City of Fort Collins

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY

City of Fort Collins COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING PROTOCOLS

2

COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING PROTOCOLS March 2009

The contents of this report are offered as guidance only. The Brendle Group, Inc. and all sources referenced in this report do not (a) make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report may not infringe on privately owned rights; (b) assume any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by The Brendle Group, Inc.

3


1. Introduction ................................................................... 4

1.1. Background .................................................................................. 4

1.2. Objective ...................................................................................... 4

1.3. Scope ........................................................................................... 4

2. Recommendations ......................................................... 5

3. Summary of Community-Wide Inventory Methodologies 9

3.1. Current Fort Collins Inventory Methodology ................................. 9

3.2. Common Terminology ................................................................ 11

3.3. General Description of Alternative Methodologies ...................... 11

3.4. Comparison of Methodologies .................................................... 21

3.4.1. Organizational Boundary ................................................................ 21

3.4.2. Scope and Avoiding Double Counting ........................................ 23

3.4.3. Emission Factors by Source ........................................................... 28

3.4.4. Included Greenhouse Gases .......................................................... 33

3.4.5. Emissions Sources Not Currently Accounted For ..................... 34

3.4.6. Units................................................................................................... 40

3.4.7. Reporting Schedule .......................................................................... 41

3.4.8. Redistribution of Emissions Sectors ............................................. 41

3.4.9. Forecasting of Emissions ............................................................... 42

3.4.10. Treatment of Reductions ................................................................ 42

3.4.11. Relationship to Climate Wise Greenhouse Gas Baseline Tool . 45

Appendix A – Acronyms ...................................................... 47

Addendum – Research of Potential Inventory Modifications48

Natural Gas Emission Factor ................................................................. 48

Factors Pertaining to Community Transportation FleetError! Bookmark not defined.

Landfill Emission Factor – First Order Decay Models ............................. 49

Upstream Impacts of Key Materials ....................................................... 51

Airline Travel .......................................................................................... 51

Transportation – Additional VMT Beyond the GMA ................................ 52

4


1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The City of Fort Collins has used the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

(ICLEI) methodology for calculating community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and reductions

since 1997. Fort Collins Utilities has begun reporting their greenhouse gas emissions to the Global

Reporting Initiative, with 2006 as the baseline year. With the recent adoption of new community

greenhouse gas goals and passage of the 2008 Climate Action Plan, the City will move into a new

phase of greenhouse gas reporting.

There are three City Council policy requirements for reporting GHG emissions:

Resolution 2008-122: prepare an annual status report tracking progress toward attainment of the

goals, including a community-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and a list of quantified

emission reductions actions for the preceding calendar year (by June 2009)

Resolution 2008-122: biennially, at least six months in advance of the City’s biennial budget

adoption, prepare a report evaluating progress on greenhouse gas reduction relative to established

interim milestones and recommending actions for consideration in the upcoming budget cycle (the

“Biennial Report”) (by June 2011)

Resolution 2009-002: Develop a methodology for reporting carbon emissions and savings related to:

Overall electricity consumption;

Reductions in energy use from efficiency programs;

Substitution of fossil fuel based electricity with renewable or clean resources; and

Increases in use of electricity for transportation. (Annual report)

The changing community landscape with respect to reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and the

constant evolution in accounting methodologies that has taken place since the original community-

wide inventory in 1997 presents a good opportunity to review current accounting methodologies and

confirm that future accounting and reporting is conducted in the most appropriate fashion.

1.2. Objective

The objective of this project is to assess the existing greenhouse gas measurement methodology used

for Fort Collins community-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and reduction reporting and

recommend modifications, if needed, to ensure that accounting practices are appropriately rigorous,

transparent, up-to-date and compatible, to the extent possible, with programs such as The Global

Reporting Initiative and The Climate Registry.

1.3. Scope

The review addresses general applicability of methodologies to community greenhouse house gas

5


inventories and specific issues including boundaries and scope of reported emissions, emissions

factors, and compatibility with various reporting schemes. The methodologies considered in this

review include:

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol from ICLEI

The Climate Registry

Global Reporting Initiative

GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle from City of Denver inventory

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories

International Standardization Organization 14064

California Climate Action Registry

Environmental Protection Agency Climate Leaders

These methodologies were compared on a number of issues that have been significant in the

development of previous community inventories including:

Organizational Boundary

Scope and Avoiding Double Counting

Emission Factors by Source

Included Greenhouse Gases

Emissions Sources Not Currently Accounted For

Units

Reporting Schedule

Redistribution of Emissions Sectors

Forecasting

Treatment of Reductions

Relationship to Climate Wise Greenhouse Gas Baseline Tool

2. Recommendations

A consistent theme in the history of the City of Fort Collins community inventory and the Climate

Action Plan is pragmatism. These efforts have been commensurate with level of detail necessary to

advance climate protection and the many co-benefits it brings to the community. The following

recommendations are made with an eye toward maintaining that pragmatic approach while assuring

that these efforts are sufficiently transparent and rigorous to stand-up to the ever advancing standard

6


in the GHG accounting industry. The following section provides additional background on these

topics and the reasoning behind these recommendations.

Most of the following recommendations are minor corrections to improve the documentation of the

inventory or confirm the validity of emission factors currently in use. However, there are some

recommendations related to the inclusion of emissions sources that are not currently in the inventory

that could have a profound impact of the magnitude of the inventory. The inclusion of these

emissions should be considered carefully considering the high visibility of the current inventory and

the impact that major changes will have on the community’s perception of the inventory.

Some of the following recommendations can be implemented in the short term, potentially as part of

the inventory revision scheduled for completion in June 2009. Other recommendations are

predicated on the upcoming release of a community protocol that is under joint development by

ICLEI, the California Climate Action Registry, and The Climate Registry, which is scheduled for

release in Summer 2009.

1. Until the release of the previously mentioned protocol this summer, the new International

Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol from ICLEI can be temporarily

adopted to provide guidance for the 2009 inventory revision. This protocol is likely to be

very similar to the one released later this summer. It will help the community inventory to

adopt a more rigorous framework that better reflects the direction of the industry. This

change is not likely to have a significant impact on the magnitude of the inventory, but will

increase the compatibility of its documentation with current industry standards. All

remaining recommendations assume that this protocol, or one like it, will be adopted.

2. The community inventory should adopt ICLEI’s geopolitical boundary definition and

formalize its organizational boundary as the City Limits for most emission sources.

Maintaining the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary for transportation emissions

is logical considering that the impacts of transportation activities inevitably extend beyond

the City Limits. The GMA should also be considered in the forecasting of emissions, as

these regions may one day be annexed and become part of the community inventory,

impacting progress toward goals. Finally, the GMA should also be considered in climate

action planning to assure that opportunities to reduce emissions in the GMA are realized.

3. Applying the definition of scope from ICLEI to the community inventory will facilitate

future comparison to other communities reporting under this protocol. The connection to

traditional scope definitions as they are applied to organizations such as businesses will no

longer be applicable.

4. A number of updates to emission factors should be considered in accordance with the

ICLEI protocol:

a. Electricity – The ICLEI protocol accepts electricity emission factors determined

for local providers such as the one developed by PRPA. Maintaining use of this

7


factor retains the capacity for local influence of the electric generation portfolio to

be reflected in the inventory. This factor should be updated to include all six major

greenhouse gases based on PRPA’s reporting to The Climate Registry in June.

b. Natural gas – The IPCC factors are widely accepted by various surveyed

methodologies. The inventory should adopt these sector specific factors.

c. Transportation – No significant new resources are available for updating this

methodology but some may emerge with the release of the new community

methodology this summer. In the mean time, certain data sets applied such as

average fleet fuel economy by vehicle class could be updated.

d. Solid waste – The community inventory should adopt the IPCC First Order Decay

model that is widely accepted among surveyed methodologies and will provide an

emission factor more specific to the Larimer County Landfill.

5. A total of 13 emission sources were identified that are not currently included in the

inventory. Of these, 10 are qualitatively estimated to be small or negligible and the

remaining 3 could have a significant impact on the magnitude of the inventory.

a. Strongly consider the inclusion of the 3 potentially larger sources that include airline

and commuter vehicle travel serving residents but occurring outside the inventory

boundary and the upstream impact of key urban materials. Key urban materials

that may be relevant include concrete, food, cardboard, transportation fuels, and

certain other materials whose upstream emissions are currently accounted for in the

Fort Collins Climate Action Plan. The inclusion of these sources is not required by

the International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol but is

acceptable and recommended as these may provide additional opportunities for

reduction measures in climate action planning.

b. Perform a simplified estimation with readily available data sources to estimate the

magnitude of those emission sources that are anticipated to be negligible or small.

Confirm and document that the aggregate of these sources constitute an acceptably

small portion of the total inventory. The industry standard for an acceptably small

portion of the inventory is 5 percent. Do not report these emissions in the

inventory.

c. Remove accounting for CO2 from combustion of CH4 at the wastewater treatment

plant. This recognized as biogenic CO2 and does not need to be included in the

inventory.

