-income households living in 1-unit residential structures is not apparent when only comparing different annual energy costs (extremely low income households pay $2,561 in energy costs and very low income households pay $2,475 in energy costs), but this is because income is not considered. Occupants in the

extremely low-income sector earn between $0 - $18,799.20; therefore the annual cost of $2,561 may have grave impacts, and can push families into energy poverty. In regard to owner vs renter-occupied housing units in Forest Park, renters have a higher annual cost for electricity. In contrast, owners have higher annual costs for gas expenses. However, when comparing the energy burden this information does not reveal any striking differences as both renters and homeowners have an energy burden of 2%. When considering income levels for homeowners and renters, those households in the lower income 0%-30% cohort have a higher energy burden. Extremely low income renters face a 12% energy burden while extremely low income homeowners

face a 19% energy burden. Forest Park residents living in newer housing units spend more annually on energy than residents in older homes. Families in housing structures built prior to 2010 spent $2,033 on electricity, and families in homes with the next highest (built prior to 1940) pay $1,022 in energy costs annually. The majority of homes in Forest Park were built prior to 1940 and only 27 homes were built after 2010. In terms of energy burden and income levels, once again the data depicts a high energy burden for those in the lower income brackets. For example, for residential structures built in the 1940’s, when broken down by income cohorts the energy burden is as follows; 0%-30% (20%), 30%-60% (6%), 60%-80% (4%), 80%-100% (3%), 100%+ (1%).

PUBLIC ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS The Forest Park municipal government has taken a leading role in improving the community’s energy efficiency. Street lighting and other public facility lights, such as those in community parks, have been replaced with modern LED lighting for both cost-savings and longevity of service. Notably, Forest Park was one of the first municipalities in the area to enact EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

this replacement. Currently, park lights, previously active at all hours regardless of activity, are being upgraded to an ondemand model involving motion sensors or manual activation. Public buildings and schools are likewise being upgraded with LED lighting.

Forest Park Average Annual energy Cost by Building Age (2018)

The central shopping district along Madison Street has been redesigned to better accommodate pedestrian traffic. In an additional move to reduce community energy consumption, the Village is advocating for Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD) near its CTA rail terminals, and at key bus stops within the community. This is supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HUD Community Challenge Grant Award, which the Village was granted in 2014. In 2019, the Village government approved the appointment of an Environmental Control Commission to study, observe, and report to the Village Council on environmental matters within the community.

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS This section highlights several equity considerations that were acknowledged

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

while researching Forest Park’s existing conditions. As one of the guiding principles of the report, it was necessary to evaluate equity while analyzing Forest Park’s economy, demographics, housing, and transportation. By discerning and organizing this relevant information into its own section, it was readily accessible to the authors while developing goals and strategies. Many of the report’s strategies were informed by the following information and address equity-related issues.

The local manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors offer substantial opportunities for those with low educational attainment, and while retail trade does not always offer the same opportunities for personal economic growth, it is still a source of attainable employment for those with minimal education. The administration and support sector has shown the most rapid growth among local economic activities in recent years; some of this includes the local Postal Service bulk-processing center,

which does not require an advanced education for job access and generally offers long-term employment. Many homes in Forest Park are older structures, and this may pose a challenge to improving energy efficiency. Older structures must be considered when creating policies; they are generally more vulnerable to weather due to age, and are prone to having worn and drafty windows and doors. They are frequently not fitted with energy-efficient appliances, resulting

in higher rates of energy consumption. This is especially relevant as many of the Village’s lower-income residents live in older, single-family homes. Energy burden measurements for those specific populations are good indicators for those experiencing energy poverty. Households where occupants earned 0% - 30% (extremely low income) of Forest Park’s median income had a high energy burden, regardless of the building type, with the exception of buildings with 50+ units. For this reason, attending to the inequities

between the north-south divide present in Forest Park must be considered, as there are disparities in income and living conditions. In particular, there is a greater proportion of high-density residential properties and lower maintenance consistency south of Interstate 290. While Forest Park is currently well served with public transportation, long-term changes in the broader region (such as employers relocating from downtown Chicago to outer suburbs) may result from the recent COVID-19 crisis, and the current public transportation may not be arranged to accommodate it. In such a circumstance, Forest Park residents would

be heavily dependent on private autos for the near term, and the socioeconomic divide across the population means that many residents would remain dependent on older internal combustion vehicles until the cost of electric or hybrid vehicles, and the infrastructure to charge them, reaches a point of accessibility. Even under current conditions, many lower-income residents of Forest Park are dependent on older autos, and more modern vehicles and technologies will remain out of reach without price reductions or purchase subsidies.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

WHO IS FOREST PARK? In order for the EmPower Forest Park Plan to work, the plan must be understood by important stakeholders within the Village. In order to do so, the EmPower Forest Park Plan has laid out the most important groups within Forest Park, why they are important within the community, and how the plan will affect them.

Single-Family Homeowners In Forest Park, 51.8% of homes are owner-occupied. Unlike many municipalities, homeowners in the Village tend to have lower incomes than renters. This fact, along with the increased energy costs associated with single family homes, means that homeowners are subject to the highest energy burden in Forest Park. This plan aims to alleviate the energy burden by providing cost savings as well as equitable access to energy efficient upgrades. Homeowners who participate in the conversion from gas heating to electric home heating will decrease their homes’ overall energy use while keeping the same home heating potential. Homeowners who convert to solar energy will be able to partially power their homes without relying on carbon-producing energy sources. This will also allow them to sell captured energy back to the energy grid once a smart grid is installed.

Apartments Dwellers Our plan will reduce the energy burden for the people of Forest Park, including apartment dwellers. Of the Village’s total housing, 48.4% is renter-occupied. The plan’s marketing campaign will target both homeowners and apartment dwellers to make sure they know what options they have for changing out their appliances at little or no cost. The information campaign will also target landlords and managers about ways they can save both energy and money. In addition to participating in the vehicle buy-back program centered around fuel efficient vehicles, apartment dwellers will benefit from an increase in transit-oriented development and multimodal transportation. Their landlords and building managers will also be able to install a vehicle charging station if their apartment building is able to have one installed.

As single-family homes within Forest Park tend to be further away from public transportation nodes, homeowners will particularly benefit from the opportunity to purchase a hybrid electric or fully electric vehicle, with a front credit towards the price of purchase, if they participate in Forest Park’s car buy back program. In addition to this, they can qualify to have an electric charging station installed in their home.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

Business Owners

Parents & Children

As a key part of the Forest Park community, business owners within Forest Park must have a plan that helps them to make sure that their customer base is stable, and that energy costs are kept to a minimum. This is done through a variety of methods in the Plan. One of these would be a strategy under Strategy 2.2, which calls to upgrade commercial, industrial and municipal buildings with smart energy-efficient technology and appliances by 2025. This would be done through identification of potential energy flaws, identifying new technology that can be capitalized to reduce energy costs, and upgrading and equipping Energy Star-level equipment if available. Another strategy can be found in Strategy 2.3, which calls for incentivizing the installation of solar energy in homes and businesses by using direct grants that can be applied to upfront costs. Purchase incentives and grants would be available and applied upfront. These grants will help complement existing rebates and tax subsidies offered by the State of Illinois and ComEd, and the federal government.

The families of Forest Park play a foundational role in the development and maintenance of a sustainable, energyefficient community as it pertains to home energy use and transportation methods. Approximately 15% of the population is 19 and under, meaning families with children have a strong presence in the Village. Parents have the biggest impact on the formation of children's energy-saving habits and, therefore, can be the main proponents and beneficiaries of EmPower Forest Park. Implementing strategies in the Forest Park Community Energy Plan will build the foundation for parents and children to make more informed and environmentally conscious choices. This includes access to free energy efficiency programs and workshops for the whole family which will help to increase energy literacy, decrease energy costs and preserve the longterm health and safety of Forest Park’s families. Additionally, efforts to create a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly infrastructure will provide children without driver’s licenses with greater independence to move about the Village.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

Government and Postal Worker Forest Park is home to the United States Postal Service’s Chicago Bulk Mail Center, which is a large source of employment within the Village. Employees commuting to the mail center will benefit from expansion of public transit. The Village’s local government employees will also benefit from the Plan, as Strategy 2.1 aims to convert all municipal buildings to solar by 2035. This will result in increased comfort and cost savings for local governments.

Senior Citizens The elderly population in Forest Park (60 years and above) comprise approximately 22.4% of Forest Park residents. With a general growth in the aging population, plans must adapt to equitably serve the elderly population by striving to establish a safer and more comfortable community. The elderly population experiences higher health costs, general inability to maintain their living environments, and navigate the complexities of understanding electric bills. Goals 1 and 3 aim to create more cost effective and safer communities through weatherization of homes, utilization of the municipal grid, and alternative options for energy generation just to name a few.

Cemetaries The abundance of cemetery land use in Forest Park is the pride and joy of many, as it is a resting place for family, friends, and influential figures, and holds historical significance to both the community and visitors. The energy plan aims to preserve this green space by intentionally developing strategies and actions aimed at developments and people. The plan does not intend to impose on this sacred ground; rather it intends to improve this area with flood-control efforts. This is especially important as the cemeteries are located near the Des Plaines River.

Transit Riders Forest Park serves as the terminal of the CTA’s Blue Line, a key station for several important PACE Routes, and a popular spot along the CTA Green and Metra Line. As such, transit riders, both from Forest Park and outside Forest Park, are a key group that needs to be considered. Luckily, Goal 2, which aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 15% by 2035, addresses the needs of transit riders. The plan supports an increase in TOD, investments into sidewalk infrastructure and PACE infrastructure, and an educational campaign to promote the use of public transit. Alongside this, the plan aims to have Forest Park provide micro-modal transportation, such as routed taxis, that allows for Forest Park residents to be able to move around easily without the use of a car.

FUTURE PROJECTIONS

FUTURE OF FOREST PARK Forest Park is a classic example of an older, mature, built-out suburb. Through its location, its connectivity to the surrounding region, and its lack of dependence on a single, dominant industry, it has transitioned into the post-industrial age far better than some of its neighbors. However, as a fully built-out and zoned community, it cannot expand any of its zoning regions without encroaching on an

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONTEXT

adjacent, established space. The central business district is highly walkable, but this is not the case for the entire Village. Its core commercial and industrial districts are active and likely to remain so. With that being said, several outlying commercial zones and the Forest Park Plaza Mall are stagnant or declining, and the general commercial sector faces competition from online shopping and other shopping

venues. As noted earlier, the population is in a slow decline, and barring outside forces such as climate migration, this process is projected to continue. Finally, as an older community, the building stock is aging, and this could have effects on the community’s overall desirability, due to poor energy efficiency and high energy cost burdens, especially among lower-income residents.

Chapter 3

Planning Process The planning process was strategically designed to ensure the development of an energy plan guided by sustainability, equity, resiliency, and the unique needs of Forest Park. All aspects of the population, the spatial environment, surrounding communities, and external factors were taken into account in this adaptive, research-and-data-driven plan.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

VISIONING CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

GOALS,STRATEGIES, PROJECTS CONCEPT ASSESSMENT ENERGY STRATEGIC PLAN Existing Conditions

SWOT & TOWS

Scenario Planning

Energy Profile

Evaluation Framework

BUILDING ON THE 2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The EmPower Forest Park Plan addresses some of the same issues the need for the development of a green infrastructure plan to considered by the Picture Yourself Here mitigate stormwater damage. Stormwater “The differences were the most Village of Forest Park 2015 Comprehensive management addresses energy resiliency Plan; the Plan builds upon previous by impeding water damage to energy striking for 1 unit buildings with an findings, but is especially concerned with infrastructures. The comprehensive plan energy-related issues. Analyses of local astonishing 25% energy burden for alludes to efforts to use green infrastructure issues provided by the Plan go further as an opportunity to advance sustainability those in the 0%-30% cohort and than the 2014 Comprehensive Plan by initiatives, including renewable energy emphasizing the interconnectedness of only 7% for those in the 30%- 60% sources. This energy strategic plan has equity and sustainability. The resulting taken a more thorough and energy-focused (very low) income cohort.” solutions are far more ambitious. For approach by recognizing the importance example, the 2014 Comprehensive Plan acknowledges an issue that of energy when considering housing, buildings, transportation, residents have voiced, stormwater management, and determines population, and both the commercial and industrial sectors.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

MEETING THE NEEDS OF FOREST PARK Throughout the Plan considerations included projected increases in energy demand due to climatic changes, the various pieces of the energy system needed to increase efficiency, and the energy burden and cost for residents. Addressing critical issues of equity and who the beneficiaries of the Plan are has been critical in the selection of strategies towards the achievements of set goals. The methodologies for identifying the vulnerable populations in Forest Park have been ingrained in the decisionmaking process in selecting strategies. Spatial aspects of Forest Park such as risk of its proximity to overflowing rivers, land use, and transportation have also been taken into consideration when identifying

Fire Engine in Forest Park, IL

energy-specific needs for residents and stakeholders.

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Due to the unique restrictions to mitigate COVID-19 during the plan-making process, stakeholder outreach was limited. However, the planning team was able to reach out and foster connections with the Oak Park River Forest Foundation, Forest Park Against Racism, an energy contractor associated with the Public Works Department of Forest Park, and the Mayor’s Office at the Village of Forest Park. Conversations with these stakeholders have led to an accurate diagnosis of the strengths and

weaknesses of the energy system and the potential for the Plan. The planning team was able to engage in conversations with the Forest Park Against Racism community organization, which gave the team further insights into the racial temperature and equity issues within The Village of Forest Park. An energy related contractor that has worked closely with the Public Works Department also shared knowledge on current initiatives that the Village is taking towards energy conservation and efficiency.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

PLANNING PROCESS The planning process was informed in part by the Guide for Community Energy Strategic Planning, developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. The planning team used the guide as a starting point and tailored it to include scenario planning and SWOT and TOWS analyses in order to develop goals and strategies pertaining to the distinct needs of Forest Park.

