The Goal-Setting Team will propose goals and metrics for the regional advanced energy strategy. Thus, it will confront the questions: What does it mean for our region to be sustainable in energy? And how will we measure success?

At its first meeting on July 5, 2006, members suggested the following broad goals:

• Clean: significant reduction in air emissions (particulates, ozone, GHG/carbon, SO2), on a per capita and/or a per $ GDP basis
• Affordable: significant reduction in regional expenditures on energy ($), on a per capita and/or a per $ GDP basis
• Locally-focused: significant improvement in the net energy trade balance (% of dollars spent on energy staying within regional economy rather than exported) 
• Economically-vital: significant increases in economic/commercial activity associated companies selling advanced energy products/services (jobs, revenues, investments)
• Recognized: measured by outside observers as being one of the best places to locate/build/operate an advanced energy business

These goals were refined at a meeting on Aug. 29, 2006, as folllows: 

• Affordable: The affordability goal would best be served by restating it as an energy intensity metric (Btus per $ state GDP). Since energy prices are not easily affected by anything we might do, we should target/measure energy intensity as the primary level for improving/ensuring energy affordability. Also, if we focus on reducing energy consumption, it will beneficially impact emissions. But, the metric must allow (be normalized for) economic growth — we don’t want to achieve improvements in energy consumption simply by exporting people or economic activity. In 2001, Ohio consumed 3.982 quadrillion Btu on $374.7 billion economic activity, implying an energy intensity of 10,627 Btu per dollar of economic output. (What reduction from 10,627 might we shoot for in 2020?)
• Local focus: Since most of Ohio’s energy is (and for the foreseeable future will continue to be) imported, if we aim to improve energy intensity measures, we will also be reducing energy imports, so there is no real need to have a second/separate measure on “local-focus” of energy activity.
• Security: An energy “security” or “diversity” metric should be developed/added. However, it was not obvious how this might be done. It was noted that the Governor of Illinois recently imposed targets on “market shares” or quantities of energy to be achieved from “clean coal” and other forms of advanced energy, thereby ensuring diversity of supplies. Perhaps we can concoct similar/analogous “stakes in the ground” on percentages of our energy mix to be provided by different sources. Note, though, that this type of approach would not address any reliability (“no blackouts”) or availability (“no lines at gas pumps”) concerns. More thought is required.
• Economic vitality: For the economic vitality metric, the group struggled with how to track growth in jobs and economic activity related to the expansion of advanced energy sectors of the economy. We began to postulate — if advanced energy were truly a priority for the state — that the Ohio Department of Development should be tasked with developing a (NAICS-based?) method for quantifying/tracking employers and employment in advanced energy. In the meantime, Chris Varley agreed to connect with Jim Robey of Team NEO to see how they track regional changes in economic activity within a given industrial cluster.
• Clean: The clean goal should have two parts:
• One, full attainment/compliance with all (air, water, and waste; federal and state) environmental requirements. This would be the minimum (and easy to understand) in order to preserve the health of local citizens. This goal is not trivial, due to our current moderate non-attainment status for air quality.
• Two, a targeted level of greenhouse gas or CO2 emissions, consistent with what might be expected/required of our region in the future. For future discussion, we should propose a range of emission reductions — from a minimum assuming adoption of an extended Kyoto Protocol (probably a reduction of about 10% from 1990 levels) and a maximum of what it would take to achieve climate stabilization (probably a reduction of about 30-40% from current levels to be on a path to achieve 550 ppm CO2 by 2050). Normalization (per capita or per $ state GDP) remains to be discussed. It was noted that we should consult with Kevin Crist of Ohio University for further ideas on this goal.
• Recognized: The recognition metric was viewed as important, but we shouldn’t rely on some arbitrary and possibly biased ranking or weighted scoring approach. Rather, it was suggested that we track the number of “media hits” on “Ohio + energy”. The team will contact Ed Burghard (P&G and Ohio Business Development Coalition) to discuss how this might be done.

Volunteers to be team members include:

• Dale Arnold (Ohio Farm Bureau)
• Dave Nash (McMahon Degulis and Sustainable Cleveland)
• David Beach (EcoCity Cleveland and GreenCityBlueLake)
• George Haritos (University of Akron)
• Holly Harlan (Entrepreneurs for Sustainability)
• Jeff Patterson (CMHA)
• Jerry Barna (consultant for NASA/Glenn)
• Joe Pustai (eQuest)
• Kurt Waltzer (Ohio Environmental Council)
• Rick Taylor (Parker Hannifin and Sustainable Cleveland)
• Tom Zawodzinski (Case, Wright Fuel Cell Group)
• Robert Kozar (University of Toledo)