6. The implementation of the above recommendations will also serve as a good opportunity to

begin the transition to metric tons as the primary reporting unit. Metric tons are the

required reporting units for all surveyed methodologies and should be the unit applied in the

8


community inventory. Short ton equivalents can be maintained for those applications where

they might be more appropriate.

7. The proposed schedule of reporting annually in June is an appropriate frequency based on

required reporting schedules from surveyed methodologies.

8. At this time, no foundational changes in the approach to the transportation sector of the

inventory are recommended to account for emerging electrification technologies such as

vehicle-to-grid. However, continued awareness of these technologies will be important to

the appropriate accounting and analysis of their impacts on future inventories. It is

recommended that future inventories include an assessment of imminent transformational

technology or policy changes that may impact the following year’s inventory. In the mean

time, the best preparation for these foundational changes is to adopt a solid and frequently

revised protocol and keep all data sources applied up-to-date.

9. The treatment of reductions in the current Climate Action Plan is mostly appropriate. For

particularly large reduction efforts, the Protocol for Project Accounting from the GHG

Protocol Initiative can provide guidance to confirm appropriate accounting of GHG

reductions.

10. The marginal, non-baseload, emission factor currently applied to reductions and the recently

recommended one from the EPA could be vetted against the GHG Protocol Initiative’s

sector-specific guidance , Grid-Connected Electricity Projects, to confirm that it

appropriately represents the marginal emissions for this community.

11. The Climate Wise Greenhouse Gas Baseline tool has been modeled after the community

inventory methodology and largely embodies similar practices. The natural gas and solid

waste approaches, as well as any others that may change in the community inventory, should

be aligned in the GHG Baseline tool before release next fall.

12. The included greenhouse gases in the inventory will be expanded with the updated electricity

and natural gas emission factors mentioned in the previous recommendation. The

inclusion of more gases will depend on which of the currently unaccounted emission

sources are included in the inventory.

13. The City can continue to foster open dialog between the organizations in the community

that are inventorying and reporting/registering emissions through the Climate Wise program

and the Carbon Think Tank. These forums will help to insure consistent reporting and

avoid double-counting, regardless of what GHG program the organizations may participate

in.

The adoption of these recommendations with respect the Fort Collins community inventory and

Climate Action Plan will make these documents more consistent with current inventory standards

and maintain Fort Collin’s long history of pragmatic and effective quantification in support of climate

9


protection efforts. The following section provides background on these topics that informs the

reasoning behind these recommendations.

3. Summary of Community-Wide Inventory Methodologies

3.1. Current Fort Collins Inventory Methodology

The City of Fort Collins conducted a community-wide GHG inventory in 1997 and has maintained

an annual inventory each year since 2000. These inventories have been conducted based on guidance

from ICLEI and their Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software. In order to develop

some context for the current approach on the Fort Collin’s community inventory, Table 1 describes

the inventory in the same framework that is used in Section 3.2 to review alternative inventory

methodologies. Additional detail on the specific components of the inventory, such as boundaries,

scopes, and emission factors are described in Section 3.4.

10


TABLE 1. ADAPTED ICLEI/CACP - CURRENT INVENTORY APPROACH

Methodology Adapted ICLEI/CACP

General

Description/

Origin

The City of Fort Collins replicated the methodology applied in the CACP software

tool in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to achieve greater transparency and simplify

sharing of the inventory data between users. The City has customized select factors

in a departure from the methodology including, but not limited to:

Electricity emission factor

Vehicle fleet composition

Solid waste stream composition

The CACP software tool originated from a collaboration of the National Association

of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), ICLEI, and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA).

Supporting or

Compatible

Methodologies

The original release of the CACP software predates many other surveyed

methodologies and therefore does not share in the common language and framework

on which many newer methodologies are built (e.g. boundary guidelines, scopes, etc.).

However, the tool is largely compatible with these emerging methodologies and the

inputs to the model and resulting outputs can be managed in a fashion that is

consistent with emerging standards.

Target User ICLEI’s general focus in on sustainable communities and the organization’s climate

protection efforts retain this focus on the community. The CACP software tool is

designed to help communities complete GHG inventories, calculate the benefit of

reduction measures, and develop climate action plans.

Approach to

Community

Inventories

ICLEI’s approach is specifically targeted at communities.

Level of Adoption

for Community

Inventories

ICLEI has over 1,000 member communities worldwide. It is not known how many

of these communities have completed greenhouse gas inventories, but many of the

community inventories published in the U.S. have used the CACP tool or adapted

ICLEI methods.

Provided Software

Tools or Support

The CACP software is a Windows based client that provides access to the inventory,

reduction, and forecasting tools. The last release of the tool was May 2003.

11


3.2. Common Terminology

There are some common terms in the GHG industry that will reoccur through the descriptions of

the methodologies reviewed in this report. These include:

Emissions: this review considers emission of greenhouse gases only. Other potential air

emissions are not included in this definition.

Inventory: quantitative assessment and baseline documentation of emission sources & their

quantities

Protocol: set of common standards and tools for measuring and reporting emissions

Verification: set of common standards and tools for confirmation of emissions, may be

targeted at an objective third party

Certification: verification that inventory conforms to the requirements set by a particular

program

Registry: a public database that aggregates the emissions from reporting organizations

Furthermore, it is important to understand the distinction between “local government” and

“community”. Those methodologies that address these organizations recognize local government as

the direct operations of a government at some level (e.g., province, state, county, or municipality).

These operations can include emission sources such as energy consumption in government buildings

and government vehicle fleets, but do not typically include the emissions of the broader community

that are not the direct responsibility of the local government. Community emissions include all

sources within a defined boundary including residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental.

3.3. General Description of Alternative Methodologies

With growing concern over climate change, interest in inventorying greenhouse gas emissions has

increased substantially world-wide since the City completed its first community inventory in 1997.

Numerous methodologies have emerged in the last 12 years to support a wide variety of

organizations in reporting greenhouse gas emissions from a diverse range of sources. While many of

these methodologies are closely related and compatible in approach they present a potentially

confusing choice to an organization beginning the inventory process today. As the City reexamines

its choice of methodologies for the community inventory, the following methodologies are

considered because of their particular relevance to community inventories, their prominence in the

industry, or their application by other organizations in the Fort Collins community.

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (from ICLEI) – ICLEI

has supported communities in developing GHG inventories for many years and the Fort Collin’s

community inventory since its first iteration in 1997. In September 2008, ICLEI collaborated with

the California Climate Action Registry and The Climate Registry on the Local Government

12


Operations Protocol. This protocol, and the ICLEI website, indicates that phase two of this

collaboration will be the development of a community inventory methodology which is scheduled for

release in Summer 2009. With the backing of these three respected GHG policy organizations; this

community methodology is likely to have good traction in the industry.

Though the jointly developed community methodology is not yet available, ICLEI has released the

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol. This draft protocol includes

guidance on developing inventories for local government and communities. It is likely a very good

preview of the structure of the jointly developed community methodology to be released this

summer.

ICLEI is also working with the Clinton Foundation and Microsoft to develop an online GHG

emission reporting tool for local governments and communities. Presumably, this tool will replace

the CACP tool and will embody the methodologies outlined in the Local Government Operations

Protocol and the forthcoming community methodology. The web tool is slated for release in 2009 as

well.

The Climate Registry (TCR) – The Climate Registry is nonprofit organization that seeks to

establish consistent, transparent standards throughout North America for businesses and

governments, to calculate, verify and publically report carbon emissions in a unified registry. Platte

River Power Authority plans to report their emissions through The Climate Registry by June 2009.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – The Global Reporting Initiative seeks to increase the

disclosure of economic, environmental, and social performance indicators and to make these

indicators as ubiquitous and high-quality as financial reporting. The GRI Sustainability Framework is

the vehicle for this effort and recognizes 70 performance indicators across these topics. Of those 70

indicators, 3 specifically relate to GHG reporting and the GRI relies on the GHG Protocol

Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard for addressing these indicators. Fort Collins Utilities

will be reporting through the GRI for a baseline year of 2006.

GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and Protocol for Project

Accounting (from WRI) – The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard was developed by

the GHG Protocol Initiative, a multi-stakeholder group convened by the World Resources Institute

(WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). This standard provides

a framework and protocols for businesses and similar organizations to quantify GHG emissions.

The standard is highly referenced by many other prominent methodologies. The companion

document to the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, the Protocol for Project

Accounting, provides guidance for accounting for climate change mitigation projects.

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle – In preparing an inventory for the City of Denver, the

Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Colorado Denver and the Department of

Environmental Health, City and County of Denver, developed a unique approach that addresses

some of the challenges of defining the boundary of community inventories. For direct emissions,

13


this approach relies on the ICLEI model. However, this inventory adds different treatments of

transportation that may cross the boundary of the inventory and the upstream emissions in key urban

materials that the community consumes. In addition to better recognizing the total GHG impact of a

community, this approach also facilitates the inclusion of reduction measures that address these

impacts in community climate action plans.