PHASE 1: GROUNDWORK Preliminary groundwork included understanding Forest Park more holistically by compiling the data needed to develop a community profile. This process familiarized the planning team with existing conditions and issues. The team analyzed valuable data related to energy planning including Forest Park’s estimated rooftop solar potential, population projections, and energy use. It was critical to identify data such as equity indicators, the energy profile, building stock, and conditions which were of particular importance in adhering to the principles that drove the plan. The planning team compiled a comprehensive list of tools and methodologies that were used to assess the impacts of energy-related strategies. This informed the creation of tools to assess the Plan's effectiveness, and served as the evaluation framework for the

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

Plan. This preparatory work was fundamental towards having a rationale for the vision, goals, guiding principles, and ultimately the EmPower Forest Park Plan as a whole.

PHASE 2: GOAL AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Principles served as a guidepost for strategy development. Our vision informed the goals while both the future scenarios and TOWS analysis exercises served as a basis for the strategies. This approach meant that the strategies leveraged the strengths of Forest Park. Additionally, extensive research was done to understand the multitude of strategies in preceding plans from various levels of government: local, state, and federal. Preliminary goals and strategies went through various iterations through ongoing research, elaborations, and peer reviews. Concepts were also explored and submitted as proposals to propel the exploration of strategies that are currently being recommended. Proposals were assessed and refined in order to ensure that they met criteria and were specific, measurable, realistic, and timely goals. The final phases of goal and strategy refinement examined each goal and strategy’s ability to produce measurable results.

PHASE 3: EVALUATIONS The evaluation phase of the project weighed heavily on finalizing goals and verifying their efficacy. Goal measurements were refined during this process in order to verify that stated goals would help Forest Park achieve its vision of a sustainable, equitable, and resilient community. Although the evaluations did not directly measure these principles, the factors that were measured were integral to their attainment. For example, the implementation of Goal 3 on energy savings for vulnerable populations would mean that this particular group’s energy bills would consume less of their income. This would lower their energy burden, hence reducing energy poverty within the community which would address equity. The implementation of the strategies for this goal and others ultimately meet the principles of the plan. Additionally, evaluations ensured that all aspects of the plan were data-driven. From the point of developing goals, evaluations ensured that goals were measurable and relevant to principles and vision. Strategies and goals were refined based on emerging scenarios from their evaluations. Lastly, evaluations informed the extent into which measures have to be implemented in order to achieve intended results.

METHODOLOGIES

DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS AND STRATEGIES A comprehensive review of Forest Park’s existing conditions was undertaken in order to shape the vision, goals, and strategies of the Plan. The planning team used the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) approach with an emphasis on energy to discern the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats faced by the Village of Forest Park. This process considered all of the data and research collected during the preliminary phases of the planning process, including existing conditions, energy profile, scenarios, current policies, driving forces, and trends. While SWOT allowed the identification of internal and external factors that would potentially impact the energy strategic plan, the TOWS approach then exposed the interrelationships between threats, opportunities, weaknesses, and strengths. This approach allowed for extensive and direct goals and strategies to be tailored to the Village, and as a foundation on which to build the Plan. Strengths were leveraged to maximize opportunities and minimize threats, while opportunities were strategically enhanced to defy weaknesses. Initial strategies were developed through this methodology to ensure that they were authentic to Forest Park.

One of the dynamics that brought about strategies was the strong local economy on Madison Street and the opportunities from having neighboring cities and villages that have made progress in implementing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. Another association between weaknesses and opportunities was the north-south divide in the Village of Forest Park. Although this may be seen as a weakness, there was the opportunity to address divisiveness caused in part by the concentration of single-family homes on the south side and multiunit homes on the south side. Not only were the housing types different, but the southern portion also earned a lower income in general. This concern had to be addressed in order to more equitably distribute energy resources; this was done through strategies centered around housing energy efficiency. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

METHODOLOGY - DRIVING TRENDS

INTRODUCTION This section introduces three key driving trends in energy in the United States: the push by local governments to offer businesses and homeowners incentives for the installation of renewable energy sources, the evolution of clean energy and new developments in green technology, and the municipalization and development of smart grids. These three trends have informed current energy policies developed by local governments nationwide, and will continue to exert great influence over future developments. The Plan also incorporates each of the trends in many of the proposed strategies; therefore, it is important to provide an explanation of each to discern recent developments and to highlight the accompanying opportunities.

COMMUNITY LEVEL SUBSIDIES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION There have been many policies put forward by the local governments to encourage individuals and private organizations to reduce their energy consumption and to invest in renewable energy.

NAPERVILLE One community that has created effective policies to promote the installation of solar panels on homes is Naperville, IL. The City of Naperville Electric Utility offers rebates ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 to homeowners and businesses that purchase and install solar energy systems or solar water heating systems. The City also offers renewable energy grants, which are

funded by taxpayers’ voluntary donations, to educate community members on renewable solutions, support projects that increase renewable energy usage, and discern best practices for energy efficient programs.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

EVOLUTION OF CLEAN ENERGY Solar technology has evolved dramatically in the last two decades and, with the aid of state and federal subsidies, is emerging as a commercially viable technology for micro-generation. While wind power remains the most likely large-scale renewable generation technique in Illinois (and the upper Midwest as a whole), the spatial limitations of Forest Park make it more likely that municipal energy generation will depend on solar photovoltaics (PVs). Cost per square foot of non-utility scale PVs have fallen dramatically, with small scale and residential generators costing $4,760 – $5,950 over 1,000 square feet. At 15 watts of electrical production per square foot, generation capacity on municipal buildings is a strategy currently being employed in a variety of US cities to achieve sustainability goals (see graphic at right). Forest Park has 172,653 square feet of municipal rooftop and land that could potentially house solar panels to power municipal operations and community energy. Given the community’s average annual solar insolation of 1879 hours per year, the recommended square footage of solar panels to power municipal operations totals 18,739 square feet, incurring an initial cost of $112,437, but leading to an

Asheville, NC

passed a resolution to transition to 100% renewable energy for municipal operations by 2030. Steps include adding PVs arrays on transit stations and municipal buildings, projecting 103,100 kWh annually produced by the transit system alone, or enough energy to power 12 homes. Their Òsell-allÓ system will be redistributed through the energy grid in partnership with Duke Energy, the main energy utility in Asheville.

New York City, NY

set a goal to install 100MW of solar generation capacity on municipal buildings by 2025. The city has divested all pension funds from fossil fuel investment and reached 25 MW of solar generation as of 2018.

Urbana, IL

is one step away from completing its pathway to a large-scale solar development atop a capped landfill, with technical assistance from the EPAÕs Local Government Solar project.

estimated net savings of $840,807 over a 25 year period. At a displacement level of 105%, the community would not only be able to power its municipal buildings with solar, but also contribute a small amount of renewable energy back into the grid. In September 2020 the City of Chicago announced a $200 million Request For Proposal (RFP) to convert all city-owned

buildings and operations to renewable power by 2025. Chicago’s plan calls for purchasing RECs from downstate wind farms to mitigate carbon dioxide generation from electricity for city operations. While this plan does not necessarily prevent the production of electricity via fossil fuels (primarily natural gas), it does incentivize energy companies to further develop their renewable energy assets by EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

committing capital explicitly to renewable generation. Better still, Chicago’s plan also includes an explicit goal to enable other municipalities to negotiate with their selected provider to secure their own RECs, easing the burden on smaller localities with less capacity to research and negotiate REC providers. Through a hybrid of municipal PV installation and REC purchasing similar to the Chicago plan, Forest Park has the ability to pursue a 100% renewable plan of its own by 2035, and to eventually generate enough power to contribute renewable energy back to the grid (see below).

GRID UPDATES: SMART GRID AND MUNICIPALIZATION The age of the American energy grid is staggering, with large amounts of the grid built in the 1950s and 1960s with only a 30-year life span. The United States grid is aging and unstable. It has received increasing attention from federal, state, and local governments. The grid has barely changed since Thomas Edison turned on the first power plant in 1882. Today, it is still dominated by massive, centralized power generation that is often transmitted from great distances to reach consumers. According to the US Department of Energy

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

the future of energy will be local, smart, and more flexible. The future energy customer will be an active participant in the grid, instead of a passive consumer. Modernizing the grid into a smart grid can be a difficult concept to define as it is an ambiguous term that can mean different things to different groups. The general consensus is that a smart grid is a way to integrate innovative technologies from generation to the appliances in our homes. At its core, a modern smart grid allows for the two-way flow of both electricity and data. This is a way to modernize the grid and to improve residents’ energy efficiency and use. Incorporating smart meters that measure each room of a house and tell residents in real time when peak hours are occuring helps to reduce consumption. This allows consumers to save extra money and rewards them for consuming less. One of the biggest changes expected from emerging trends in the energy sector is the increase in microgrids. The US Department of Energy has laid out the idea that the future grid will be a patchwork of microgrids that will dominate the macrogrid phasing down significantly the role of the large power plants of the past. Microgrids allow for the local generation of power that is often renewable and

RESIDENTS WHO RECEIVE POWER FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES PAY

11%

LESS COMPARED TO RSIDENTS WHO

PURCHASE POWER FROM PRIVATE UTILITIES

PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE

LIKELY TO BE WITHOUT

POWER FOR AN

AVERAGE OF

MINUTES A YEAR

A ROUND

A MERICANS

PRIVATE UTILITIES

LOSE POWER FOR AN AVERAGE OF

150 MINUTES A

YEAR.

MILLION

ARE CURRENTLY SERVED BY

MUNICIPALLY OWNED ELECTRICITY .

resilient. Microgrids can reduce grid “congestion” and peak load times. Moreover, microgrids can improve the operation and stability of the regional electric grid by creating power islands that can keep the lights on after an emergency shuts the macrogrid down. Microgrids can be a great tool in reducing GHG emissions especially if it utilizes on-site solar. Often, the main barrier in the implementation of microgrids is the need for a modernized smart grid with a two-way flow of data, electricity, and updated power lines.

The last few decades of government deregulation has allowed the once vertically integrated system to become disconnected allowing for transmission, delivery, and generation to be owned or operated by separate companies. Federal, state and local regulators have put greater pressure on large energy companies to invest in their grid with some success. However, due to the monopolistic nature of many of these companies, community accountability is not taken into account with these strategies. This has led to a growing trend in municipalization. Municipal energy utilities are community-owned grids that are run as a division of the local government. Local residents have direct control over utility decisions. Residents who receive power from public utilities pay 11% less than residents who purchase power from private utilities, amounting to a savings of $176.79 per year. Public power utilities also return 33% more investment back to the communities they serve than private. The return on investments local governments receive from public utilities allows for greater investments in technologies like microgrids and smart grids. Research has shown a greater amount of reliability as well: while public utilities are without power for an average of 62 minutes a year, private

utilities lose power for an average of 150 minutes a year. The concept of municipalization is not a new one, nor a radical one. In the US in total around 49 million Americans are currently served by municipally owned electricity. Many of these municipally owned electrical systems are as old as electricity distribution itself, while some are much newer.

floated the idea of municipalization at the time in which they were due to sign a new franchise agreement. This was done in Denver, Colorado; after this effort, Denver’s energy provider agreed to meet their demands for greater investment in the grid. Municipalization is certainly a growing trend, but every city that has either chosen to municipalize or not launched a feasibility study.

Municipalization is not the only way to modernize the grid. Many cities have EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

METHODOLOGY - FUTURE SCENARIOS

These three possible scenarios for Forest Park’s future were created based on the driving trends listed above. These were used to broaden perspectives and help develop robust strategies by examining impacts of external forces.

SCENARIO 1: COMMUNITY-ORIENTED ENERGY The first potential scenario for Forest Park explores a future in which federal tax credits and state and community level subsidies promote the use of renewable energy, energy efficiency, public interest, and greenhouse gas reduction. In this scenario, focus on public access to affordable and comfortable utilities can lead to innovations in renewable sources such as solar, and may support more cost-effective utility solar options, subsidized renewable energy power purchasing agreements, and distributed power generation. Transit-oriented development and investment in expanding public transportation decreases the amount of trips made by private vehicles. Meanwhile, communities are

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

given options to assist residents with procuring energy-saving technologies for their homes, such as electric home heating and EVs, while also pursuing strategies such as renewable energy certificates (RECs) and municipal renewable energy generation to decrease their overall carbon footprint. In this scenario, we also presume that Forest Park’s central location near an upper Midwest city and potential for relatively dense, transit oriented infrastructure could turn it into a destination for climate migrants-though the flow will be less extreme, given that climate mitigation efforts will dampen projected population displacement due to sea-level rise and natural disasters.

SCENARIO 2: SMART ENERGY FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT In this scenario, federal policies support innovations in renewable energy sources, but prioritization of private interests means the benefits of these innovations are not fairly distributed throughout the population. A widening equity gap becomes a primary concern as programs to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions focus less on equity and more on net reduction of emissions. Electric vehicles replace fossil fuel vehicles, but infrastructure will remain oriented towards private vehicles. Rooftop solar and green building technology will increase in popularity and affordability, but with subsidies (such as tax credits) that set a bottom-line cost out of reach for most homeowners. While these innovations will become more affordable, they will certainly remain unavailable to very low-income populations. Low-income populations may still be unable to afford electric vehicles, and will have difficulty relying on public transportation. Again, we project some immigration due to climatic pressures in more vulnerable areas, with slightly less capacity to accommodate this due to a lower investment in public transportation and infrastructure.

