Greenhouse Gas Inventory FY1998 - FY2009 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Brad McAllister, WAP Sustainability, LLC Thursday, May 13, 2010
Background Thursday, May 13, 2010
Background • American College and University President’s Climate Commitment Signatory (ACUPCC) • 677 signatories • 16% of sector • Inception: 2007 • Requirements • GHG inventory • Climate Action Plan • Implementation of key tangible actions • Annual reporting Thursday, May 13, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Data Collection Thursday, May 13, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Concepts Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Concepts • CO 2 e • Baseline and Historical Years • Scope 1, 2 and 3 Thursday, May 13, 2010
CO 2 e Thursday, May 13, 2010
CO 2 + CH 4 + N 2 O + (Synthetics) = CO 2 e Thursday, May 13, 2010
Baseline vs. Historical FY09 FY98-FY08 12 Years of GHG Emissions Thursday, May 13, 2010
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Thursday, May 13, 2010
What’s Included? Scope Source FY2009 emissions Relative Contribution to total footprint Scope 1 On Campus Stationary University Fleet Fuel Use Scope 2 Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Wastewater Landfill waste Business Travel Student Commuting Faculty and Staff Commuting Scope 2 T&D Losses Other (credits) Forest Preservation Green Power Purchases Total, gross emissions Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Finding: Absolute Emissions FY2009 Scope 1 18% Scope 3 31% Scope 2 51% 16% 14% 0% 11% 1% 11% Fleet 46% 45% On-site Combustion 55% Scope3 Faculty/Staff Commute Student Commuting Financed Air Travel Scope 1 Other Financed Travel Solid Waste Wastewater T & D Losses Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Finding: Absolute Emissions FY2009 Scope 1 18% Scope 3 31% Scope 2 51% Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Finding: Relative Contribution Scope Source FY2009 emissions Relative Contribution to total footprint Scope 1 On Campus Stationary University Fleet Fuel Use Scope 2 Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Wastewater Landfill waste Business Travel Student Commuting Faculty and Staff Commuting Scope 2 T&D Losses Other (credits) Forest Preservation Green Power Purchases Total, gross emissions Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Finding: Relative Contribution Scope Source FY2009 emissions Relative Contribution to total footprint Scope 1 On Campus Stationary 5,716 10% University Fleet Fuel Use 4,653 8% Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 28,689 51% Scope 3 Wastewater 22 0% Landfill waste 1,961 3% Business Travel 2,069 4% Student Commuting 7,920 14% Faculty and Staff 2,448 4% Commuting Scope 2 T&D Losses 2,837 5% Other (credits) Forest Preservation (1,295.2) 2% Green Power Purchases (464.5) 0.8% Total, gross emissions 56,314 100% Total, net emissions 54,555 Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Finding: Trends Percent Change YEAR SCOPE 1 SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 Gross Emissions NET Emissions FY98 through -55% 32% 25% -3% -6% FY09 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 60000 45000 30000 15000 0 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Thursday, May 13, 2010
Normalized Emissions Institutional Data: Total Building Space Operating Budget Research Budget Energy Budget # Students # Faculty # Staff Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Finding: Normalized Emissions Year Operating Research Energy Budget Students Faculty and Building Space Budget Budget Staff g CO2e / $ Kg CO2e / $ Kg CO2e / $ MT CO2e / MT CO2e / Kg CO2e / FT 3 Person Person FY98 889.7 60.9 13.1 8.1 7.2 31.4 FY09 623.6 38.4 12.2 6.3 5.3 22.3 Percent Change Year Operating Research Energy Budget Students Faculty and Building Space Budget Budget Staff FY98 through -30% -37% -16% -22% -26% -12% FY09 Highest and -14% -55% -21% -15% 21% 14% Lowest Thursday, May 13, 2010
Key Findings: Forecast Absolute Emissions YEAR SCOPE 1 SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 Gross Emissions FY09 10,369 28,689 17,263 56,321 FY25 0 35,786 23,087 58,873 FY50 0 44,137 32,230 76,367 *Report includes forecast estimate in 5 year increments beginning in 2015 Percent Change YEAR SCOPE 1 SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 Gross Emissions FY09 - FY25 0% 25% 34% 5% FY09 - FY50 0% 54% 87% 36% Thursday, May 13, 2010
Are We Good or Bad? Thursday, May 13, 2010
“Making fair comparisons between higher education institutions is always challenging due to the rich diversity of higher education. The unverified nature of the information in this database and unavailability of unbiased normalization metrics means such comparisons are even more difficult. Users should therefore approach direct institution to institution comparisons with caution and recognize that all comparisons between institutions are inherently biased.” -ACUPCC Thursday, May 13, 2010
Making fair comparisons between higher education institutions is always challenging due to the rich diversity of higher education. The unverified nature of the information in this database and unavailability of unbiased normalization metrics means such comparisons are even more difficult. Users should therefore approach direct institution to institution comparisons with caution and recognize that all comparisons between institutions are inherently biased. Thursday, May 13, 2010
Per FTE Per 1000 ft2 UTC Appalachian State Kennesaw Sewanee UTK Rhodes Carnegie Class 0 10 20 30 40 MTCO2e NOTE: Scope 3 excluded; Total Scope 1 + 2 = 39,058 Thursday, May 13, 2010
TAKE HOME • Electricity is biggest contributor • Behavior is significant (commuting) • Water and waste have limited GHG impact (but...) • Impressive gains in on-site efficiency has decreased emissions • Trees help but green power purchasing is insufficient • Total footprint will increase unless something is done Thursday, May 13, 2010
Dr. Deborah Arfken Barbara Keegan Bob Snider Tom Ellis Doug Silver Maggie Hall THANK YOU Linda Collins Dr. Thomas Wilson Jillian Koss Donnie Hodge Danny West Kimberly McDonald Dr. Richard "Dick" Gruetzemacher Cynthia Taylor Thursday, May 13, 2010
www.wapsustainability.com Brad McAllister brad@wapsustainability.com 423-598-3329 Thursday, May 13, 2010
Recommend
More recommend