A number of methodologies are either similar enough to the above listed methodologies as not to

warrant additional consideration or do not offer community specific guidance. These methodologies

include:

2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories (IPCC) – Beginning in 1996, the IPCC laid the foundation for the development of

national greenhouse gas inventories and this 2006 document updates those methodologies. The

research behind the IPCC Guidelines forms the backbone of most of the methodologies available

today. For some emission sources such as fertilizer application and livestock management, IPCC

protocols are directly applied by other methodologies. While some of these individual protocols may

be appropriate for application to the community inventory, the IPCC document does not provide

any particular guidance for communities at the sub-national scale.

(http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html)

International Standardization Organization 14064 (ISO14064) – The ISO14064-1 standard

provides a framework for designing, developing, managing, and reporting greenhouse gas inventories.

These methodologies are primarily targeted at businesses and other similar organizations and do not

specifically address community inventory issues.

(http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38381)

California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and Climate Action Reserve – The California

Climate Action Registry is based on the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and provides

a framework, protocol, verification, and registry/reporting aspects. CCAR is closely related to The

Climate Registry which is essentially a broader national launch of a very similar methodology. Due to

the similarity of these two programs, CCAR will not be reviewed in depth with the exception of the

Climate Action Reserve. The Climate Action Reserve provides a methodology for documenting

certain reduction activities and is further investigated in Section 3.4.10.

(http://www.climateregistry.org/)

Environmental Protection Agency Climate Leaders – The Environmental Protection Agency’s

Climate Leaders program is based on the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and

provides a framework, protocol, and reporting aspects. Since the Climate Leaders methodology is

essentially covered by the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard it will not be addressed

separately. (http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/)

The relationships between these methodologies are complicated and Figure 1 attempts to clarify their

many connections by exploring the lineage of some of the key methodologies.

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38381

http://www.climateregistry.org/

http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/

14


Each methodology also tends to focus on some of the aspects of GHG program more than others (

FIGURE 1. LINEAGE OF METHODOLOGIES

IPCC

ICLEI/CACP

International Local Government

GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol Local

Government Protocol

(available)

Community Protocol

(Available Summer 2009)

Corporate Accounting and

Reporting Standard (WRI)

California Climate Action Registry

(CCAR)

The Climate Registry (TCR)

EPA Climate Leaders

15


Table 2). These areas of focus may include:

Framework: Methodology provides guidance on how to structure an inventory in terms of

physical, temporal, and emission source boundaries.

Protocol: Methodology provides specific guidance on how to quantify GHG emissions.

This may include guidance on activity data, emission factors, and applicable equations.

Verification/certification: Methodology provides specific guidance on verifying the GHG

emissions documented in the inventory. This may include requirements for third-party

verification.

Reporting/registry: Methodology provides specific guidance on the format and/or

frequency for reporting or registering emissions. This may include the provision of tools for

reporting emissions.

16


TABLE 2. AREAS ADDRESSED BY METHODOLOGIES

Methodology Framework Protocol

Verification/

Certification

Reporting/

Registry

ICLEI CACP No Yes No No

International Local Government

GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol

(ICLEI)

Yes Yes No No

The Climate Registry Yes Yes Yes Yes

Global Reporting Initiative Yes

Uses

Corporate

Accounting

and Reporting

Standard

No Yes

GHG Protocol Corporate

Accounting and Reporting Standard Yes Yes No No

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-

Cycle Yes Yes No No

IPCC Yes Yes No No

ISO14064 Yes Neutral Yes Yes

California Climate Action Registry Yes Yes Yes Yes

Environmental Protection Agency

Climate Leaders Yes Yes Yes Yes

The following pages describe the relevant methodologies from above in the same framework that

was used to describe the current City approach to the community inventory in Table 1.

17


TABLE 3. INTERNATIONAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

Methodology ICLEI - International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol

(http://www.icleiusa.org/library/documents/draft-iclei-lg-ghg-emissions-analysis-protocol-4-21-08)

General

Description/

Origin

This draft protocol from ICLEI was released in 2008. It addresses emissions from

local government operations as well as the community as a whole. To date, this is the

only methodology reviewed that specifically addresses the design of an inventory for a

community.

Supporting or

Compatible

Methodologies

The International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol references

the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WRI/WBCSD) GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting

Standard (Revised Edition) and IPCC as influences in its development. Compatibility

requirements for ISO14064-1 and GRI are also discussed in the Appendix.

Target User Local government and communities

Approach to

Community

Inventories

This methodology provides boundary definitions and scope considerations that

recognize and address the unique challenges faced by a community in developing a

GHG inventory.

Level of Adoption

for Community

Inventories

The level of adoption for this particular protocol is not known. However, there is a

protocol under cooperative development by the California Climate Action Registry,

The Climate Registry and ICLEI that is likely to be very similar to this protocol. A

protocol with such backing is likely to earn wide adoption.

Provided Software

Tools or Support

ICLEI is collaborating with the Clinton Foundation and Microsoft to develop a next

generation online tool to replace CACP. This tool is scheduled to be available in

2009.

http://www.icleiusa.org/library/documents/draft-iclei-lg-ghg-emissions-analysis-protocol-4-21-08

18


TABLE 4. THE CLIMATE REGISTRY

Methodology The Climate Registry (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf)

General

Description/

Origin

The Climate Registry (TCR) provides a registry for voluntary reporting of greenhouse

gas emissions including standardized reporting protocols, an online tool for emission

reporting, and verification requirements. The states, provinces, and tribes that are

members of TCR cover 80 percent of the populations of the U.S. and Canada. TCR

is positioning for its methodologies and programs to be incorporated into future

mandatory reporting requirements.

Supporting or

Compatible

Methodologies

TCR’s General Reporting Protocol (GRP) is based on World Resources Institute and

the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) GHG

Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition), ISO14064-1,

The California Climate Action Registry, and U.S. EPA’s Climate Leaders.

Target User Businesses, local governments, and other organizations with finite structures

Approach to

Community

Inventories

TCR currently supports the reporting of emissions from local government operations

but not the community as a whole.

Level of Adoption

for Community

Inventories

At least 13 local governments are currently members of TCR, but have not yet

registered inventories, including Austin, TX; Davis, CA; and Portland, OR. No

communities are members since community reporting is not supported.

Provided Software

Tools or Support

The Climate Registry Information System provides online calculation/reporting for

Reporters. Some additional supporting documents and spreadsheets are available.

TCR also provides a phone hotline for technical assistance.

http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf

19


TABLE 5. GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE

Methodology Global Reporting Initiative (http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/)

General

Description/

Origin

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides a framework for voluntary reporting

of numerous indicators related to economic, environmental, and social sustainability.

Over 900 organizations submitted their reports to the GRI in 2008. The following

indicators relate to GHG emissions:

EN16: Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight

EN17: Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight

EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions

achieved

Supporting or

Compatible

Methodologies

GRI’s greenhouse gas related indicators rely wholly upon World Resources Institute

and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD)

GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition) and

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2001, Working

Group I: The Scientific Basis for GHG accounting practices.


Approach to

Community

Inventories

GRI currently supports the reporting of emissions from local government operations

but not the community as a whole.

Level of Adoption

for Community

Inventories

Five local governments in Austria, Australia and New Zealand completed reporting in

2008.

Provided Software

Tools or Support

GRI does not provide any tools specifically related to the GHG indicators but the

GHG Protocol does.

http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/

20


TABLE 6. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING STANDARD

Methodology GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard

(http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf)

General

Description/

Origin

The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard is a foundational GHG inventory

protocol that is highly referenced and applied by the other methodologies described

in this section. The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard is a guide for

companies to quantify and report GHG emissions. No reporting is required under

this methodology.

Supporting or

Compatible

Methodologies

The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard was a leader amongst GHG

inventory standards. It forms the basis for U.S. EPA’s Climate Leaders, California

Climate Action Registry, the Chicago Climate Exchange and numerous other

emissions reductions programs, registries, national initiatives, and trading programs.


Approach to

Community

Inventories

The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard currently supports the reporting

of emissions from local government operations but not the community as a whole.

Level of Adoption

for Community

Inventories

Since reporting is not a requirement of the Corporate Accounting and Reporting

Standard, it is difficult to ascertain the level to which it may have been adapted to

community inventories.

Provided Software

Tools or Support

The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard provides a number of worksheets

to support the calculation of emissions from certain activities or industry sectors.

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf

21


TABLE 7. DEMAND-CENTERED, HYBRID LIFE-CYCLE APPROACH

Methodology A Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology for City-Scale Greenhouse

Gas Inventories

Anu Ramaswami, Tim Hillman, Bruce Janson, Mark Reiner and Gregg Thomas

Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Colorado Denver and the

Department of Environmental Health, City and County of Denver

(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702992q)

General

Description/

Origin

In preparing an inventory for the City of Denver, this approach addresses some of a

community’s key impacts that extend beyond the boundary of the community.