SCENARIO 3: FREE FOR ALL In the final future energy scenario, we consider a rollback of existing federal policies supporting renewable energy development, as well as prioritization of private interests and short-term economic growth. In this scenario, both equity and sustainability priorities are of particular concern. The uber-rich will continue to develop private technologies to protect themselves from the effects of climate change to maintain a degree of relative comfort. Everyone else struggles within a fossil-fuel-dependent infrastructure that does not adapt to new realities of source depletion. Once again, in this scenario Forest Park could serve as a destination for climate migrants based in areas suffering from the results of global warming, while business failures due to increased cost of fuel and fossil-dependent resources, like plastic in industrial production, could shrink the tax base. Unlike prior scenarios, this scenario assumes less funding from federal sources, leaving the Village with the difficult task of providing new solutions for its residents. In this scenario we project even more in-migration from climate refugees, as catastrophic weather events and flooding become significantly worse than in the other two scenarios. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

APPROACH TO EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The strategies and goals put forth by this data-driven plan were informed and evaluated with tools such as the LEAD Tool, Urban Footprint, SLOPE Tool, spatial analysis (ArcGIS), and calculation tools (Green Values Calculator), Alliance for Automotive Innovation tool. The evaluation team compiled the relevant tool inventory, data, and methods to guide goal development. With these tools and data, the team developed possible alternatives to assess the efficacy of the proposed goals or call for critical refinement. Best-case and worst-case scenarios were developed to determine the extent that actions must be taken to achieve realistic results. These scenarios also provided initial estimations for what is expected once strategies are implemented. Evaluation results and tools can serve as a guide and analysis through the implementation stages. The following are tools used for analysis and data collection. (See Chapter 6 and Appendix for more details): • Used the SLOPE tool to look for Electricity Efficiency Economic Potential in Illinois, Single Family Home Electricity Savings Potential by Measure in Illinois, and Solar Potential.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: PLANNING PROCESS

• Used UrbanFootprint for estimations regarding electricity consumption and type in Forest Park (FP) for residential buildings, and commercial/industrial use. • Collected data from Energy Information Administration (EIA) regarding electricity consumption in Illinois. • Used the LEAD tool for estimations regarding average annual energy cost and burden in Forest Park by type of energy and Area Median Income using the LEAD tool. • Used ArcGIS with NLCD 2016 Percent Developed Imperviousness (CONUS) to detect impervious high-risk surfaces, along with data from FEMA map to identify potential “Special Flood Hazard Areas”. • Used Alliance for Automotive Innovation tool to find the historic auto sales and registrations by drivetrain. • Used the Green Values Calculator tool to assess different alternatives based on different Green Infrastructure improvements for those surfaces.

Chapter 4

A Greener Forest Park

VISON FOR EMPOWER FOREST PARK Create a future for Forest Park with greater energy independence, affordable, and equitable access to energy resources and sustainable infrastructure. In addition to building upon past achievements in sustainability, Forest Park will implement an energy plan that mitigates the most distressing effects of climate change and reduce fossil fuel dependency by 2035. When thinking through the vision for EmPower Forest Park and its goals and strategies the following principles were prioritized:

Attainability

Economic Sustainability

Environmental Sustainability

Equity

The evaluation of possible strategies to ensure that they are effective, viable, and reasonable given the restraints within the Village.

The conservation of natural resources and ecosystems on both a local and global scale for future generations.

Resiliency

The ability to adapt to and thrive amongst the chronic and acute stressors.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

The support of long-term economic well-being that includes the consideration of energy needs, existing conditions, and current local inequities.

The mitigation of the financial, social, and structural burdens facing the Village’s most disadvantaged residents.

GOALS + STRATEGIES AT A GLANCE GOAL 1: ADDRESS ENERGY BURDEN 1.1: Provide the most burdened population, starting with those in low- income single detached housing units, with financial assistance and energy efficiency education and resources. 1.2: Generate and preserve energy efficient affordable housing. 1.3: Support the weatherization of homes reducing the disproportionate energy burden affecting low-income individuals. Focus will specifically be on those residing in one-unit detached households built in the 1940’s or older which have a 20% energy burden.

GOAL 2: PROMOTE ENERGY-EFFICIENCY 2.1: Upgrade municipal buildings with smart energy efficient technology and appliances by 2025.

2.2: Upgrade commercial and industrial buildings with smart energy efficient technology and appliances by 2025.

4.2: Use grants to incentivize the installation of solar energy in homes and businesses.

2.3: Provide energy efficient education and assistance to building managers, tenants, homeowners, and landlords for energy programs while monitoring energy savings.

GOAL 3: MODERNIZE THE GRID 3.1: Explore potential pathways to modernize the grid into a smart grid that can incorporate current and newer technologies to facilitate greater efficiency and resiliency. 3.2: Create three microgrids to generate more electricity locally.

GOAL 4: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.1: Convert municipal buildings to 100% renewable energy.

4.3: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) of vehicles registered in the Village by 15% by 2035, through public support of transitoriented developments (TOD), public and multi-modal transit, mixed-use zoning, and public awareness campaigns. 4.4: Install evaluation measures to determine impact of proposed actions and progress towards achieving goals. 4.5: Increase the percentage of households that use electric home heating from 30% to 50% by 2035.

GOAL 5: MITIGATE FLOODING AND POWER OUTAGES 5.1: Convert public infrastructure to reduce water accumulation and reorient flows of water towards green spaces. Plant native trees along municipal watersheds to soak up water and resist long periods of water accumulation. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: GOALS CHART

GOAL DESCRIPTION

WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE

Reduce the energy burden experienced by low-income populations by 10% through 2035.

GOAL 2: PROMOTE

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Reduce the communitywide energy costs by 6% by 2035.

• 100% of the commercial and industrial sectors achieve maximum electricity savings (MES). • 50% of homes in Forest Park achieve MES.

GOAL 3: MODERNIZE THE GRID

Modernize and convert Forest Park’s energy grid to a smart grid by 2035.

GOAL 1: ADDRESS ENERGY BURDEN

GOAL 4: REDUCE

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

GOAL 5: MITIGATE FLOODING AND POWER OUTAGES

Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40% in Forest Park by 2035.

Increase Forest Park’s absorption capacity by at least 2,562,819 gallons to reduce flooding.

PRINCIPLE(S)

GOAL 1 Reduce the energy burden experienced by low-income populations by 10% or more over the course of 14 years (by 2035). THE VILLAGE WILL ACHIEVE THIS GOAL BY: • Provide the most burdened population, those in low-income single detached housing units, with financial assistance and energy efficiency education and resources. • Generate and preserve energy efficient affordable housing. • Support the weatherization of homes to reduce the disproportionate energy burden affecting low-income individuals. Focus will specifically be on those residing in one-unit detached households built in the 1940’s or older, which have a 20% higher energy burden than average.

THE BIG PICTURE Energy burden is the proportion of income spent on energy expenses and a measure for energy poverty which is indicating a lack of resources to maintain energy access for a household. The financial burden of energy costs disproportionately impacts low-income families with children, racial-ethnic minorities, and seniors. The national average energy burden for low-income households is 8.6%, three times higher than for non-low-income households which is estimated at 3%. With the implementation

of energy efficient upgrades such as retrofitting and energy efficient technology, weatherization, and the education of energy efficiency programs, individuals will be able to reduce their energy by saving between 15% to 30% on energy costs. The importance of lowering the energy burden is not only due to financial strains, energy burden has been found to be essential for good health. Energy poverty puts families at risk of food insecurity, lack of access to medicine, and energy shutoff. For this reason, some EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

families experiencing energy poverty might live in under heated or uncomfortably warm temperatures. The health risks include; asthma, respiratory problems, heart disease, arthritis, and rheumatism.

IN FOREST PARK The EmPower Forest Park Plan will make the community more climate friendly, greener, and more efficient. Not only are the goals outlined in this plan vital to the climate resiliency of the community, they can also improve residents’ quality of life. Affordable energy efficient housing addresses energy burden disparities, ensuring that under-resourced residents also experience the benefits of energy efficiency, including healthy indoor air and temperatures, and eliminating fuel poverty. Attending the energy burden of vulnerable populations in Forest Park will prevent a significant polarity in the living conditions of residents that can invest in energy efficiency versus those that cannot.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

It is vital to understand who Forest Park’s vulnerable populations are and to better equip them with energy efficient resources to decrease the percentage of income spent on energy in underresourced communities. Focusing on vulnerable populations will allow the Village to intentionally reduce the financial burden on vulnerable community members and serve all of its constituents equitably. Although Forest Park has a 2% energy burden, which is 1% less than the energy burden of the United States, low income households within Forest Park have a very high energy burden of 13%. In a one-unit detached low income home, the energy burden reached 25%. Residents in these households are the primary target vulnerable population of EmPower Forest Park. Goal 1 aims to minimize this disproportionate energy burden by reducing the high costs of energy use through energy efficiency methods within the community. This would be achieved through utilization of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and a partnership with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Additionally, education and outreach programs will serve as tools to assist residents in applying for programs.

STRATEGY 1.1 Provide the most burdened population, starting with those in low- income single detached housing units, with financial assistance and energy efficiency education and resources. Action 1.1.1: Create a research task group compiling a socioeconomic and demographic profile of residents identified to have a high energy burden. Develop a catalog of resources available for energy efficient programs, appliances, and incentives. Action 1.1.2: Ensure participation of vulnerable residents through EmPower Forest Park workshops through cold calls and canvassing. Provide clean energy education, zero emission sources, and energy saving resources for energy efficient measures Action 1.1.3: Partner with community centers and organizations that service the target group to have information readily available through their most effective mediums of communication.

to provide an adaptive and individual approach in providing support.

STRATEGY 1.2 Generate and preserve energy efficient affordable housing. Action 1.2.1: Ensure energy efficiency in all new, renovated, and existing affordable housing. Foster a partnership between the municipality and HUD Office of Environment and Energy to assist in performing audits of affordable housing community buildings. Action 1.2.2: Implement ordinance to require new owners of single-family homes, two-flats, condos, and townhomes to perform a free ComEd Energy Assessment within one year of property closing date. Renters in these buildings are also eligible to participate in this assessment, with permission from their landlord. Action 1.2.3: Implement affordability restrictions on retrofitted multi-family buildings.

Action 1.1.4: Obtain verification on energy performance from energy service providers in order to monitor their energy savings over time. Adjust outreach and resources

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

STRATEGY 1.3 Support the weatherization of homes reducing the disproportionate energy burden affecting low-income individuals. Focus will specifically be on those residing in one-unit detached households built in the 1940’s or older which have a 20% energy burden. Action 1.3.1: Cross reference energy bills of homes built before 1940’s and affordable housing with newer and well-built homes to identify those in need of weatherization. Action 1.3.2: Assist residents in applying for the weatherization assistance program. Those that receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are automatically eligible to receive weatherization assistance under the DOE guidelines; ComEd is another resource for providing assistance.

GOAL 2 Reduce the community wide energy cost by 6% by 2035. THE VILLAGE WILL ACHIEVE THIS GOAL BY: • Upgrading municipal buildings with smart energy efficient technology and appliances. • Upgrading commercial and industrial buildings with smart energy efficient technology and appli-

ances by 2025. • Providing energy efficient education and assistance to building managers, tenants, homeowners,

landlords for energy programs while monitoring their energy savings over time.

THE BIG PICTURE Energy efficiency tackles sustainability, resiliency, and equity issues when planned intentionally. Per the Department of Energy “The buildings sector accounts for about 76% of electricity use and 40% of all U. S. primary energy use and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” It is crucial to tackle building-related GHG emissions and invest in energy saving technologies to meet the challenges that climate change will present, such as increasing in summer temperatures and more frequent heat waves. In the short-term, mitigation will also increase energy savings and public health. Lower income communities are more likely to suffer from

inadequate air and temperature control, but energy efficient technology can improve community well-being by increasing savings on home conditioning. Commercial and industrial businesses also benefit from improved energy efficiency through the reduction of energy cost. Commercial and small businesses can improve their visibility by being transparent with their energy efficiency efforts, attracting a new generation of customers. Community wide efforts to improve energy efficiency will reduce the energy burden and demand on the electrical grid making it more resilient. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

IN FOREST PARK

STRATEGY 2.1

Forest Park already uses smart outdoor LED lighting to save energy in their Park Districts. In 2016, the Village consumed 111,478 megawatt hours in total. The electricity by sector in Forest Park is as follows: 43% residential, 57% commercial and industrial. Focusing on energy expenditure in the commercial and industrial sectors may lead to gains in energy efficiency. Industrial zones are already fully developed, therefore focus must be on upgrading and retrofitting facilities. Commercial buildings may also benefit from energy certification and attract new customers while retaining savings. Forest Park has over 15 restaurants on Madison Street, attracting customers from surrounding towns. According to Energy Star, “every year a typical electric deep fat fryer uses more than 18,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), while the average U.S. household electricity use is approximately 12,000 kWh.” Because restaurants use five to seven times more energy per square foot than other commercial buildings this is an area that Forest Park can prioritize to increase energy efficiency.

Upgrade municipal buildings with smart energy efficient technology and appliances by 2025.

By investing in energy efficiency service equipment, HVAC upgrades and lighting the community can save on operating costs. This will not only mean greater revenue for the Village, but also boosts the commercial economy. Partnering with the Chamber of Commerce to support business owners seeking energy-related certifications and investing in their energy-saving infrastructure would support environmental progress. Chambers of Commerce for the cities of Cleveland, Ohio, Chapel Hill-Carrboro in North Carolina, and Traverse City in Michigan are working to support small businesses through the Small Business Energy Initiative. The Village of Forest Park’s Chamber of Commerce should emulate these initiatives to achieve a more sustainable village.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

Action 2.1.1: Create a task group to benchmark municipal buildings against other buildings within the community and across the country using the EPA Portfolio Manager. Action 2.1.2: Obtain verification on energy performance from energy service providers. Monitor progress in order to identify buildings that are underperforming and make timely and individual improvements. Action 2.1.2: Identify effective technology available and budget feasibility for light upgrades, heating, and cooling. Action 2.1.4: Identify effective technology and feasibility. Based on findings, upgrade or retrofit facilities to higher energy efficiency lighting, heating, and air conditioning systems. Action 2.1.5: Include Energy Star Equipment and install energy management systems to control heating and cooling buildings on all new developments.

STRATEGY 2.2 Upgrade commercial and industrial buildings with smart energy efficient technology and appliances by 2025. Action 2.2.1: Create a task group that will interview building owners and landowners on their willingness to explore electric heating, if not already implemented. This group will also assist owners with the use of the EPA Portfolio in order to start identifying

underperforming buildings and those that are the most efficient. Action 2.2.2: Obtain verification on energy performance from energy service providers. Action 2.2.3: Identify technology available and budget feasibility for light upgrades, heating, and cooling.

STRATEGY 2.3 Provide energy efficient education and assistance to building managers, tenants, homeowners, and landlords for energy programs while monitoring energy savings.