Supporting or

Compatible

Methodologies

ICLEI methodologies are applied for traditional direct emissions.

Target User Communities of many scales, but data for some approaches may only be available for

metropolitan areas.

Approach to

Community

Inventories

This approach takes the fundamental ICLEI approach to direct community

emissions. However, this inventory adds two unique features that may influence

future protocol development as it relates to the spatial aspect of communities:

Transportation: This approach recognizes that a community shares in the

responsibility for transportation emissions that may extend beyond the

community’s boundary. For example, under this approach Fort Collins would be

allocated a portion of vehicle commuting miles to Denver and other regional

cities. Similarly, a portion of airline emissions from flights at Denver

International Airport might be allocated to Fort Collins.

Key urban materials: This approach includes the embodied or upstream

emissions of key urban materials (transportation fuels, water, food, and cement)

in the community inventory. This recognizes the community’s demand for these

materials and responsibility for a portion of their life-cycle emissions.

Level of Adoption

for Community

Inventories

City of Denver

Provided Software

Tools or Support

None, but approach is well described in cited paper.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702992q

22


3.4. Comparison of Methodologies

In addition to a general review of available methodologies to insure that the City is applying the most

relevant approach globally a more detailed consideration of the following topics is also undertaken:

Organizational Boundary

Scope and Avoiding Double Counting

Emission Factors by Source

Included Greenhouse Gases

Emissions Sources Not Currently Accounted For

Units

Compatibility of Reporting Schedules

Possible Redistribution of Emissions

Treatment of Reductions

Relationship to Climate Wise

The following sections discuss the City’s approach to these topics in the current community

inventory, consider the approaches recommended by the surveyed, and present options for the City

that will best facilitate consistent, transparent reporting of the community inventory and reductions as

the City seeks to measure progress toward climate protection goals.

3.4.1. Organizational Boundary

The organizational boundary is a challenging definition even for organizations with clear operational

or financial control over GHG emission generating activities. For a community, defining the

organizational boundary is further complicated because no one entity is operationally or financially

responsible for the emissions sources in the community.

The ICLEI/CACP methodology that the City currently applies to developing its community

inventory provides little direction in defining organizational boundaries. Two factors that may

influence a community in selecting a boundary under this methodology are the boundaries of the

available data sources for inventorying emissions and the boundaries of the jurisdiction’s influence.

Data for a community inventory will be collected from numerous sources including utilities, regional

governments, and planning organizations each of which may have a different way of geographically

classifying data such as zip code, municipality, tax district, or proprietary coordinates. Hence, the

inventory may tend to take the shape of the available data sources and the boundaries may even differ

slightly between emission sources. Another approach to boundaries is to define them based on the

limits of the community’s policy and programmatic influence. This can be a pragmatic approach

because it doesn’t make sense to inventory emissions the community has limited influence to reduce.

The community inventory for Fort Collins tends to take a hybrid approach by inventorying emissions

within City Limits. Fortunately, this boundary also coincides with boundaries within the data sets that

contribute to the inventory.

Electricity – Fort Collins Utilities (FCU) is the electricity provider for the City and serves

23


accounts within City Limits. There are a small number of accounts outside of City Limits

served by FCU, most of which are in the area of Link Lane, which are also included in the

inventory. Some areas recently annexed by the City are not yet served by FCU but will be

included soon (per communications with Fort Collins Utilities staff). There are some

electricity accounts served by Xcel Energy that are also included based on the boundary

defined under natural gas.

Natural Gas – Xcel Energy provides natural gas service to Fort Collins. Xcel’s premise

number includes a tax ID portion that identifies the entity to which Xcel will pay franchise

fees for that premise. Using this tax ID, Xcel can identify the accounts it serves within City

Limits (per communications with Xcel Energy staff).

Solid waste – Solid waste service is provided by numerous private haulers. The City of

Fort Collins collects data on hauling that is conducted within City Limits (per conversations

with City of Fort Collins staff).

Transportation – The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) modeling data that supports the

calculation of GHG emissions from transportation activities comes from the Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment’s definition of the Fort Collins

Metropolitan Attainment/Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide. This boundary is one

and the same with the City’s growth management area (GMA), which generally extends

slightly beyond the City Limits. See Appendix B for a map of City Limits and the GMA.

The other methodologies surveyed recognize a number of approaches to boundaries (

24


Table 8) including:

Control: consists of all sources under the control, both wholly and partially owned, of the

jurisdiction conducting the inventory (The Climate Registry)

Equity: consists of all sources in which the jurisdiction conducting the inventory has an

equity share, emissions are reported according to jurisdiction’s share (The Climate Registry)

Geopolitical: consists of a physical area or region over which the local government has

jurisdictional authority (International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis

Protocol)

25


TABLE 8. ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARY APPROACHES

Methodology Approach(s)

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis

Protocol (from ICLEI)

Geopolitical

The Climate Registry (TCR) Control or equity

Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (from WRI)

Also applied by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Control or equity

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Effectively geopolitical plus transportation

impacts that cross the boundary and the

upstream impacts of key urban materials

The boundaries proposed by The Climate Registry or the GRI are clearly targeted at businesses and

other organizations with clear ownership or operational structures. These boundaries are not readily

adapted to the community where emission sources are controlled and owned by businesses and

individuals throughout the community.

The International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol recognizes this challenge

and provides the geopolitical boundary definition as a resolution. For the City of Fort Collins, the

current community boundary of City Limits could be retained under this definition. While emissions

in the GMA may one day be included in the community inventory through annexation, the lack of

jurisdiction that the City has over this region makes inclusion prior to annexation unattractive.

However, reduction efforts that have benefits in the GMA should be considered to realize

opportunities to reduce the impact of future annexations.

To account for some of the community’s biggest GHG emission impacts that occur outside the

geopolitical boundary but still might be influenced by City of Fort Collins policies and programs, the

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle approach provides protocols for including some

transportation and upstream material emissions that occur outside of the geopolitical boundary.

Inclusion of these emissions is compatible with the International Local Government GHG

Emissions Analysis Protocol. More discussion of these emissions is provided in Section 3.4.2.

3.4.2. Scope and Avoiding Double Counting

Scopes were introduced in the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard as a way to categorize

emissions to increase transparency and reduce the chance of double-counting emissions between

reporting entities. The three scopes are generally defined as:

Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions (excepting certain biomass combustion emissions) – These

emissions are primarily the result of onsite or mobile combustion of fuels. Another way to

26


think of Scope 1 is that a collection bag could be placed over an exhaust pipe to capture

these emissions.

Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of energy including

electricity, steam, heating or cooling. Like Scope 1 emissions, Scope 2 emissions are typically

the outcome of the combustion of a fuel. However, these emissions do not occur within

the boundary of the entity and are fundamentally the responsibility of another entity such as

a power plant. In the case of a plant, these emissions are Scope 1 for the entity generating

the energy.

Scope 3: All other indirect emissions upstream and downstream of the entity conducting the

inventory. This Scope is typically the catch-all category for all the emissions that an entity

wants to account for, usually as a way of elevating the priority of a reduction program, but

do not fall under the previous two categories. As an example, this can include the emissions

associated with the extraction, processing, and transportation of a material or fuel that occur

outside of the entity’s boundary.

Between two entities, Scope 1 emissions are designed to be added without concern of double

counting. However, to avoid double counting Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions are not to be added

between entities. For example, the electricity consumption of a business is a Scope 2 emission, but

the very same emissions would also appear in the inventory of the electricity generator, the operator

of the power plant, as Scope 1 emissions. Double counting would occur if the Scope 2 emissions

from the user were added to the Scope 1 emissions of generator. Similarly, Scope 3 emissions cannot

be aggregated with other entities because they will be the Scope 1 emissions of an entity somewhere

upstream or downstream.

While this scope approach provides a good foundation for avoiding double counting at the level of

the traditional organization, it begins to breakdown when aggregating emissions for a community

inventory. For example, in a community inventory, are the emissions from natural gas combusted in

the furnaces of businesses in the community Scope 1 – direct, as they might be treated if we view the

community like a traditional entity? Or are they Scope 3 – indirect to avoid double counting if any of

those businesses in the community ever conduct an independent inventory? Due to this challenge,

the corporate targeted definition of scope, as traditionally applied, is not an appropriate way to define

scope at the community level.

The International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (from ICLEI) offers an

alternative approach that treats the community as a stand-alone entity, like a business, with fairly

traditional definition of emission scopes. This facilitates programs that would seek to aggregate

emissions from other communities reporting under this standard. For example, a registry could be

created that solely housed community inventories created in this fashion. The consequence is that

the connection to the traditional scope definition that an individual business might use is invalidated.

Thus, in the previously stated example, the emissions from natural gas combustion in a business’s

furnace would be reported as Scope 1 under both the community and business inventories and the

27


Scope 1 emissions between these inventories could no longer be aggregated. Consolidating emissions

in a community specific forum, as opposed to devising a compatible scope protocol that allows

traditional organizations and communities to report using the same definition of scope without

double counting, may better facilitate collaboration and policy between communities and reduce the

reporting burden on all involved.

FIGURE 2. PROPOSED COMMUNITY SCOPES

(SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS PROTOCOL, ICLEI)

29


The concept of scope is not emphasized in the current community inventory. Therefore, the

challenge will not be to shift from an existing definition but to identify an appropriate definition for

future inventories. As the only methodology to date that directly addresses the needs of communities

the International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol offers a definition of

community scope from which to start (Figure 2). This community scope definition is likely to be

similar to that of the jointly developed methodology for communities that is scheduled for release in

Summer 2009 by the California Climate Action Registry, The Climate Registry, and ICLEI.

This definition treats the community largely as it would treat a more traditional organization like a

business. The definition facilitates ready aggregation between communities which enhances

opportunities for regional policy development and collaboration between communities. The

community inventory will be understood to include all of the major emissions for which the Fort

Collins community is responsible. Therefore, the emissions of other entities in the community that

may inventory or report/register emissions are understood to be included in, and are not to be

aggregated with, the community inventory.

Between those individual entities in the community that may inventory their own emissions, the

traditional definition of scope should largely protect from double counting between their inventories.

Some of these entities participating in GHG inventory or reporting programs include:

Anheuser-Busch – EPA Climate Leaders

Colorado State University – American College and University Presidents’ Climate

Commitment

Fort Collins Utilities – GRI

New Belgium Brewing – Chicago Climate Exchange

Platte River Power Authority – The Climate Registry

However, even among these entities there will be challenges. Take for example the reporting of

emissions from electricity generated by PRPA, sold to the City of Fort Collins Utilities, and then

consumed by end-users throughout the community. PRPA will be registering their emissions

through The Climate Registry and City of Fort Collins Utilities will be applying the Corporate

Accounting and Reporting Standard to report emissions through the Global Reporting Initiative.

There are a number of scenarios for how electricity emissions might be treated in these inventories

depending on the organizational boundary approach that PRPA and FCU select. The Climate

Registry’s Utility Reporting Protocol is also still being finalized and may provide additional guidance.

One possible scenario is presented in Figure 3.

30


There are many good forums for the organizations in the community that are participating in

greenhouse gas inventories and reporting such as Climate Wise and the Carbon Think Tank. These

forums may provide a good opportunity for these organizations to compare and contrast their

inventories to address boundary issues and confirm that double-counting is not occurring.

There are a number of Scope 3 emissions sources that are suggested for potential inclusion in the

inventory by the International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (Figure 2).

These include upstream emissions such as those involved in the production of transportation fuels.

This interest is compatible with the City’s interest in expanding certain emissions accounted for in the

community inventory to facilitate the introduction of policy and reduction measures that relate to

these emissions. The ICLEI protocol acknowledges many of these sources and the Demand-

Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology (Ramaswami) provides protocols for some of these key

inclusions. These possibilities are discussed further in Section 3.4.5.

3.4.3. Emission Factors by Source

Any GHG inventory methodology eventually rests on accepted emission factors for converting

activity data to a quantity of GHG emissions. One of the biggest considerations in reviewing

alternative methodologies for the community inventory will be the impact that the transition would

have on the magnitude of emissions reported. Many of these numbers have been reported

Total Emissions from Electricity Generated by Platte River Power for Fort Collins

(PRPA Scope 1)

PRPA Transmission Losses

(PRPA Scope 2)

Electricty Sold to Fort Collins Utilites for Resale

(FCU Scope 3)

Fort Collins Utilities Distribution Losses

(FCU Scope 2)

Electricity Resold by Fort Collins Utilities to End-

users

(End-user Scope 2)

Electricity Consumed by Community

(Community Scope 2)

FIGURE 3. SCENARIO FOR TREATMENT OF EMISISONS FROM ELECTRICITY IN VARIOUS INVENTORIES

Electricity Consumption Included in Community Inventory

(Community Scope 2)

31


extensively to the public, City Council, and other stakeholders. Significant changes in magnitude,

even if appropriate in the framework of a new methodology or newly revealed research in this rapidly

changing field, still creates uncertainty for the audiences of the inventory.

The surveyed methodologies rely heavily on the factors made available by the EPA for the U.S.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory and the IPCC which is ultimately the guiding methodology

behind the National Inventory (Table 9). With few exceptions, most of the methodologies surveyed

are either emission factor neutral, in which case the methodology supplies a framework and protocol

but may not specify emission factors, or are relying on similar sources for required emission factors.

TABLE 9. EMISSION FACTOR APPLIED

Methodology Electricity Natural Gas Transportation Solid Waste

International Local

Government GHG

Emissions Analysis

Protocol (from

ICLEI)

Recognizes factors

developed for a

local utility

Not specified Not specified IPCC First Order

Decay Model

The Climate

Registry (TCR)

EPA eGRID EPA National

Inventory, IPCC

EPA National

Inventory, IPCC

Owner/operator

of landfill only:

IPCC First Order

Decay Model

Corporate

Accounting and

Reporting Standard

(from WRI)

Also applied by

Global Reporting

Initiative (GRI)

EPA eGRID IPCC IPCC, Bureau of

Transportation

Statistics

Scope 3, not

specifically

addressed

Demand-Centered,

Hybrid Life-Cycle

ICLEI ICLEI ICLEI ICLEI

The best understanding of the impacts of emission factors comes from a consideration on a source-

by-source basis. Each of the current emissions sources in the community inventory and their

associated factors are considered against the factors commonly applied in the surveyed

methodologies. The Climate Registry in particular will be used for comparison because it is emerging

as a nationally leading methodology and has been recently updated.

Electricity

32


The community inventory currently applies a well-documented electricity emission factor that is

determined by Platte River Power Authority without the support of an outside methodology. This

differs from most of the surveyed methodologies that rely on the EPA’s eGRID database to

determine appropriate factors on a regional basis (Table 10).

TABLE 10. ELECTRICITY EMISSION FACTORS

Emission Factor Source

CO2

(lb/MWh)

CH4

(lb/MWh)

N2O

(lb/MWh)

Combined

Factor CO2e

(lb/MWh)

Recently updated

wholesale factor from

Platte River Power

Authority (3/19/2009)

1,718 0 0 1,718

WECC Rockies Region

EPA eGRID v1.1

(based on 2005 emissions)

1,883 0.02288 0.02875 1,892

The recently released PRPA factor is about 8% less than the regional eGRID factor that would be

applied by the TCR methodology to electricity consumed in this region. However, this margin will

decrease when additional GHGs are included in the PRPA factor. The PRPA factor currently only

includes CO2 emissions while the regional factor also includes the impacts of CH4 and N2O. As

PRPA completes their 2008 TCR reporting under the Utility Reporting Protocol, data will become

available for all six primary GHGs and some additional impacts are anticipated from CH4 and SF6

(communication with PRPA).

The primary advantage of using the PRPA localized factor versus that of the regional electric grid

factor from eGRID is that local efforts to influence electric generation policy and the responsiveness

of a municipally-owned utility in adopting less carbon-intensive sources will be reflected in the

localized factor. The regional eGRID factor covers too large an area to reflect local changes in the

generation portfolio. To comply with Council Resolution 2009-002, the localized factor will be the

only one that reflects the substitution of fossil fuel based electricity with renewable or clean resources.

The disadvantage of using the localized factor is that it will not be congruent with the factors applied

by local entities such as Fort Collins Utilities when they participate in GHG programs that require the

use of the eGRID factors.

For a discussion of the factors relevant to quantifying the impact of reduction measures see Section

3.4.10.

33


Natural Gas

The community inventory currently applies a natural gas emission factor from the original ICLEI

spreadsheets that preceded the release of the CACP software. This differs from most of the surveyed

methodologies that rely on the IPCC and the national inventory guidelines for a natural gas factor

(Table 10).

TABLE 11. NATURAL GAS EMISSION FACTORS

Emission Factor

Source

CO2

(ton/MMBtu)

CH4

(lb/MMBtu)

N2O

(lb/MMBtu)

Combined

Factor CO2e

(tons/MMBtu)

Current inventory 0.0616 0 0 0.0616

Climate Wise 0.0591 0 0 0.0591

The Climate Registry (TCR)

Assuming heat content of 975-1,000 Btu/Standard Cubic Foot

Residential 0.0595 0.011 0.0002 0.0597

Commercial 0.0595 0.011 0.0002 0.0597

Industrial 0.0595 0.011 0.0002 0.0596

Natural gas combustion factors from The Climate Registry have the same emission rate for CO2

regardless of how the gas is combusted. However, some difference in CH4 and N2O emissions are

recognized depending on the nature of the combustion technology or, more generally, on the sector

in which the gas is consumed. The current inventory factor is about 3% higher than the

residential/commercial factor from The Climate Registry.