Action 2.2.4: Upgrade or retrofit facilities to higher energy efficiency heating and air conditioning systems. Action 2.2.5: Implement a Village ordinance to require future projected large-scale developments to be built with “Beyond Code” design. Encourage all new developments to include Energy Star equipment and install energy management systems to control heating and cooling. Action 2.2.6: Partner with the Forest Park Chamber of Commerce to host an Energy Symposium that will allow members to learn from leaders about best practices, opportunities, and provide feedback to help members with energy efforts such as LEED certification, Green Business certification, and others.

electric heating. Gather existing data and resources regarding energy efficient programs, appliances and incentives. Action 2.3.3: Implement and support the EmPower Forest Park campaign and ensure that the campaign includes awareness of energy efficient technologies and behaviors. The campaign should also provide assistance and workshops on filling out weatherization forms, and reading energy utility bills. Action 2.3.4: Develop a catalog of existing financial resources and incentive programs for energy efficiency projects available to landlords and homeowners.

Action 2.3.1: Partner with Citizens Utility Board (CUB) to offer a no-cost technical energy efficient assistance contact at the Village office for weatherization and energy savings support for residents. Take advantage of CUB’s energy efficiency workshops for Village officials in order to increase their capabilities.

Action 2.3.5: Implement a Village ordinance to require building and home energy labeling and transparency for the purpose of informing prospective buyers and tenants on investment and energy efficiency before commitments are made. The HERS Index is the industry standard by which energy efficiency homes are rated, while energy scores provided by the Department of Energy may also be useful.

Action 2.3.2: Create a research task group that will interview building owners and residents on their willingness to explore EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

GOAL 3 Modernize and convert to a smart grid by 2035. THE VILLAGE WILL ACHIEVE THIS GOAL BY: • Exploring potential pathways to modernize and upgrade to a smart grid. • Creating three microgrids.

THE BIG PICTURE Forest Park can modernize its electrical grid by implementing smart grid technology that channels data and electricity through two-way communication. By creating this system, consumers can better manage energy consumption and costs with real-time access to current energy usage. They can reduce their consumption at a benefit to them if demand is higher in the rest of the community during peak consumption times. Given the opportunity to take control of their own electricity use, consumers can become more active participants in grid management, making them more cognizant of their energy usage. Residents seeking to reduce energy usage will reap the benefits of lower energy bills. In this scenario, the grid becomes decentralized and focused on microgrids as a patchwork forming a macrogrid. Public and private utilities will benefit from a modernized grid as well,

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

including improved security, reduced peak loads, increased integration of renewables, and lower operational costs. A 2019 study found that 85% of smart metered households made changes to their behavior after becoming aware that doing so could save on energy bills. Implementing a smart grid in Forest Park will require large-scale investment in upgrades and retrofits that will likely spread over multiple years of the EmPower Forest Park Plan. The net benefits, however, will ensure greater equity, efficiency, and sustainability in community energy distribution.

IN FOREST PARK The importance of modernizing the grid for Forest Park will require ambitious actions by the city. Modernizing

the Village grid will require careful analysis and planning, beginning with exploratory committees to assess financial and technical feasibility and cost-benefit analysis at varying scales. Recommended pathways may include municipalization of electricity delivery or a comprehensive upgrade led by the current provider, ComEd. As modernizing the grid will require considerable resources, there must be community-involved deliberation. This requires substantial and effective outreach efforts with an eye towards a village-wide referendum. If the Village decides to move forward, an advisory committee of Village representatives including external experts on grid modernization, and non-governmental organizations representing various groups, shall be formed to oversee the efforts. Under the guidance of the advisory committee, an implementation plan detailing the phasing and timing of upgrading different grid components, and the financing of the initial work and maintenance (in case of municipalityowned grid), will be developed. Depending on the pathways chosen, the work of modernizing the grid will be contracted from the Village to a third party.

STRATEGY 3.1

identify a key person in government to act as the main point of contact and manager for these efforts. Action 3.1.2: Carry out outreach efforts to educate the

stakeholders about the need for grid modernization and share the findings from the study. Optionally, hold a referendum. Action 3.1.3: Develop the implementation plan. Action 3.1.4: Choose the contractor(s) to perform the

necessary works.

STRATEGY 3.2 Create three microgrids to generate more local electricity. Action 3.2.1: Assign a new agency in the Public Works

Department to oversee the study and creation of the new microgrids. Identify one residential, commercial, and industrial site apiece for the new microgrids. Action 3.2.2: Hold public hearings in the potential designated

Explore potential pathways to modernize the grid into a smart grid that can incorporate current and newer technologies to facilitate greater efficiency and resiliency.

areas and facilitate the creation of a Special Service Area (SSA) in each so as to incorporate the creation of a funding source and provide residents in these areas a means to control how much to spend and what kind of microgrid they want.

Action 3.1.1: Form a municipal exploratory commission to

Action 3.2.3: Begin bidding process for creation of microgrids.

study the feasibility, costs, and benefits to the residents and businesses in the Village and evaluate different pathways to achieve grid modernization. The commission will also

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

GOAL 4 By 2035, Forest Park will reduce GHG emissions by 40%. THE VILLAGE WILL ACHIEVE THIS GOAL BY: • Reducing GHG emissions associated with homes, businesses, and municipal buildings. Efforts will include: • Adopting renewable energy sources in all municipal buildings. • Increasing the percentage of households that use electric home heating by 50%. • Increasing the adoption of solar energy in homes and businesses by 50%. • Decreasing GHG emissions related to transportation by 35%. Efforts will include: • Reducing VMT associated with vehicles registered in the Village by 15%.

THE BIG PICTURE Without a substantial drop in GHG emissions, the global community will experience the worst effects of climate change in the near future. Climatologists emphasize that the impacts of climate change will be universally destructive, resulting in a higher frequency of extreme weather events. Human activities are responsible for the majority of GHGs released into the atmosphere, where they accumulate and warm the planet. Therefore, it is paramount that governments encourage their citizens to curtail behaviors and activities that release GHG emissions, and embrace new technologies that cut GHG emissions.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

In recent years, world leaders have acknowledged the dire threats posed by climate change, and promised to reduce GHGs in their respective nations at The Paris Agreement in 2016. Unfortunately, many countries, including the United States, have not reduced GHG emissions considerably; still, progress has been made. Although it is crucial that national leaders set the tone to fight climate change and reduce GHG emissions, it is up to local leaders and ordinary citizens to change behaviors and embrace new technologies. Policies and programs created by the federal government must then be complimented by those at the local level.

increase the usage of renewable energy sources to protect residents and prevent worst-case scenarios. Forest Park’s proximity to Interstate 290 promotes an autooriented culture, but the Village is also well-served by public transportation, including the CTA, Metra, and Pace. This provides an opportunity for reduction in VMT through the promotion of transit use. Additionally, national calls for electrification of vehicles and increased fuel efficiency, as supported by President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, provide an additional opportunity to reduce VMT.

Downtown Forest Park, IL

IN FOREST PARK The effects of climate change will be felt acutely in Forest Park, including hotter summers, a greater frequency of violent storms and subsequent flooding of the Des Plaines River, more snowstorms, and more extreme cold weather events.

Although there are already programs at the federal and state levels that support homeowners and business owners who want to install renewable-energy technology and electric home heating systems, the Village has the ability to do more. The following local strategies will reduce GHG emissions in the Village, but they will have the added benefit of supporting residents who might otherwise be unable to afford upgrades to their energy systems and electric vehicles.

Forest Park has already invested in infrastructural improvements, including the replacement of traditional street, traffic, and park lights with LED bulbs. With the climate crisis, however, more must be done. Village residents and businesses will likely consume more energy as summers become hotter and extreme cold weather events become more common; therefore, the annual cost of energy will increase. As low-income residents are more vulnerable to the health risks associated with a warming climate, the resulting health and energy crises will exacerbate current local inequities. The Village must take measures to reduce GHG emissions and EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

STRATEGY 4.1

STRATEGY 4.2

Convert municipal buildings to 100% renewable energy.

Use grants to incentivize the installation of solar energy in homes and businesses.

Action 4.1.1: Work with state and federal technical assistance to perform a full inventory of community energy needs and capacity for renewable generation on public lands.

Action 4.2.1: Discern and divert funding in order to offer grants for solar installations to homeowners and businesses, while taking into consideration the Village’s financial constraints and priorities.

Action 4.1.2: Once needs are established, examine a bulk photo-voltaic system (PV) purchasing plan to begin solar generation on municipally owned roofs and explore leasing options for commercial rooftops to supplement generation shortfalls.

Action 4.2.2: Ensure that grants are progressive when determining the amount homeowners receive, based on household income, reflecting the Village’s dedication to pursuing equitable outcomes.

Action 4.1.3: Propose a partnership with the City of Chicago’s renewable energy generation plan, which enables the purchase of renewable energy certificates to augment on-site generation.

Action 4.2.6: If it appears that homeowners or businesses are not taking advantage of grants, create a task force to target residents and business owners may be necessary. In this case, outreach and education efforts may need to be expanded and more targeted, in accordance with the EmPower Forest Park outreach campaign.

Action 4.2.3: Raise awareness of the program’s existence with the EmPower Forest Park outreach campaign, to ensure that Village residents take advantage of the incentive. Action 4.2.4: Educate residents as to how grants function and how to apply for them at community outreach events in accordance with the EmPower Forest Park outreach campaign. Action 4.2.5: Designate the Environmental Control Commission as responsible for the implementation of the initiative to track its progress, and to produce public annual or biannual reports of the total homeowners

and businesses that have taken advantage of grants. This will be published and distributed via the EmPower Forest Park outreach campaign.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

Multi-family Homes with Solar Panels

STRATEGY 4.3 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) of vehicles registered in the Village by 15% by 2035, through public support of transit-oriented developments (TOD), public and multi-modal transit, mixed-use zoning, and public awareness campaigns. Action 4.3.1: Support increase in transit oriented development surrounding the Blue Line and commercial corridors around Harlem Avenue and Madison Street, which are well-served by Pace buses that connect residents and business people to the CTA. Action 4.3.2: Support bike infrastructure by creating bike lanes on side streets and providing increased bike parking. Action 4.3.3: Provide bike-sharing platforms such as Divvy.

Action 4.3.6: Improve sidewalk infrastructure for pedestrians. Begin by conducting surveys to identify underserved areas and opportunities for new, unbroken routes. Action 4.3.7: Municipal campaign to promote and popularize multi-modal transportation such as bicycling and public transit. Action 4.3.8: Promote remote work to reduce commuting travel through “hoteling” programs and campaigns conducted in partnership with neighboring municipalities. Action 4.3.9: Change local zoning to allow mixed-use development. This will be used to promote the creation of 15-minute neighborhoods with small-scale shopping districts catering to basic needs.

Action 4.3.4: Provide routed taxi services or minibuses that connect to transit to address the “first-mile/last-mile” problem.

Action 4.3.10: Increase vehicle registration cost from $35 per year to $80 per year for gasoline powered automobiles to disincentivize vehicle purchases and gain income for the Village.

Action 4.3.5: Partner with Pace to improve bus infrastructure by increasing access to route information, enhancing the comfort of bus shelters, and providing real-time service trackers in bus shelters.

Action 4.3.11: Increase fuel tax per gallon from two cents per gallon to three cents per gallon to disincentivize the purchase of internal combustion vehicles and increase municipal funds.

Divvy Bike-Share Station in Chicago, IL EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

Installation of AoT sensor by Chicago Department of Transportation.

STRATEGY 4.4 Install evaluation measures to determine impact of proposed actions and progress towards achieving goals. Action 4.4.1: Install Array of Things (AoT) Sensors across the village to allow for reliable, real-time data that measures many features, including: traffic, pedestrian, and cyclist counts; standing water and urban flooding; air quality and temperature; and more.

STRATEGY 4.5

STRATEGY 4.6

Increase the percentage of households that use electric home heating from 30% to 50% by 2035.

Increase the number of EVs and PHEVs sold in Forest Park to between 45-65 per year by 2035.

Action 4.5.1: Partner with ComEd to increase awareness of air-source heat pump benefits and rebate options for homeowners and landlords. Focus outreach efforts through EmPower Forest Park educational materials available at outreach events (Juneteenth, Fourth of July) and municipal buildings.

Action 4.6.1: Increase the number of EV chargers by installing stations in the mall parking lot on Roosevelt and well as along Madison Street. These should be level 3 chargers that charge no more than 10 cents per watt.

Action 4.5.2: Partner with Elevate Energy to promote DoubleGreen energy efficiency loans to low-income residents who may face financial barriers to adopting air source heat pumps. Action 4.5.3: As part of the EmPower Forest Park campaign, provide information to residents on how the Residential Energy Tax Credit can be claimed on air-source heat pump installations.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

Action 4.6.2: Mirror the federal governments $3,000 credit towards the purchase and installation of a home-based charger. This credit should also extend to multifamily buildings, who are the least likely to purchase an EV or PHEV due to a lack of at home charging options. Actions 4.6.3: Incorporate the Replace your Ride program which allows residents to trade in per year 2000 vehicles for a credit to purchase a new fuel-efficient vehicle. The credit should amount to $2,500 towards public transit credits, $3,5000 towards vehicles with at least 35 mpg, and $7,000 towards vehicles with at least 50 mpg.

GOAL 5 Increase Forest Park’s absorption capacity by at least 342,599 ft3 in the identified high-risk impervious area to reduce flooding that could affect the Village’s electrical substations. THE VILLAGE WILL ACHIEVE THIS GOAL BY: • Converting public infrastructure and reorienting flow of water to green spaces. Efforts will include:

• Adding permeable pavement to parking lots. • Installing roadside wales. • Planting native plants with a high capacity for water absorption.

THE BIG PICTURE Climate change increases the cases of extreme weather, including storms and rains. Moreover, recent studies have shown that extreme weather conditions, including storms, are increasing the number of power outages all around the US. In this sense, impervious surfaces, such as buildings and paved roads, raise water runoff and accumulation, especially in flat areas close to water bodies, such as the Chicago Metropolitan Area.

ground power equipment, which could incur large expenditures of money and energy for repairs. Green infrastructure and areas with permeable surfaces allow a better absorption of rainwater, which prevents overwhelming the municipal sewer system.