In the case of natural gas, the difference between the current emission factor and that commonly

used in other surveyed methodologies is minimal. However, for the sake of consistency it may be

appropriate to adjust the community inventory factor to match that of surveyed methodologies.

Efforts to mitigate emissions from natural gas consumption can be quantified using the same factors

applied for the inventory.

Transportation

The transportation portion of the community inventory relies on three data sets:

A composition of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle class from the regional

Metropolitan Planning Organization’s modeling software

34


Fuel economy by vehicle class from ICLEI’s CACP software

Emission factors by fuel type from ICLEI’s CACP software

This approach apportions total community VMT to each vehicle class, estimates fuel consumed

based on the fuel economy for that vehicle class, and then calculates the emissions for the volume of

fuel consumed. Generally, this approach is sound and consistent with the model for estimating

community emissions established in the CACP software. However, the fuel economies by vehicle

class and emissions by fuel type from the CACP software may be outdated. It is not likely that there

has been much change in the emission factors for common fuels, but the fuel economy of vehicles

has changed since they were established in the original inventory in 1997.

Unfortunately, The Climate Registry does not serve as a good benchmark for potential improvements

in the current methodology. The Registry’s approach is targeted at users with much more detailed

knowledge of the fleet in question, in some cases down to specific model years and emissions control

equipment installed. This level of detail is not available for the community “fleet” and makes

comparison very difficult between the factors incorporated in these approaches. Unfortunately, none

of the methodologies that have been updated more recently than ICLEI’s CACP offers applicable

guidance in this case.

The International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol from ICLEI suggests that

upcoming guidance from ICLEI, perhaps in the form of the jointly developed methodology, will

include updated direction and emission factors for the community transportation sector. In the mean

time, efforts could be made to update the average fleet fuel economy using fleet averages from the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Reductions in emissions from the transportation will generally be reflected in reduced VMT, a shift in

the composition toward more efficient vehicles, or a shift toward less carbon-intensive vehicles. On a

large enough scale, these reduction projects will be reflected in the data sets mentioned above. The

benefits of smaller projects may not be reflected in the inventory but can be calculated on a project-

level basis.

Solid Waste

As a Scope 3 emission that is downstream of most entities completing inventories, inclusion of GHG

emissions from the disposal of solid waste are not required by most methodologies (Table 9) and are

therefore not treated in significant detail in those methodologies. The two exceptions to this

exclusion are owners/operators of landfills and communities under the International Local

Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol. Most of the surveyed methodologies that address

solid waste now recognize the IPCC’s First Order Decay (FOD) Model as the accepted approach to

calculating landfill GHG emissions for those organizations that must.

The current community inventory uses the built in functionality of ICLEI’s CACP software to

calculate emissions from solid waste. This model is based on the FOD Model, also called Waste in

35


Place. However, the calculation as applied in ICLEI’s CACP applies default national values instead

of taking advantage of the inputs to the model that further specify the emission factor to a particular

landfill.

A spreadsheet tool is now available from a number of sources, including the California Air Resources

Board, which implements the FOD Model and all of the model inputs for developing a specific

emission factor for a landfill. Inputs to the model include a decay factor based on average annual

rainfall; state in which the landfill is located; and quantity of waste deposited, daily compost cover,

and sludge cover by year for the known history of the landfill. This Model can be applied to develop

an emission factor more specific to the Larimer County Landfill. Additional modeling and/or

measurement of landfill methane emissions may be available as a component of the proposed landfill

gas capture project to corroborate the FOD Model.

Should a landfill gas capture system be installed at Larimer County Landfill, the guidance associated

with the FOD Model also provides direction on quantifying emissions with a system in place.

Landfill gas collection systems are known to be less than 100 percent effective in capturing generated

gas. The EPA’s AP 42 Emission Factors: Solid Waste Disposal documents reported collection

efficiencies ranging from 60-85 percent with an average of 75 percent recommended for estimating

the performance of systems where site-specific surface sampling data is not available.

Another solid waste disposal method that is gaining in popularity and can potentially contribute to

GHG emissions is composting. Possible emissions from composting are not currently included in

the inventory but are considered in Section 3.4.5. Typically the emissions from composting organic

matter are going to be lower than those of disposing of the same matter in the landfill. As a result,

composting can be an attractive diversion option for reducing GHG emissions (see Section 3.4.10).

3.4.4. Included Greenhouse Gases

There are a wide variety of gases that may contribute to global warming and the current inventory

considers primarily carbon dioxide and a few sources of methane. However, over 80% of U.S. GHG

emissions in 2007 were the result of just carbon dioxide. When methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide

(N2O) are considered, 98% of U.S. GHG emissions in 2007 are accounted for. (2009 Draft U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory)

While the contribution of gases other than these three may be minor, the surveyed methodologies

generally require the inclusion of the six major GHG gases (Table 12) as defined in the Kyoto

Protocol: CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur

hexafluoride (SF6).

The current community inventory includes CO2 only for electricity and natural gas. As discussed in

Section 3.4.3, the electricity and natural gas factors can be updated to include possible contributions

of CH4, N2O, and SF6 as appropriate.

36


The current inventory for solid waste includes only CH4, which is consistent with the solid waste

approaches in the surveyed methodologies.

Transportation fuels calculations conducted using factors from ICLEI will correctly include

contributions from CO2, CH4, and N2O which is also consistent with surveyed methodologies.

The emissions of additional CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 may result from the inclusion of

some of the emission sources currently not accounted for in the community inventory. The decision

of whether to include these emissions will depend on their significance to the inventory as discussed

in Section 3.4.5.

TABLE 12. INCLUDED GREENHOUSE GASES

Methodology Included Greenhouse Gases

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis

Protocol (from ICLEI)

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

The Climate Registry (TCR) CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, others

optional



CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle CO2, CH4, N2O

3.4.5. Emissions Sources Not Currently Accounted For

There are a number of possible emissions sources in the community that are not accounted for in the

current community inventory. The two big issues to consider in determining whether to include

these emission sources are the potential impact on the accuracy of the inventory if they are excluded

and the desire to pursue mitigation opportunities in these areas. In order to reasonably include

reductions in these areas toward the community’s climate goals, the emissions from these sources

need to be included in the inventory. Emissions sources not currently in the inventory are described

in Table 13 along with their likely treatment under surveyed methodologies and a qualitative estimate

of their magnitude relative to that of the current inventory.

Of the 13 identified emission sources not currently accounted for in the inventory, the estimated

magnitude of emissions are negligible for 7, small for 3, and medium for 3. While these estimations

of impact are highly qualitative, they may suggest priority in addressing these emission sources.

For those 10 emission sources estimated to have a small or negligible impact on inventory emissions,

the surveyed methodologies suggest two similar approaches. ICLEI’s International Local

Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol recommends a de minimis approach to

measurement and reporting which states that for one or more emission sources, involving one or

37


more greenhouse gases, which represent less than 5 percent of the total inventory when aggregated,

measurement and reporting are not required. The Climate Registry takes a similar approach but

requires that a simplified estimation be conducted to demonstrate that the sources in question are

indeed less than 5 percent of total Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent

basis. The Climate Registry then requires that estimate to be reported as part of the inventory.

38


TABLE 13. EMISSIONS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN CURRENT INVENTORY

Emission

Source Description

Treatment

Under

Surveyed

Methodologies

Estimated

Magnitude

Relative to

Inventory

Airline travel

serving the needs

of residents

Apportion emissions from airplane fuel consumed

at airports in the region that serve local residents

to the community inventory. See discussion later

in this section.

Optional by

ICLEI

community

protocol,

recommended

by Demand-

Centered,

Hybrid Life-

Cycle

Medium

Airline travel

originating within

the community

Include emissions from fuel consumed by planes

still operating from the Fort Collins Airport, if

any.

Required Negligible

Beer production The CO2 produced during fermentation is a

biogenic emission source which is not included in

inventory but as separate line-item.

Separate

reporting

Negligible

Composting Mostly aerobic process that generates biogenic

CO2 which is not included in inventory but as

separate line-item. Anaerobic decomposition due

to excessive water or insufficient aeration can

result in CH4 and N2O emissions.

CH4 and N2O

emissions

required

Negligible

Biomass

combustion

Combustion of biomass generates biogenic CO2

which is not included in inventory but as separate

line-item. However, small quantities of CH4 and

N2O emissions also result.

CH4 and N2O

emissions

required

Negligible

39


Emission

Source Description

Treatment

Under

Surveyed

Methodologies

Estimated

Magnitude

Relative to

Inventory

Commuting

beyond inventory

boundary

The current inventory only accounts for on-road

vehicle travel within the boundary of the Growth

Management Area. Significant resident travel

occurs in the form of commuting past this

boundary to other regional cities such as Denver.

See discussion later in this section.

Optional by

ICLEI

community

protocol,

recommended

by Demand-

Centered,

Hybrid Life-

Cycle

Medium

Fertilizer

application

Application of fertilizers containing nitrogen leads

to emissions of N2O through a number of

mechanisms.

N2O emissions

required

Negligible

Livestock Livestock generate emissions of CH4 and N2O

through enteric fermentation and the management

of manure.

CH4 and N2O

emissions

required

Negligible

Non-road and

off-road vehicles

and equipment

This emission source includes recreational

vehicles, agricultural equipment, construction

equipment, industrial equipment, residential and

commercial property maintenance equipment and

stationary combustion of fuels in back-up

generators. Basically this is the consumption of

transportation fuels not captured in VMT

modeling.

Required Small

Propane The combustion of propane in residential,

commercial, and industrial applications.

Required Small

Refrigeration

equipment

Refrigeration equipment including air

conditioners, refrigerators and freezers, and some

fire suppression systems may contain HFCs or

PFCs of which some quantity is lost to the

atmosphere through maintenance and regular

operation.

Required Negligible

40


Emission

Source Description

Treatment

Under

Surveyed

Methodologies

Estimated

Magnitude

Relative to

Inventory

Wastewater

treatment

Methane emissions from wastewater treatment

that may not be captured or completely

combusted by flaring system. Carbon dioxide

emissions are currently included but should not be

because this is a biogenic emission source.

Required by

ICLEI

community

protocol

Small

Upstream

emissions of key

urban materials

A majority of the life-cycle emissions in the

products and materials consumed by the

community occur upstream of their consumption

in extraction, processing, and transportation of the

material. See discussion later in this section.

Optional by

ICLEI

community

protocol,

recommended

by Demand-

Centered,

Hybrid Life-

Cycle

Medium

In either case, some estimation of magnitude must be conducted for these emission sources to

confirm that they are in aggregate less than 5 percent of the total inventory. ICLEI’s de minimis

approach of not reporting these estimated emissions recognizes that the data collected in support of

some of these emission estimates may be suspect or a proxy of regional or national averages. As

such, not reporting emissions based on this lower quality data is probably the most appropriate

approach for the community inventory.

The 3 medium impact emission sources that are currently not accounted for are addressed by the

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle approach discussed in rest of this section.

The work of the Climate Task Force revealed that some of the greatest opportunities for emissions

reduction lie in the solid waste sector and the upstream emissions associated with the extraction and

manufacture of materials. Based on the approach embodied in the CACP software, the historical

practice has been to account for these reductions due to upstream emissions. However, as the

Climate Task Force work revealed, this creates an incongruity at the climate action plan level when

measures claim reduction on upstream emissions that are not included in the inventory. The

Demand Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology (Ramaswami) provides an approach to

incorporating these upstream emissions for key urban materials and for transportation that crosses

the boundary of the inventory.

The Demand Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology made its inaugural appearance in the

41


inventory for the City of Denver. In addition to painting a more complete picture of community

impacts outside the boundary of the community inventory, the inclusion of these additional emission

sources opens these source areas to policies and programs in the City of Denver’s climate action

planning.

The allocation of commuter surface miles outside of Denver’s boundary was achieved using the same

transportation modeling data that supports the on-road vehicle emission calculations in the

community but instead allocates 50 percent of mileage to destinations outside the community to the

community inventory. In the case of Denver, this same traffic analysis zone data supported an

estimate of the allocation of airline travel at DIA to Denver’s inventory.

Potential reductions related to these transportation impacts outside the boundary do not appear in

the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan and therefore urgent action to include these emissions in the

community inventory is not necessary.

The City of Denver inventory also included the upstream, or embodied, emissions in the key urban

materials: water, food, concrete, and transportation fuels. By including these emission sources,

Denver is able to include measures in its climate action plan that address the reduction of these

emissions (e.g. local sourcing of materials). The following describes how these key urban materials

relate to the current City of Fort Collins community inventory and Climate Action Plan:

Water: Emissions embodied in water, from the upstream treatment and pumping required

for delivery, are largely included in the community inventory since the majority of the City’s

water system lies within the inventory boundary or was specifically included by means of a

request for data from Xcel Energy. Though the Climate Action Plan recognizes the

embodied emissions in water, measures related to water conservation were not emphasized

in the plan because of their relatively minimal climate benefit.

Food: The upstream emissions related to food production are not currently included in the

community inventory. Measures related to reducing these emissions were not frequently

suggested during the Climate Task Force, but the inclusion of these emissions in the

inventory might elevate their importance in climate action planning. Considering the current

community momentum for local foods, this could be an area of opportunity.

Concrete: The upstream emissions related to concrete production are not currently

included in the community inventory. Measures related to reducing these emissions were

not frequently suggested during the Climate Task Force work, but the inclusion of these

emissions in the inventory might elevate their importance in climate action planning.

Transportation Fuels: The upstream emissions related to the extraction, production, and

delivery of transportation fuels are not included in the community inventory. Many

transportation measures were recommended during the climate action planning process and

there is a strong desire to implement these measures for both their climate benefits and

other co-benefits related to air quality and reduced congestion. Including the upstream

42


emissions of transportation fuels could help to elevate the climate benefits of transportation

measures in the Climate Action Plan.

The Fort Collins Climate Action Plan currently includes measures that claim significant upstream

emission reductions due to solid waste measures involving cardboard, wood, carpet, paper,

aluminum, organics and other materials. While a portion of the emissions from these materials,

particularly that that are organic, is included in the current inventory, a majority of these emission

reductions are on upstream emissions not currently accounted for. By applying the methodology of

the Demand Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle, Fort Collins could expand its inventory to include the

upstream emissions of these materials and thus maintain their reduction potential in the Climate

Action Plan.

3.4.6. Units

The City has reported the inventory in the unit of short tons since 1997. As a result, other climate

related programs such as Climate Wise and the Climate Task Force have also adopted short tons as a

unit of measure.

The majority of other communities reporting emissions in the U.S. are also reporting in short tons.

The preference for the short ton may stem from the sense of familiarity that those preparing the

inventories have for the unit. Another benefit of the short ton is that it is familiar to the public as a

unit, while introducing the metric ton adds another layer of potential confusion to the already

challenging presentation of a GHG inventory. ICLEI’s CACP tool supports outputs in either short

or metric tons.

The movement in national and state level inventories as well as the methodologies surveyed in this

report (Table 14) is toward the metric ton as an international standard for greenhouse gas emission

reporting.

TABLE 14. REPORTING UNITS

Methodology Required Reporting Units

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Metric tons

The Climate Registry (TCR) Metric tons



Metric tons

Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Metric tons

As the City considers updating its methodology for the inventory there will be a good opportunity to

43


transition to the metric ton as the primary unit of the inventory. Short ton reporting can maintained

for continued compatibility with other City programs as they transition or for reporting to select

audiences for which short tons may still be appropriate.

3.4.7. Reporting Schedule

The City has generally updated the community inventory on an annual basis since 2000. With recent

resolutions passed by City Council, the reporting schedule has been further defined as follows:

Prepare an annual status report tracking progress toward attainment of the goals, including a

community-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and a list of quantified emission

reductions actions for the preceding calendar year (next reporting by June 2009)

Biennially, at least six months in advance of the City’s biennial budget adoption, prepare a

report evaluating progress on greenhouse gas reduction relative to established interim

milestones and recommending actions for consideration in the upcoming budget cycle (the

“Biennial Report”) (next reporting by June 2011)

The proposed reporting schedule for the community inventory is consistent with the annual

reporting required for members of The Climate Registry. The other methodologies specified do not

specify a reporting frequency.

3.4.8. Redistribution of Emissions Sectors

As the world and community response to climate change begins to ramp up, there is the potential for

significant shifts in emissions sources as new technologies are adopted. One example is the

electrification of the transportation sector. One technology that could lead to such a shift is vehicle-

to-grid (V2G), the concept of plug-in hybrid type vehicles that receive electrical energy from the grid

but may also contribute back to the grid during times of electrical peak by the operation of their

internal combustion engines. Obviously, such vehicles complicate the emission inventory by blurring

the lines between stationary electric use and the transportation sector.

The surveyed methodologies are still developing approaches to deal with one of the current

transformational changes in emission sources, the increasing penetration of renewable and low-

carbon energy sources on the grid and how to fairly account for those in the emission factors used

for electricity. None of the surveyed methodologies yet address potential transformational shifts such

as V2G.

One scenario for the adjustment to an increasing penetration of V2G-capable vehicles follows:

1. Electricity consumption by these vehicles will be accounted for in the total community

electricity consumption

2. As V2G penetration increases, VMT composition from the Metropolitan Planning

Organization modeling will be updated to reflect an increase in the miles from this vehicle

44


class

3. EPA fuel economy testing will reflect the average fuel economies of this particular vehicle

class and corresponding emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for the mobile use of

fuels will be accounted for as they are in the current inventory

4. EPA or other research will develop a second fuel economy factor that includes the

stationary run-time of the vehicle in grid-tied operation. This will allow for accounting of

additional vehicle emissions for non-mobile operation.