Flooding has a negative impact on the provision of services, including electricity. It can damage underground and above-

Forest Park is prone to flooding, as the floods of 2020, 2014, and 2010 have shown. Forest Park’s average annual rainfall is

IN FOREST PARK

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

Strategy 5.1: Convert the Village’s public infrastructure to reduce water accumulation, reorient flows of water towards Forest Park’s green spaces such as cemeteries and park districts. Plant native trees along municipal watersheds to soak up more water and resist long periods of water accumulation. Action 5.1.1: Transform 8% of Forest Park’s parking lots into permeable parking spaces, focusing on those close to the Village’s electric substation, cemeteries, and the Des Plaines River.

Motorist abandons vehicle after getting stuck on flooded Roosevelt Road at the Des Plaines River in Forest Park.

38.1 inches, approximately eight more inches than the national average. Furthermore, according to FEMA the area along the Des Plaines River in Forest Park is subject to inundation by the 100-year flood. This natural hazard presents an issue for electricity provision, as rising water levels may force utility companies to shut down their substations in order to prevent damage to their equipment. This is especially daunting as Forest Park’s on-ground substation is located only 0.4 miles from the Des Plaines River. Even though a structural change throughout the region is needed to better manage stormwater, Forest Park has the potential to increase its water absorption capacity to reduce the chances of occurrence. The Village’s significant portion of greenspace throughout its cemeteries presents a considerable advantage in addressing this problem. If native plants such as white oak, bald cypress, or American hornbeam are planted in these areas, they could soak up water to resist long periods of water accumulation.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: A GREENER FOREST PARK

Action 5.1.2: Gradually install an entire system of roadside wales along 1.82 miles of Forest Park’s main avenues (specifically, Madison St, Harrison St, and Roosevelt Rd) to absorb and redirect stormwater towards green areas. Action 5.1.3: In Veteran’s Park, replace 12% of the grass and small bushes along Harrison St with native plants with high capacity absorption. In cemeteries, pursue agreements with third-party contractors to plant local trees and bushes with high capacity of water absorption.

Chapter 5

Implementation

INTRODUCTION The EmPower Forest Park Plan will be implemented through a series of defined methods that include creation of new statute, infrastructure, and education and outreach measures. The Plan’s scope and community capacity requires that the strategies and actions take place over a variety of timescales and with cost spread across fiscal years between 2021 and 2035.

Many of the steps for each strategy can be implemented early in the implementation process. Over 20 of the identified actions in the EmPower Forest Park Plan can be realized in under two years, though several will require ongoing maintenance. Therefore, EmPower Forest Park recommends the creation of an Energy Commission to oversee the implementation of the Plan and carry through the strategies and actions outlined below. In order to defray long-term costs and reduce the financial burden of the strategies in EmPower Forest Park, the Plan recommends implementing policies that are most expedient for municipal savings and GHG reduction immediately. Examples of these

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: IMPLEMENTATION

include the installation of solar panels on municipal properties and tax incentives for energy efficient infrastructure for private actors. The Information in the evaluation section will clarify each strategy’s magnitude of impact and thus inform the Village’s prioritization of which projects to pursue. Cost estimates have been provided where possible based on available data and the average cost of such programs. While there are existing bodies in the Village government that could handle some of the responsibilities contingent to the plan, the creation of an energy commission will phase in recommended energy solutions.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter 6

Evaluation

EVALUATIONS GOAL 1 Reduce the energy burden experienced by low-income populations by 10% by 2035.

Alternative

PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED: Equity EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To assess the goal, the maximum electric savings (MES) potential of energy-efficient technologies and construction upgrades in single-family homes was analyzed. To determine the effects of these investments, electricity consumption in single-family homes, and the accompanying energy costs were measured. The money saved by achieving MES in homes was calculated and subtracted from average energy costs to identify the reduction in the energy burden. Energy costs for extremely lowincome households were determined. To achieve Goal 1’s objective, at least 62% of the Village’s extremely low-income households must benefit from investments in energy-efficient electric appliances, including LED lighting, upgrades to electric furnaces, ductless heat pumps and

This figure exhibits the expected electricity burden for extremely low-income households based on different percentages of energy burden reduction.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: EVALUATION

which sectors (e.g. residential,

Likely Scenario’, which would result in a 25% decrease in GHG emissions. In this scenario, there would be a

smart thermostats, and in construction lower solar conversion rate in homes

improvements, such as addition of insulation and duct sealing. The existing 18,500 MTCO2 reduction, and EHH energy burden facing extremely lowconversions would amount to a by income residents would be reduced 2 30,000 MTCO While4 is 10%, from 8.2% toreduction. 7.3%. Alternative conversions to solar and EHH more conservative as itenergy acknowledges the limitations of programs their aim will likely continue to gaininpopularity, to reach 100%and of low-income households, businesses residents may but is the most cost effective alternative. question the practicality of these Alternative 2 is more ambitious, achieving technologies in Chicago’s cold the desired outcome of reaching 100% weather climate. Limitations of of Forest Park’s extremely low-income strategies cut VMT are considered, households to through upgrades.

and businesses, amounting to a

resulting in only a 4,500 MTCO2

reduction. The ‘Most Likely Scenario’

GOAL 2 calculates a 3,800 MTCO2 reduction,

Reduce community due to a the decrease in VMT.wide It is energy costs bythat 6% by 2035. possible Forest Park achieves a 40% reduction in GHG, but this will

PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED: Sustainability, Resiliency, Equity

necessitate an aggressive approach

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation team determined which sectors (e.g. residential, commercial, and industrial) can experience the greatest reduction in energy use and energy costs by installing energy-efficient technologies. To analyze the MES potential of different sectors, the State and Local Planning for Energy (SLOPE) tool was used.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: EVALUATION

Electricity saving in Forest Park as a whole is determined by rates of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings that reach their Maximum Electricity Saving(MES) potential.

There is greater savings potential from total energy usage in the commercial and industrial sectors, so those sectors must be prioritized by Village policies that promote energy-efficiency technologies. Alternative 3 is endorsed by the Plan because it achieves MES in 100% of commercial and industrial sectors and achieves a 6.4%

reduction in communitywide energy costs. This reduction exceeds the goal and is the most cost-effective. Although the residential sector is not prioritized in Alternative 3, 50% of Forest Park homes still achieve MES. Achieving MES in 100% of homes may be unrealistic, because individual homeowners may not invest in

energy-efficient technologies, even with incentives. It is more likely that businesses and industries will do so if regulations or other measures are put into place.

GOAL 3 Modernize and convert to a smart grid by 2035. PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED: Equity, Resiliency, Environmental Sustainability, Attainability, Economic Sustainably

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To assess this goal, several case studies of community microgrids were evaluated. The resulting effects of a microgrid are myriad, and their developments can be highly complex. This has limited the scope of existing microgrids; however, Forest Park is not a particularly large community, and it can greatly benefit from its installation. A microgrid in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York gives residents the ability to track the output of solar panels, which allows them to easily sell excess energy to grid operators, and to reduce the chances for power outages during storms. These benefits are pertinent to Forest Park, as it faces the effects of the growing

In Brooklyn, LO3 Energy has teamed up with Siemens to create a pilot microgrid using blockchain technology.

climate crisis and it endeavors to promote the installation of solar energy. Microgrids will be important in the future to reduce GHG emissions, decrease the energy burden for low-income residents, and will make Forest Park more resilient.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: EVALUATION

GOAL 4 By 2035, Forest Park will reduce GHG emissions by 40%.

Expected Carbon Reduction in Forest Park by 2035

PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED: Equity, Resiliency, Environmental Sustainability, Attainability EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Goal 4 is highly ambitious and incorporates several strategies to reduce GHG emissions by 40%. To determine the efficacy of strategies and to measure the ability of each to reduce GHG emissions in Forest Park, the evaluation team researched prior studies and gathered data to discern possible alternatives. Due to the number of strategies included in this goal, findings for each are separated. The evaluation team provided three alternatives and determined the ‘best-case scenario’ necessary to achieve Goal 4. Solar Conversion of Residential and Commercial, and Municipal Structures The amount of energy consumed by all municipal and school structures within Forest Park was calculated to determine the amount of GHG emissions that would be reduced through their conversion to solar energy. With a 100% conversion rate of municipal and school structures to solar

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: EVALUATION

The figure shows Metric Ton of CO2(MTCO2) reduction after testing each alternative: Electric Household Heating(EHH) conversion, solar conversion, Plug-in Electric Hybrid Vehicles(PEHV) conversion, and Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT) reduction.

energy, there would be a 4,032.68 MTCO2 reduction. The solar energy capacity and current energy usage of all residential and commercial structures in Forest Park were estimated by comparing the Village’s population to Cook County’s. This proportion was then used to determine Forest Park’s energy capacity, compared to Cook County’s total energy capacity. It was determined that a 100% conversion rate of Forest Park’s current electric capacity to

solar energy would result in a drop of 41,828 MTCO2 per year. Reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) To decrease VMT, the effects of different policies that promote the use of public transportation and biking were evaluated. Using different studies, best-case and worst-case alternatives of strategies to reduce VMT were discerned. It was

determined that investments to improve local walkability and bike infrastructure, as well as TODs, will result in a 5% to 9% reduction in VMTs. Creating a micro-modal transit system will result in a 3% to 16% reduction in VMT, investments in public bus infrastructure can lead to a 5% to 10% reduction in VMT, and policies that promote working from home can result in a 2% to 10% reduction in VMT. Taken together, the best-case alternatives would result in a 9,186.93 MTCO2 reduction, while the worstcase scenario would result in a 1241.47 MTCO2 reduction. Residential Electric Home Heating (EHH) To determine the impact EHH would have on GHG emission output, the current carbon load from natural gas heating was calculated. 33% of homes in Forest Park currently use EHH, so an increase to 45% by 2035 is reasonable, amounting to a 1,065 increase in homes. Although EHH produces more carbon than natural gas with the same energy usage, EHH can reduce energy use from between 46% to 54%. This would result in a net reduction of 18,626-21,865 MTCO2 annually, with a 45% conversion rate to EHH. To achieve the desired increase, Forest Park will need to transition an average of 76 homes per year. However, because there is a perception that EHH is not a viable option in a cold

weather climate, there are limitations. To account for this, a more conservative conversion rate of 26 homes per year was calculated, increasing homes with EHH to 35%, with a 13,680-16,059 MTCO2 reduction. Adoption of EV’s and PHEV’s Electric vehicles (EVs) and plugged-in electric vehicles (PHEVs) have a large impact on GHG emissions but there remains public skepticism towards them. Studies emphasize the effects of range anxiety, which stems from a lack of public charging stations, and different policies on consumer behaviors. The number of public charging stations has a strong positive correlation with EV adoption; therefore, to increase EV usage in Forest Park, 40 charging stations must be installed. The Village should also offer up-front credits, to convince consumers to purchase home chargers. Together, investments and subsidies in public and home-based chargers can convince an additional 22 consumers to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle. Finally, to push drivers to purchase new EVs, the Village should create a program that allows residents to trade in older vehicles for new fuel-efficient cars and public transit credits, which would convince an additional 13 consumers to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.

Concluding Alternatives If each strategy is successful, Forest Park will achieve the ‘Best Case Scenario’, with a 40% decrease in GHG emissions by 2035. The ‘Worst Case Scenario’ will occur if there is minimal participation in the proposed programs; annual GHG emissions would decrease by only 16%. While a 40% decrease is ideal, that figure relies on high participation rates in the proposed programs. With an acknowledgment of limitations, the evaluation team developed the ‘Most Likely Scenario’, which would result in a 25% decrease in GHG emissions. In this scenario, there would be a lower solar conversion rate in homes and businesses, amounting to a 18,500 MTCO2 reduction, and EHH conversions would amount to a 30,000 MTCO2 reduction. While conversions to solar energy and EHH will likely continue to gain popularity, businesses and residents may question the practicality of these technologies in Chicago’s cold weather climate. Limitations of strategies to cut VMT are considered, resulting in only a 4,500 MTCO2 reduction. Finally, the ‘Most Likely Scenario’ acknowledges some negative perceptions of EV, which may hinder the technology’s adoption. The ‘Most Likely Scenario’ calculates a 3,800 MTCO2 reduction, due to a decrease in VMT. It is possible that EMPOWER FOREST PARK: EVALUATION

Forest Park achieves a 40% reduction in GHG, but this will necessitate an aggressive approach on the part of Forest Park, and regional cooperation on policies and programs to ensure effectiveness.

GOAL 5 Increase Forest Park’s absorption capacity by at least 342,599 ft3 (2,562,819 gallon) in the identified high-risk impervious area (94.37 acres) to reduce flooding that could affect the Village’s electrical substations. PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED: Resiliency EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To assess this goal, the evaluation team located high-risk flood areas and a nearby ground-level Forest Park substation. High-risk impervious areas (HIA), which are vulnerable to flooding, are defined as the impervious surfaces surrounding the cemeteries (along the River), the arterial roads near the cemeteries, the Ferrara Candy Company and U-Haul repair parking lots, and the area surrounding the electrical substation.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: EVALUATION

This graph depicts how different combinations of actions in each alternative will lead to different results in terms of the water that the converted area will be able to absorb and the cost those actions over a 15-year period.

To reduce flooding in high-risk areas, Alternative 4 was chosen, which incorporates several proposed measures. With Alternative 4, roadside bioswales are installed along all selected streets, 8% of identified asphalt parking lots are repaved with permeable materials, and

native vegetation is planted to cover 12% of open land in the cemeteries and Village parks. It is the most cost-effective alternative, and achieves an increase in water absorption capacity that surpasses the objective by 100%. .

Chapter 7

Conclusion

CONCLUSION

The purpose of EmPower Forest Park is to present strategies that champion greater energy independence, equitable and affordable access to sources of renewable energy, energy efficiency processes, as well as investments in sustainable infrastructure within Forest Park. Forest Park is a regional leader in innovation and progressive policy making and this report honors that legacy, while advising the community to be more aggressive in its response to the climate crisis. The stakes are incredibly high, and without implementing the types of ambitious goals and strategies outlined in the Plan, Forest Park

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: CONCLUSION

and the global community will experience the worst effects of climate change. Forest Park has the opportunity to create policies and programs that not only reduce GHG’s and develop innovative and sustainable infrastructure, but also tackle existing inequities by reducing the energy burden for vulnerable populations. All community stakeholders must be involved in the implementation of the Plan to ensure success. With these measures, Forest Park will remain a regional leader and can thrive in the coming decades.

APPENDIX

Process to Assess Goal 1: 1. Analyzed the MES potential by type of measure/upgrade in single-family houses: a. Used the SLOPE tool to discern the Single-Family Home Electricity Savings Potential by using different measures in Illinois. b. Collected data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) regarding electricity consumption of residential structures in Illinois in 2019. c. Collected estimations from Urban Footprint regarding electricity consumption in Forest Park for residential buildings. d. Collected estimations regarding average annual energy cost in Forest Park by energy source and Area Median Income (AMI) using the LEAD tool. 2. Calculated the potential of every measure/ upgrade in Forest Park: a. Divided total electricity usage in Forest Park by residential structures and compared it to total electricity consumption in Illinois by residential structures to calculate the proportion of energy usage.

`Type of Upgrade

Category of Upgrade

% of Reduction of Electricity Bill

Electricity Saving Potential in all Forest Park (KWn=h/Y)

Led Lighting

EEA

3.6

2,147,811

Upgrade electric furnance to variable-speed heat pump at wear out

EEA

3.1

1,862,858

Drill-&-fill wall insulation

2.6

1,582,085

Ductless heat pumps

EEA

1.9

1,144,023

R-10 basement wall insulation

1.1

638,340

Smart Thermostat

EEA

600,297

R-49 attic insulation

575,597

R-5 wall sheathing

0.7

433,023

Air sealing

0.6

386,054

Duct sealing

0.6

340,959

Total

16.2

9,711,048

b. With the calculated savings potential of each type of upgrade, including electrical appliances and construction improvements (in Kwh/y), the calculated proportion was used to estimate how much savings would correspond to single-family homes. c. With the percentages of electricity reduction by type of measure, and assuming that all other variables remain constant, I calculated how that electricity use reduction would impact on average in the energy costs for low-income sectors.

EEA: Efficient Electrical Appliance CI: Construction Improvement

GOAL 1

3. Calculated the energy burden for extremely low-income households (households that earn only 0% to 30% of Forest Park’s Area Median Income). Measured the reduction in energy burden of different alternatives, based on the percentage of extremely low-income households that adopt proposed measures/ upgrades: a. Collected median income of households from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates. b. Applied the percentages of income groups (0%-30%; 30%-60%; 60%-80%; 80%100%; and 100%+) to the city’s median income to determine their respective income ranges. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

c. Calculated the median income for each income group (by dividing the income range by 2). d. Divided the average annual electricity cost to obtain the electricity burden for each income group. In the case of the extremely low-income group, the burden is equivalent to 8.2% of household income. Therefore, by reducing the energy burden by 10%, the resulting energy burden will be 7.3% (of total household income). e. Create the different alternatives based on different ratios of adoption by the extremely low-income households. RESULTS: ALTERNATIVE 1 Measures: None. Results: Currently, the energy burden for households with an income of 0%-30% of the AMI have an electricity burden of 8.2%. Conclusion: This is the current situation ALTERNATIVE 2 Measures: The municipality adopts policies that allow 100% of the Village’s extremely low-income households to benefit from upgrades in EEA and CI. Results: As a whole, the energy burden for extremely low-income households is reduced by 16.2%, resulting in an energy burden of 6.8%.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

Conclusion: This is ideal, but it will likely be difficult to reach 100% of Forest Park’s extremely low-income households. If Alternative 2 is achieved, Forest Park will surpass the objective of Goal 4, and extremely low-income households would benefit from a 16.2% decrease in the existing energy burden

reduced by 12.2%, resulting in an energy burden of 7.2% of household income.

ALTERNATIVE 3

ALTERNATIVE 4

Measures: The municipality adopts policies that allow 75% of the Village’s extremely low-income households to benefit from upgrades in EEA and CI.

Measures: The municipality adopts policies that allow 62% of the Village’s extremely low-income households to benefit from upgrades in EEA and CI.

Results: As a whole, the current energy burden for extremely low-income households is

Results: The energy burden for extremely low-income households is reduced by 10%, re-

Conclusion: This is more easily achievable; it also surpasses the objective of Goal 4 by 2.2 points but requires less public spending than Alternative 2.

sulting in an energy burden of 7.3% of household income. Conclusion: This is the minimum adoption rate required to reach the 10% goal. ALTERNATIVE 5 Measures: The municipality adopts policies that allow 50% of the Village’s extremely low-income households to benefit from upgrades in EEA and CI.

the objective of Goal 4, EEA and CI must be installed in at least 62% of the extremely low-income households. Alternative 4 is the most cost-effective alternative, acknowledging the limitations of programs that aim to reach 100% of low-income households in Forest Park. However, if resources are available, the Village should aim to achieve an adoption percentage of upgrades that surpasses 62% of extremely low-income houses.

Park by the total electricity consumption in each sector in Illinois. This discerned the proportional share of electricity in Illinois that is used in Forest Park by sector.

GOAL 2

c. Calculated different scenarios. Each result was divided by the total energy use in Forest Park, to determine the maximum saving potential in the Village as a whole.

b. Determined the savings potential for each sector (residential, commercial, and industrial) in Kwh/yr, and applied the calculated proportion to estimate the corresponding savings in Forest Park.

Results: As a whole, the energy burden for extremely low-income households is reduced by 8.1%, resulting in an energy burden of 7.5% of household income.

Process to Assess Goal 2:

Conclusion: This alternative is not ambitious enough and fails to achieve the objective of Goal 4.

a. Used the SLOPE tool to determine the Elecricity Efficiency Economic Potential in Illinois, which discerns the potential result “if all homes and businesses adopted the most energy efficient, cost-effective, commercially available measures.”

ALTERNATIVE 1

b. Collected data from Energy Information Administration (EIA) regarding electricity consumption in Illinois during 2019 divided by different sectors (including the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation use sectors).

Results: Electricity use in Forest Park is reduced by 7.5%.

ALTERNATIVE 6 Measures: The municipality adopts policies that allow 25% of the Village’s extremely low-income households to benefit from upgrades in EEA and CI. Results: As a whole, the energy burden for extremely low-income households is reduced by 4.1%, resulting in an energy burden of 7.8% of household income. Conclusion: This alternative is not ambitious enough and fails to achieve the objective of Goal 4.

1. Analyzed the maximum electricity saving potential:

c. Collected estimations from UrbanFootprint regarding electricity consumption in Forest Park and divided it by residential and commercial/industrial use sectors.

Concluding Alternatives:

2. Calculated the potential of every measure/ upgrade in Forest Park:

This report endorses Alternative 4. To achieve

Divided the electricity use in Forest

RESULTS:

Measures: Forest Park adopts policies that achieve Maximum Electricity Saving (MES) in 100% of the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

Conclusion: Unrealistic. Even with all the economic incentives provided, it would be extremely difficult to achieve MES in 100% of Forest Park residences ALTERNATIVE 2 Measures: Forest Park adopts policies that achieves MES in 50% of the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Results: Electricity use in Forest Park is reduced by 3.7%. EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

Conclusion: Unrealistic. New homes and the commercial sector are adopting energy-efficient measures. With support or promotion from local, state, and federal government, we can expect a higher adoption rate over the next 15 years and beyond.

sion, it would be extremely difficult to achieve MES in 100% of Forest Park residences. Furthermore, since the commercial and industrial sectors consume more electricity than the residential sector, the Village should prioritize efforts to achieve MES in 100% of those sectors for the best results.

ALTERNATIVE 3

ALTERNATIVE 5

Measures: Forest Park adopts policies that achieve MES in 50% of the residential sector and in 100% of the commercial/industrial sectors.

Measures: Forest Park adopts policies that achieve MES in 30% of the residential sector and 70% of the commercial/industrial sectors . Results: Electricity use in Forest Park is reduced by 4.4%.

Results: Electricity use in Forest Park is reduced by 6.4%. Conclusion: Somewhat realistic. Although adoption rates of energy efficient measures in the residential sector will depend on the decisions of individual families, Forest Park can use regulations and incentives to increase adoption rates in commercial and industrial sectors. Even if 93% of the commercial and industrial sectors achieve MES, only 50% of the residential sector need to achieve MES, to achieve 6% communitywide energy savings in Forest Park. ALTERNATIVE 4 Measures: Forest Park adopts policies that achieve MES in 100% of the residential sector and 50% of the commercial/industrial sectors. Results: Electricity use in Forest Park is reduced by 4.8%. Conclusion: As noted Alternative 1’s conclu-

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

Name

Address

ALTERNATIVE 6 Measures: Forest Park adopt policies to reach the MES in 70% of residential structures and 30% of commercial/industrial structures. Results: Electricity use in Forest Park is reduced by 3.1%.

Conclusion: Like Alternative 3, this is a realistic alternative, but the result does not meet the 6% reduction in energy costs. More should be done to increase the adoption rate of energy efficient measures in the residential sector.

Category

and, especially in the commercial and industrial sectors.

Conclusion: Like Alternative 4, the commercial and industrial sectors should be prioritized over the residential sector. Although this scenario is realistic, by not focusing on the industrial and commercial sectors the reduction of energy costs is too low. Concluding Alternatives: This report endorses the implementation of

Available Sq. Ft.

Approx. Elec. Hours of Sunlight MTCO2 Saved by Solar Use per year Conversion

School

Grant White

147 Circle Ave

11,223

N/A

1,419

289

School

St Johns Lutheran

305 Circle Ave

16,914

90,818

1,384

School

Garfield

543 Hannah Ave

12,809

313,761

1,453

302

School

Field Stevenson

925 Beloit Ave

43,535

1,011,645

1,516

975

School

Forest Park Middle School

925 Beloit Ave

43,535

1,011,645

1,516

975

School

Betsy Ross

1315 Marengo Ave

1,533

272,477

1,919

263

School

School District

424 Des Plaines Ave

2,889

N/A

1,388

Municipal Bldg

Village Hall Police & Fire Dept

517 Des Plaines Ave

3,55

700,247

1,388

675

Municipal Bldg

Cook County Sanitarium Dept of Pub. Health

7556 Jackson Blvd

3,559

N/A

1,387

Municipal Bldg

Public Works

7343 15th St

5,515

N/A

1,406

Municipal Bldg

Howard Mohr Community 7640 Jackson Blvd Center

9,567

56,533

1,517

Municipal Bldg

Public Library

7555 Jackson Blvd

7,699

289,599

1,389

279

Municipal Bldg

Post Office

417 Des Plaines Ave

3,463

8,889

1,477

Park District

Park District Building

7501 Harrison St

1,251

128,870

1,252

124

Alternative 3. All sectors should be considered to achieve 100% MES, but the Plan should prioritize commercial and industrial structures. Further, Alternative 3 is still aggressive in increasing the adoption rate of energy efficient measures to 50% in residences to reach the desired 6% reduction.

GOAL 4 Process to Access Goal 4: Residential and Commercial Solar Energy Conversion 1. Determine the current carbon emissions coming from electric power in Forest Park: a. Used Urban Footprint data to determine the total electricity usage in Forest Park per year (111,478,000 kWh), then converted this energy usage into carbon emissions (107,434.28 MTCO2). 1kWh 0.000963726 MTCO2 2. Determine the potential energy savings from a solar conversion: a. In an ideal situation, solar energy (PV) will allow a home to run completely, or nearly completely, on solar energy with the proper solar panel installation and a sufficient battery to store excess energy. b. Used average daylight hours, and the energy use data obtained from Urban Footprint, to create a model that determines the necessary daily wattage for complete solar conversion, with up to three days of backup power. c. The SLOPE tool was utilized to determine Forest Park’s full solar potential, by using

the solar potential of Illinois as a base and converting that figure to match Forest Park’s size, in proportion to Illinois 3. Determine the target goal: a. With Forest Park’s solar potential, the pursuit of a 50% conversion to PV is achievable. With substantial advertising for the program, early momentum can be garnered so participation in the program remains high. Forest Park residents are probably more familiar with solar energy than electric heating, so an adoption rate of 4.8% per year for electric heating would be ambitious. 4. Municipal Conversion:

a. Similar steps were taken to determine the solar potential of municipal buildings in Forest Park. Where energy use information was lacking, an estimation was made using data from buildings of similar size and use. This strategy was used to determine the solar potential of Grant White Elementary School. It was not possible to make a similar estimation for some buildings; those buildings were left out of the analysis. b. The savings in MTCO2 from the conversion of all municipal buildings is 1,141.18/ year. Results: 1. Reaching 50%

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

a. A high conversion rate at the beginning (with a target of 335 building conversions in the first year) will allow for a lower conversion rate during later years in the program (with a target of 176 building conversions in 2035). Commercial structures should be targeted because on average they use much more electricity than residential structures. With Madison Street and Roosevelt Road being Forest Park’s main commercial corridors, the businesses there should be targeted first. b. By converting 50% of all residential and commercial structures to solar energy, Forest Park reaches a carbon load reduction of 53,717 MTCO2 ALTERNATIVE 1 On average, Illinois has fewer hours of sunlight per day (four hours) than the country as a whole (five hours) and due to this, the conversion to PV may be slower than expected. To account for this, the standard error was used to determine a low end of the adoption rate at 1.3%. This adoption rate would lead to a 17,847 MTCO2 reduction, which is the worst-case scenario for this strategy. Process to Assess Goal 2: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled 1. Determine a Baseline for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): a. VMT data was obtained from CMAP’s Community Data Snapshot of Forest Park. The average VMT was then multiplied by the number of vehicles in Forest Park to calculate Forest Park’s annual total VMT.

2. Determine carbon emissions resulting from total VMT: a. Use conversion rates obtained from DOE and EPA to convert gallons of gas used into MTCO2. 3. Referenced studies of similar programs being proposed to calculate the potential success in Forest Park: a. A past study detailed the benefits of enhancing pedestrian infrastructure with sidewalk surveys and improvements and using mixed-use buildings to create “15-minute neighborhoods.” i. While there does not seem to be a metric to measure these policies, a 2007 study shows that improving conditions can lead to 21% increase in walkability (Cao et al., 2007). Since Forest Park is among the nation’s most walkable neighborhoods according to the Urban Footprints National Walkability Index,

these changes can be expected to increase walkability in Forest Park by 7.5% in the bestcase scenario and 4% in the worst case, while decreasing VMT. b. Supporting bike infrastructure and transit-oriented developments (TODs) Collectively, it is expected that these policies will reduce VMT by about 9% in the best-case scenario, and 5% in the worst-case. This expectation is calculated by referencing similar metrics from the San Jose Better Bike Plan 2025 (Brazil et al., 2020; Cervero & Arrington, 2008). c.

Micro-modal Transportation

i. Supporting micro-modal transportation policies can reduce VMT by 6%, based on a conservative micro-model system model included in a study conducted by the University of California Berkeley; however, that estimate was derived with a case study of Calgary, Canada which bears little resemblance

to Forest Park. It is likely that the program would result in only a 3% reduction in VMT. Their most generous model discerns a 16% reduction in VMT, but that reduction results from a case study of Washington D.C., which is also unlike Forest Park. Based on this, the bestcase scenario for VMT reduction in Forest Park is 8% (Martin, 2019). d. Partner with PACE i. This policy should have a positive effect, although it is difficult to predict mass transit usage in post-COVID Forest Park. For these metrics, it is calculated that a 5% decrease of VMT is the best-case scenario and a 10% increase of VMT is the worst case. e.

Process to Assess Goal 2: Adoption of Electric Vehicles and Plugged-in Electric Vehicles (PHEV) 1. Assess the current purchasing trends of electric vehicles (EV), hybrid vehicles (HEV), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in Forest Park: a. Vehicle registration data was obtained from Alliance for Automotive Innovation for the 7th district of Illinois, which discerns the number of alternative fuel vehicles sold since 2011. This data was then scaled down to Forest

Park to get an estimate of alternative fuel vehicles purchased in the Village. b. Using this data, a projection was made to predict alternative fuel vehicle sales through 2035. 2. Establish Alternatives a. Assessed research pertaining to public charging stations for EVs i.

A study conducted by the International

Work from home

i. Due to uncertainty surrounding postCOVID Forest Park, it is difficult to predict the effects of this policy. Working from home will likely become more normalized in the future, and taking into consideration Forest Park’s demographics, there will be a 10% decrease in VMT in the best-case scenario and a 2% decrease in VMT in the worst-case scenario Results: In the best-case scenario, Forest Park will experience a 22,941,478.16 decrease in VMT, resulting in an annual 9,186.93 MTCO2 reduction ALTERNATIVE 1 Given all of the variables, a worst-case scenario if these policies were all adopted would amount to a 1241.47 MTCO2 decrease in annual emissions

Council on Clean Transportation found that there was a strong correlation in regard to the availability of public charging stations and the adoption of EV’s and plug-in electric hybrids (Hall & Lutsey, 2017). They calculated the R2 value of EV and PHEV adoption and publicly available chargers at .78 and .68, respectively. ii. This study acknowledged that the level 2 or level 3 charging stations would have the greatest impact on the adoption of EV’s and PHEVs (Hall & Lutsey, 2017). These chargers allow for much faster-charging speeds compared to level 1 and home chargers. iii. While people are willing to pay for faster charging time, 10 cents/mw is the point where any increases in costs will lead to a drop in demand for public chargers (Levinson & West, 2016).

2. Increase home charging stations i. While there is little information detailing the effects of home charger adoption rates on EV adoption, a credit toward home chargers will remove a financial barrier and can reduce range anxiety. There is already precedence for this: a federal program covers 30% of a home charger with a tax credit. ii. While single-family homes should be targeted for the expansion of home chargers, multi-family homes should also be focused on, as people who live in apartments have a higher barrier for entry in adopting EV’s. iii. While installing a charging unit and a multi-family residence is twice and a half as expensive as on a single-family home, at $20,000 versus $7,000, it is comparable to a

Number of EV’s & PEHV Sold in Forest Park Base Scenario

c. Research the ‘Replace your ride’ program i. The “Replace your ride” program has experienced great success in California and has allowed residents to trade in their older fuel inefficient (pre-2000) cars for new fuel-efficient cars and public transit credits (RYR, 2020). ii. Cars over 35 combined highway and city miles per gallon come with a $3,500 credit, and any car over 45 combined miles per gallon comes with a $7,000 credit (Wen, 2016). There is also an option to redeem public transit credits in the amount of $2,500.

Scenario 2: Public Charges & Home Chargers Only

Scenario 3: Replace Your Ride Only

Scenario 4: Public Chargers Only

Reduced Vehicle Miles Driven in 2035

4,490,853

10,373,870

8,128,443

6,736,279

7,230,273

Reduction in Gasoline Gallons used in 2035

202,291

467,291

366,146

303,436

325,688

1,798,364

4,154,221

3,255,039

2,697,546

2,895,366

1,798

4,154

3,255

2,698

2,895

KwH Added Back into the Grid from Charging

101,698

324,922

184,073

152,547

163,733

GHG Added Back into the Grid from EV Charging in MTCO2

226

177

147

157

1,700

3,928

3,078

2,551

2,738

Reduction in GHG Measured by Reduction in Gallons of Gas Used in Kg Reduction in GHG in MTCO2e

Reduction From EV Conversion in MTCO2

Scenario 1: Public Chargers, Home Chargers, & Replace Your Ride

public charging station, which can cost as much as $20,000.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

Results: It is recommended that Forest Park enact all of the proposed programs to have the greatest overall effect. This strategy has the potential to lead to a reduction of 3,928 MTCO2/year per year. Forest Park currently has one charging station, a Tesla charger, which means that only Tesla vehicles can use it. Forest Park needs to expand the number of chargers to inspire confidence in potential consumers. Charging stations should be located in frequently visited locations in the Village, particularly in the Forest Park Plaza Mall parking lot and along Madison Street.

an EV or a HEV negatively impact public perceptions of EVs (Mims, 2021). A survey study conducted by Volkswagen found that about 61% of the respondents that were interested in purchasing an EV were dissuaded by range anxiety (2019). This strategy alone is expected to lead to a 2,738 MTCO2 reduction. ALTERNATIVE 2 The ‘Replace Your Ride’ program will result in a 2,551 MTCO2 reduction when applying the same success metrics as the California program to Forest Park.

Process to Assess Goal 2: (Residential Electric Home Heating) 1. Determined energy use and energy-use type in Forest Park: a. Used Urban Footprint to collect energy usage and energy usage type data. This data was broken down to individual structures, to determine their estimated energy usage in natural gas (represented in British Thermal Units [BTU]) and electricity (represented in Kilowatt Hours [KWH]).

The Forest Park Plaza has a significant capacity to install chargers; 40 charging stations should be installed through 2035. With the ‘Replace Your Ride’ program cars over 35 combined highway and city miles per gallon would come with a $3,500 credit, and any car over 45 combined miles per gallon would receive a $7,000 credit. ALTERNATIVE 1 There is a wide range of outcomes depending on which strategies are enacted. The presence of charging stations and private chargers will have the greatest effect by assuaging range anxiety - Range anxiety (the fear that an EV’s limited range will cause the car to be impractical for everyday use) and the upfront cost of EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

b. Isolated residential structures from the other structures in Forest Park. c. Used the median kWh and BTU to determine the average energy expenditure for homes in Forest Park. 2. Determined Forest Park’s carbon emissions from residential structures: a. Converted BTU and kWh to Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions (MTCO2 e or MTCO2) on the EPA and DOE websites to determine overall carbon load. 1btu 0.0000000532078 MTCO2 1kWh 0.000963726 MTCO2

Conversion of 45% of total homes in Forest Park to EHH: -To reach a 45% conversion rate, an average of 76 homes per year must be converted to EEH or about 1.96% of all homes per year. - Homes that use the most natural gas relative to their size and should be targeted in the first few years to allow for maximum result. The homes that should be targeted as a priority are located at: - 100, 1200, 1400 blocks of Marengo Ave. - 200, 1000, 1100 blocks of Des Plaines

b. Calculated carbon emissions by multiplying the average kWh and BTU by the number of homes that used those energy sources and then multiplied by the rate of MTCO2 emissions to determine Forest Park’s carbon emissions from each energy source.

Ave.

3. Determined how Forest Park will reduce carbon emissions:

ALTERNATIVE 1

a. With a targeted advertisement campaign (homes that use the most natural gas relative to their size will be determined with examining energy use data from Urbanfootprint, there can be a 45% conversion to electric home heating (EEH). b. According to a study, conversions to electric home heating from natural gas also leads to a 46%-54% decrease in energy usage (Brockway & Delforge, 2019). The potential energy use savings from a 45% conversion to EEH was then converted to MTCO2 to deter-

mine the total reduction in GHGs. Results:

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

- 100, 200, 300 blocks of Circle Ave. - 200, 400, 500 block of Elgin Ave. - 1400 block of Harlem Ave. - With a 45% conversion, there will be a 18,626-21,865 MTCO2 reduction.

There must be a high adoption rate of EEH in homes at the beginning of the project to ensure success. Currently, 29% of homes in Forest Park are powered with EEH, so there must be an annual adoption rate of 0.37% (or 26 homes per year), to reach 35%. With 35% of homes powered with EEH, there will be a reduction between 13,680-16,059 MTCO2. Concluding Alternatives: This report endorses ‘The Best-Case Scenario’ but acknowledges the difficulties of achieving all of the proposed strategies. Therefore, the

report also highlights the ‘Most Likely Scenario’ as a notable step in the right direction, leading to a 56,800 MTCO2 reduction, or a 25% decrease in GHG emissions. It is possible for Forest Park to achieve a 40% reduction in GHG emissions, but this will necessitate an aggressive approach on the part of Forest Park, and regional cooperation on policies and programs to ensure effectiveness.

GOAL 5 Process to Assess Goal 5 1. Detected high-risk impervious areas: a. Used FEMA map to identify “Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood”. In Forest Park’s case, these areas are all along the Des Plaines River. b. Identified the location of Forest Park’s electric on-ground substation and calculated its distance from the flood hazard area with Google Maps. The substation is located only 0.4 miles from the River. c. Downloaded the ‘NLCD 2016 Percent Developed Imperviousness (CONUS) shapefile’ and used it to identify areas with a high degree of impermeability. To establish the boundaries of Forest Park, a base map was downloaded from UrbanFootprint. d. Used the shapefile to draw the impervious areas using the edit tool in ArcGIS and calculated their surface area. This tool was also used to calculate the green areas of Forest Park’s cemeteries and parks.

e. To define the high-risk impervious areas, only impervious surfaces surrounding 1) the cemeteries where the River flows through; 2) the arterial roads that lead to the cemeteries and can carry the water runoffs and; 3) the electrical substation, were selected. 2. Calculated the area for the goal: a. Using the shapefiles and tools of ArcGIS, the objective area was defined: i.

Forest Park’s area: 1,537.1 acres.

ii. Highly impervious areas within Forest Park: 447.5 acres (29% of the Village’s total area). iii. Identified high-risk impervious areas (HIA): 94.4 acres (21% of all impervious areas or 6% of the Village’s total area). iv. Cemeteries and Veteran’s Park: 532.5 acres (35% of the Village’s total area). Developed areas within the cemeteries and park were not considered; only the surfaces with vegetation.

impervious area. Using the Green Values Calculator tool, it was calculated that the Village must increase the absorption capacity by at least 342,599 ft3 or 2,562,819 gallons. b. Using Google Maps, the areas of different types of impervious surfaces in highrisk areas were calculated. These high-risk areas include parking lots, main streets, and roofs. Designated streets include: 1) Madison Street and adjacent sidewalks; 2) Roosevelt Road and adjacent sidewalks between Harlem Avenue and Des Plaines Avenue; and 3) Harrison Street and adjacent sidewalks between Harlem Avenue and Des Plaines Ave-

nue. Designated parking lots include: 1) Public parking adjacent to the Forest Park Plaza Mall, Walmart, and the Chicago Bulk Mail Center; 2) the CTA Blue Line Forest Park Station Parking Lot; 3) the Ferrara and U-Haul repair parking lots; and 4) the Chevrolet and Dodge car dealerships. Designated roofs include: 1) the Forest Park Plaza Mall; 2) the Walmart; 3) the Chicago Bulk Mail Center; 4) Ferrara; 5) the U-Haul repair; and 6) and the Chevrolet and Dodge car dealerships. c. Finally, the Green Values Calculator tool was used to assess different alternatives for Green Infrastructure improvements including green roofs, roadside bioswales, and

3. Estimated the goal’s target and assessed the potential of different measures with the Green Values Calculator tool: a. The established target is ambitious. According to the Green Values Calculator tool, in areas identified for green infrastructure improvements, municipalities usually aim to capture up to 0.5 inches of water to avoid flooding. In the case of Forest Park, the target will be to increase its capacity to capture at least one-inch of water per square foot – equivalent to approximately two to five hours of heavy rainfall – in the 94.4-acre high-risk

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

permeable surfacing for identified surface areas. The absorption capacity of each alternative, as well as its costs, were calculated by the Green Values Calculator tool after defining the relevant parameters. Results: see Goal 5 – Assessment of Alternatives (page 84). ALTERNATIVE 1 Measures: In the High-risk Impervious Areas (HIA), 100% of designated parking spaces (which include asphalt) are replaced with permeable materials and 100% of the roofs are transformed into green roofs. Roadside bioswales are installed along 100% of the identified main roads. Finally, native vegetation is planted, covering 100% of cemetery and park land areas. Results: The cost of these measures is $127,173,813 over a 15-year timespan and the Village is able to capture an additional 6,109,645.40 ft3 of water. Conclusion: This alternative is unrealistic because it is too expensive, although it surpasses the target. This alternative is also unrealistic due to the complexity of transforming 100% of every single area – this form of complete change is near impossible to attain. To reach the goal put forth by the plan, more cost-effective measures can be taken. ALTERNATIVE 2 Measures: In the High-risk Impervious Areas (HIA), 100% of designated parking spaces (that are currently covered by asphalt) are replaced with permeable materials and 100%

100

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

of the roofs are transformed into green roofs. Bioswales are installed along 100% of the identified main roads. No new vegetation is planted in the cemetery or park. Results: The cost of these measures is $96,970,491 over a 15-year timespan and the Village is able to capture an additional 697,112.20 ft3 of water. Conclusion: This alternative is worse than the previous alternative. It is also expensive, although it yields a much lower increase of water capture capacity than Alternative 1. Again, more cost-effective measures can be taken. ALTERNATIVE 3 Measures: Native vegetation is planted, covering 100% of cemetery and park land areas. Results: The cost of this measure is $30,203,322 over a 15-year timespan and the Village is able to capture an additional 5,412,533.20 ft3 of water. Conclusion: This alternative offers an extremely high absorption capacity at a much lower cost than the previous alternatives. However, the increase in capture capacity surpasses the target by a large margin and the measure is costly. Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect that 100% of the cemetery and parkland areas can be replaced with native vegetation. Finally, this alternative does not address the issue of water runoff, which leads to flooding along the Village’s arterial roads and in parking lots. ALTERNATIVE 4 Measures: Install roadside bioswales all along

the selected streets. Replace asphalt parking lots with permeable materials in 8% of the identified parking areas. Native vegetation is planted in 12% of cemetery and Forest Park’s green spaces – particularly in areas along the Des Plaines River and near surrounding roads. Results: The cost of this measure is $8,302,928 over a 15-year timespan and the Village is able to capture an additional 687,629.50 ft3 of water. Conclusion: This is the most cost-effective alternative. The increase in water absorption capacity still surpasses the objective by approximately 100%, while targeting only specific areas. This alternative is also cheaper, and since the designated areas constitute only a small share of the total surface areas, it is likely to receive greater community support (especially for the planting of native vegetation in cemeteries and park land). Installing bioswales along selected streets will be the most ambitious portion of this alternative, but this measure will likely receive community support because 1) they are not too expensive (costing only $2,089,538 over a 15-year timespan); 2) they do not prevent interfere with the usability of the streets; and 3) they enhance the aesthetics of the area. This report endorses the implementation of Alternative 4 because it surpasses Goal 1’s intentions, it addresses the issue of water runoffs along arterial streets and in large parking lots covered with impermeable materials, and it is the most cost-effective alternative. Alternative 4 is also likely to receive community support, because although it is ambitious, it also acknowledges local limitations.

CITATIONS American Public Power Association. (n.d.). Public power. https:// www.publicpower.org/public-power American Public Power Association. (2019, March 15). Public power is affordable. https://www.publicpower.org/ periodical/article/public-power-affordable Arcadia.com. (2017). How many solar panels you’ll need to power your home. https://welcome.arcadia.com/energy-101/energy-sources/how-many-solarpanels-you-ll-need-to-power-your-home Arif, M. S. (2013). Residential Solar Panels and Their Impact on the Reduction of Carbon Emissions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California Berkeley. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/ projects/2013final/ArifM_2013.pdf Bhat, C. R., & Eluru, N. (2009). A copula-based approach to accommodate residential self-selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 43(7), 749-765. Brazil, J., Smith, R., Amador, A., Bennett, P., Bittner, J., Danty, N., Leon, A., Madou, R., Strause, J., & Tan, S. (2020, September). Interactive Plan Viewer. San José Better Bike Plan 2025. https://www.bikesanjose.com/draftplan

Brockway, A. M., & Delforge, P. (2019). Erratum to “Emissions reduction potential from electric heat pumps in California homes” [Electr. J. 31 (2018) 44–53]. The Electricity Journal, 32(4), 73. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tej.2019.02.009 Buckley, J.J. and CERA. (2006). The Chicago & West Towns Railways - Transit service in Chicago’s near west suburbs. Chicago, Illinois: Central Electric Railfans’ Association. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2007). Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation, 34(5), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9132-x Center for Neighborhood Technology. (n.d.). Green values stormwater management calculator. https:// greenvalues.cnt.org/ Cervero, R., & Arrington, G. (2008). Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing. Journal of Public Transportation, 11(3), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.5038/2375-0901.11.3.1 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. (2015). Land use data for Cook County. https://datahub.cmap.illinois.gov/ dataset/land-use-inventory-for-northeast-illinois-2015 Chicago Metropolitan Planning Agency. (2020, June). COMMUNITY DATA SNAPSHOT FOREST PARK, MUNICIPALITY JUNE 2020 RELEASE. CMAP. https://www.cmap. illinois.gov/documents/10180/102881/Forest+Park.pdf

City of Chicago. (2020, September 2). City of Chicago announces $200 million RFP for renewable energy supplier for all city-owned buildings. https://www.chicago. gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/ press_releases/2020/september/RenewableEnergyRFP.html City of Naperville. Department of Public Utilities - Electric. (2021). Energy efficiency grant programs. https://www. naperville.il.us/services/electric-utility/ powering-our-community-for-the-future/ energy-efficiency-grant-programs/ City of Naperville. Department of Public Utilities - Electric. (2021). Non-residential renewable energy grant program. https://www.naperville.il.us/services/ electric-utility/powering-our-community-for-the-future/energy-efficiency-grant-programs/non-residential-renewable-energy-grant-program/ Commercial Truck Trader. (2021, March 23rd). Minibus search. https:// www.commercialtrucktrader.com/Minibus/trucks-for-sale?category=Minibus%7C644245706 Commonwealth Edison. (2021). Solar incentives and credits. https://www. comed.com/SmartEnergy/MyGreenPowerConnection/Pages/SolarIncentivesCredits. aspx#:~:text=Solar%20Renewable%20Energy%20Credit%20 Crandall-Hollick, Margot L. and Sherlock, Molly F. (2018, April 9). Residential energy tax credits: overview and analysis. in Congressional Research Service.

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

101

Davies, D. and Bakke, G. (2016, August 22.). Aging and unstable, the nation’s electrical grid is ‘the weakest link’. https://www.npr. org/2016/08/22/490932307/aging-andunstable-the-nations-electrical-grid-isthe-weakest-link Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, March 18). Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. US EPA. https://www.epa. gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Environmental Protection Agency. (2013, July 22). Calculations and References. US EPA. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ ML1320/ML13205A377.pdf

Illinois Department of Transportation. (2021). IDOT 2021 traffic count. https://www.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3bea9453ab3d41b18eb5691e6084f9e5 Kenward, A. and Raja, U. (2014). Blackout: extreme weather, climate change and power outages. https://www. ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/climate-central.pdf

Hall, D., & Lutsey, N. (2017, October). Emerging best practices for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The International Council on Clean Transportation. https:// theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ EV-charging-best-practices_ICCT-whitepaper_04102017_vF.pdf

Krambles, G. (ed.) and CERA. (1961). The great third rail. Chicago: Central Electric Railfans’ Association.

Hesselink, L. X., & Chappin, E. J. (2019). Adoption of energy efficient technologies by households – Barriers, policies and agent-based modelling studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 99, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2018.09.031

Martin, E. W., PhD. (2019, October 17). Vehicle Miles Traveled with New Mobility Systems and E-Commerce [PPT]. Sacramento: University of California Berkley.

Historic Society of Forest Park. https://www.forestparkhistory.org/ Home Guide. (n.d.) How much do solar panels cost? https://homeguide.com/ costs/solar-panel-cost#:~:text=Cost%20 of%20Solar%20Panels%20Per,any%20tax%20 credits%20or%20incentives.

102

How To Install Electric Vehicle Charging Stations At Multi-Unit Dwellings [PDF]. (2015). Chicago: City of Chicago. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/ city/progs/env/CACCEVGuide.pdf

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

Levinson, R., & West, T. (2016, October 27). 0. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https:// www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1399883

McDaniel, P. (2020, October 2). City of Asheville “flips the switch” on solar panels at renovated transit station. https:// www.ashevillenc.gov/news/city-of-asheville-flips-the-switch-on-solar-panels-atrenovated-transit-center/

Madhani, A. (2005, September 5). Old torpedo factory hit by military site closings: [chicagoland final , CN edition]. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from https://proxy. cc.uic.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/newspapers/ old-torpedo-factory-hit-military-site-closings/docview/420124405/se-2?accountid=14552 Mims, C. (2021, February 27). What’s Missing in the Electric-Vehicle Revolution: Enough Places to Plug In. WSJ. https://www. wsj.com/articles/whats-missing-in-theelectric-vehicle-revolution-enough-places-to-plug-in-except-tesla-11614380406 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. (n.d.). NLCD 2016 percent developed imperviousness (CONUS). https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2016-percent-developed-imperviousness-conus Regional Transportation Authority Mapping and Statistics. (n.d.). Pace ridership by route. https://rtams.org/ridership/ pace/routes?month=December&dayName=weekday&activeStatus=false

Seneviratne, S.I., N. Nicholls, D. Easterling, C.M. Goodess, S. Kanae, J. Kossin, Y. Luo, J. Marengo, K. McInnes, M. Rahimi,M. Reichstein, A. Sorteberg, C. Vera, and X. Zhang (2012). Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation[Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen,M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press (pp. 109-23). https://www. ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREXChap3_FINAL-1.pdf Sheldon, T., & Dua, R. (2019, September). Assessing the effectiveness of California’s “Replace Your Ride.” Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.023 U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). ACS 5year estimates, tables B01001A, B01001B, B01001C, B01001D, B01001E, B01001F, B01001G, B01001H, B01001I. https://data.census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). ACS 5year estimates, table B01003. http://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). ACS 5year estimates, table DP05. https://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). ACS 5year estimates, table S0101. https://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). ACS 5year estimates, table S1601. https://data. census.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). ACS 5year estimates, table S1901. https://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). ACS 5year estimates, table S2501. https://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). ACS 5year survey (S2403 lower 48 states and DC) (2014-2018). https://data.census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Decennial census, table P012. https://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Decennial census, table P1. https://data. census.gov/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). LEHD origin-destination employment statistics (2002-2018). https://onthemap.ces.census. gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Population division, annual estimates of the resident population for incorporated places in Illinois: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (SUB-IPEST2019-ANNRES-17) U.S. Census Bureau. (October 2012). Population division, city and town intercensal datasets: 2000-2010 (SUB-EST00INTTOT: Intercensal estimate of the resident population for Incorporated places and minor civil divisions: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010) U.S. Census Bureau. (October 2000). Population division, population estimates for places (sorted alphabetically within state): Annual time series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999 (SU-99-7)

U.S. Department of Energy. (2013). Guide to community energy strategic planning. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ files/2014/05/f15/cesp_guide.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. (2020a). Air-Source Heat Pumps. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-and-cool/heatpump-systems/air-source-heat-pumps U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2017). Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) A fact sheet for state and local governments. https://www. energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/10/f39/ FL1710_WIP_CPACEv2.PDF. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (n.d.). LEAD Tool. https://www.energy.gov/ eere/slsc/maps/lead-tool U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (n.d.). State and Local Planning for Energy (SLOPE) platform. https://www.energy. gov/eere/slsc/state-and-local-planningenergy-slope-platform U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2021). Weatherization Assistance Program. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/2021/01/f82/WAP-fact-sheet_2021_0. pdf U.S. Energy Information Association. (2019). Table F20: electricity consumption estimates, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/ seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_es.html

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

103

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2020, December 15). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. EIA. https://www.eia.gov/tools/ faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11#:%7E:text=In%20 2019%2C%20total%20U.S.%20electricity,of%20CO2%20emissions%20per%20kWh. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2020a, June 17). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. EIA. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq. php?id=73&t=11#:%7E:text=Heat%20is%20 produced%20when%20C,CO2%2Dto%2Denergy%20content. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). GPP webinar: local government clean energy trends and resources. https://www.epa.gov/ greenpower/gpp-webinar-local-government-clean-energy-trends-and-resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020, November 25). Local government solar project portal. https://www. epa.gov/repowertoolbox/local-government-solar-project-portal U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Star. (2021). Renewable energy tax credits. https://www.energystar. gov/about/federal_tax_credits/renewable_energy_tax_credits U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, February 19). Solar project development pathway and resources. https://www.epa.gov/repowertoolbox/solar-project-development-pathway-resources

104

EMPOWER FOREST PARK: APPENDIX

Urban Footprint. (n.d.). The urban intelligence platform. https://urbanfootprint.com/ Urban Footprint. (n.d.). Land use summary (L1). https://app.urbanfootprint.com/, source: CoreLogic. Urban Footprint. (n.d.) Land use summary (L3). https://app.urbanfootprint.com/, source: CoreLogic. Vehicles Sold in Illinois 7th District. (2019). Alliance for Automotive Innovation. https:// www.autosinnovate.org/energy-environment/advanced-technology-vehicle-sales-dashboard/ Village of Forest Park. (n.d.) Forest Park zoning map. https://www.forestpark.net/dfp/resources/ village-maps/ Village of Forest Park. (2020). Mayor. https://www.forestpark.net/dfp/government/local-government/mayor/ Village of Forest Park. (2020). Plan commission. https://www.forestpark.net/dfp/government/local-government/commissions-boards-committees/ plan-commission/ Village of Forest Park. (n.d.). Residential aggregation program. https:// www.forestpark.net/dfp/village-services/ demographics/ Village of Forest Park Plan Commission & Images Inc. (2014). Village of Forest Park comprehensive plan 2014. https://www.forestpark.net/ dfp/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Forest-Park-Comprehensive-Plan.pdf

Village of Forest Park. (2004). Village code of Forest Park, Illinois. American Legal Publishing Corporation. Retrieved from https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ forestparkil/latest/forestpark_il/0-0-0-1 Volvo. (2019, December 22). This Volvo and Harris Poll Study investigates the state of EVs in America. Current EV Blog. https://currentev.com/blog/this-volvoand-harris-poll-study-investigates-thestate-of-electric-vehicles-in-america/ Wen, M. (2016, June 29). SoCal Residents Line Up to Trade Old Cars for State Cash. NBC Los Angeles. https:// www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/ replace-your-ride-california-car-subsidies-waitlist/2008626/ Zart, N. (2018, September 30). GreenPower’s multi-use EV Star electric minibus (#CleanTechnica Review). https:// cleantechnica.com/2018/09/30/greenpowers-multi-use-electric-minibus-cleantechnica-review/ Zummo, P. and American Public Power Association. (2018, March). Public power pays back. https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/PublicPower-Pays-Back-2018_for-web.pdf