While accounting for the emissions in the scenario of a high penetration of V2G-capable automobiles

is not overly concerning, the introduction of this technology certainly creates issues in how inventory

results are interpreted. With the boundaries between the transportation sector and the stationary

electric consumption sector blurred, it will be necessary to estimate the portion of electric

consumption resulting from V2G applications. An approach such as the above would allow such an

estimate based on displaced transportation energy. Alternatively, other approaches such as sub-

metering of V2G applications could be used to isolate electricity consumed for transportation

applications.

3.4.9. Forecasting of Emissions

Though not specifically identified in the scope of this review, forecasting of emissions is an integral

part of converting the inventory of community GHG emissions into a useful tool for understanding

future emissions and the potential of reduction measures to meet community goals.

The current forecast for community emissions employs growth forecasts from the utilities providing

electricity and natural gas and the City’s Transportation Planning staff to estimate future emissions.

These organizations are likely applying best forecasting practices in their respective sectors to produce

reliable planning tools for their own use. These forecasts are very appropriate as applied to estimating

future community emissions. The surveyed methodologies do not address the forecasting of

emissions to future years and therefore provide no alternative guidance to the current practice.

One aspect of potential future emissions that may not be fully accounted for is the possible

annexation of areas currently in the GMA. The inclusion of portions of the GMA could significantly

impact future emissions and the interpretation of the community’s progress toward climate

protection goals.

3.4.10. Treatment of Reductions

The community currently has a need to calculate reductions in GHG emissions in a number of

contexts. The first is at the high-level in climate planning processes to evaluate the potential benefit

of various actions. As program and policies are designed and implemented, the need to quantify their

benefit becomes more significant in monitoring performance and assuring that these programs

45


contribute as expected to broader climate protection goals.

For the most part, the calculation of reductions can be carried out in a fairly straightforward manner.

For example, a program that saves a quantity of natural gas can expect a greenhouse gas reduction

based on the emission factor for natural gas times the quantity of gas saved. This is the case for most

of the reduction measures proposed in the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan.

However, there may be circumstances where reduction projects become larger and more complex

and the calculation of a reduction will require greater scrutiny. There are a number of resources

available that may be of use in these circumstances:

The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting is a complementary document to the GHG

Protocol for Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard that provides an excellent

framework for establishing the greenhouse gas reduction of a complex project. The

protocol includes guidance on selecting a boundary, baseline procedure, estimating baseline

emissions, monitoring and quantifying GHG reductions, and reporting.

The Climate Action Reserve is a complementary program to the California Climate Action

Registry. The purpose of the Reserve is to produce verifiable carbon offsets that can be sold

on the voluntary market. The Reserve currently supports offset projects from manure

biogas control systems, forestation, landfill gas collection and destruction, and urban

forestation.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) provides the methodologies to support GHG

reductions in the developing world as part of meeting the Kyoto obligations of participating

countries. The CDM includes over sixty methodologies for calculating reductions from

various measures.

The Climate Action Reserve and CDM methodologies are targeted primarily at generating offsets for

sale on voluntary markets or trading in international markets. These methodologies are likely more

involved than is required for the climate planning or program evaluation needs of Fort Collins.

However, these methodologies could be of use in confirming the benefit of larger or more complex

projects.

The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting provides an excellent framework for what to consider in

developing and evaluating a GHG reduction effort. Once again, the finer points of this protocol may

be excessive for the reduction quantification needs of Fort Collins. The document in general is a

great guide to the potential pitfalls in reduction projection quantification and reporting.

Two areas of particular interest for calculating GHG reductions include renewable energy/electricity

efficiency and the diversion of solid waste from the landfill to composting.

Renewable Energy and Reduced Electricity Consumption

With the many generation resources that contribute to the regional electric grid at any time, the

46


challenge in estimating the GHG reduction for electricity related projects is determining the emission

rate of the resources that will be backed off as a result of the project.

Reduction quantification in the community historically applied a marginal emission factor provided

by PRPA of 1,380 lb CO2/MWh. As of March 2009, PRPA has revised that recommendation to a

marginal non-baseload emission factor from EPA’s eGRID of1,618 lb CO2/MWh. Clearly, the

historically applied factor will result in conservative estimations of GHG emission reductions relative

to the recently recommended factor from the EPA.

In the EPA’s marginal non-baseload factor, the capacity factor of each resource is used to estimate its

dispatch order for the purpose of determining which resources are “marginal”. While this is not a

perfect assumption because of other factors that influence capacity factor, such as planned and un-

planned maintenance, it is a reasonable assumption. Further, all resources that do not combust fuel

are removed from the non-baseload calculation. This may explain why the factor is higher than the

factor that PRPA provided previously, which may include low/no carbon generation sources such as

hydroelectric. The EPA recommends the non-baseload factor for estimating the benefits of projects

that reduce electricity consumption.

An alternative approach to developing emissions factors for electricity reduction projects is offered in

the sector-specific guideline available from the GHG Protocol Initiative as a companion document to

the Protocol for Project Accounting. This Grid-Connected Electricity Projects guidance addresses

generation projects such as the implementation of renewables as well as energy conservation and

efficiency. While this approach may be too detailed on a project-by-project basis, it may be

appropriate for application to larger projects or as a way to corroborate the EPA sourced marginal

non-baseload factor.

Diversion of Solid Waste to Composting

Composting is an attractive alternative to landfilling of organic materials. It reduces landfill volumes,

kills pathogens in the waste, and provides a potentially valuable output for fertilizing or soil

enhancement. For the most part, composting is an aerobic process and the resultant CO2 would not

be included in a GHG inventory because it is a biogenic emission. However, with excessive moisture

or insufficient aeration, areas of anaerobic activity can occur in a compost pile and lead to the

generation of CH4 and N2O emissions that would be appropriate for inclusion in an inventory. The

potential inclusion of these emissions in the inventory is discussed in Section 3.4.5.

The potential for reduction of GHG emissions exists in the diversion of solid waste from the landfill

to composting. A landfill can be envisioned as a very poorly managed compost pile with significantly

larger portions of anaerobic decomposition than in a well-managed compost pile. As a result, the

GHG emissions from CH4 are potentially higher from organics that decompose in landfill.

The U.S. National Inventory began including fugitive emissions from the many small compost piles

nation-wide and their likely anaerobic portions in the 2008 inventory. While this could be a source of

emission factors for distributed-small composting piles, it is not appropriate for application to larger

47


centralized composting projects.

The EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM), last updated in September 2006, estimates that

compost applied to agricultural soils provides an overall carbon storage rate of 0.2 metric tons of

carbon dioxide equivalent per wet ton of organic inputs. That’s an emission rate of -0.2

MTCO2e/wet ton of input material. With the exception of leaves, the emission rates for composting

various organic materials are lower than the corresponding landfill emission rate for the same material

(Table 15).

TABLE 15. EMISSION RATES FOR ORGANICS

Material

Landfill

(MTCO2e

/short ton)

Composting

(MTCO2e

/short ton)

Food waste 1.43 -0.2

Yard waste 0.06 -0.2

Grass 0.51 -0.2

Leaves -0.3 -0.2

Branches 0.07 -0.2

ICLEI indicated in International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol that

additional guidance on composting is also forthcoming.

3.4.11. Relationship to Climate Wise Greenhouse Gas Baseline Tool

The Climate Wise program provides Partners with the Greenhouse Gas Baseline Tool, an Excel

spreadsheet designed to help Partners conduct very high-level inventories of major GHG emissions

for the purpose of awareness and goal setting. The emissions included are electricity, natural gas,

propane, mobile emissions from vehicles, airline travel, and solid waste. In the interest of

consistency, the Climate Wise program has attempted to mirror the approaches and factors used in

the community inventory.

The two notable differences are the Climate Wise factors applied for natural gas and solid waste.

The natural gas factor for Climate Wise is from the Energy-10 building modeling software and has

come to differ from the community inventory. Though these factors are similar, their differences

from each other and currently accepted methodologies should be considered.

The solid waste factor for Climate Wise is 1.5 ton CO2e/ton of waste and comes from EPA’s

WARM model. This factor is a national average for municipal solid waste disposed of in managed

48


landfills without methane capture. It was selected because the composition of Climate Wise Partner

waste streams is not generally known and this was a simple way to establish a factor. This is

significantly higher than the factor applied in the community inventory of 0.43 tons CO2e/ton of

waste which comes from inputs into the CACP software.

Climate Wise makes an effort to review and update factors annually. Next year, the program may

roll-out the baseline tool through the new MyClimateWise web portal for partners and this will be a

good opportunity to include updates to natural gas and solid waste factors that return them to

consistency with the community inventory.

49


Appendix A – Acronyms

CACP – Clean Air and Climate Protection software from ICLEI

CCAR – California Climate Action Registry

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FCU – Fort Collins Utilities

GHG – Greenhouse gas(es)

GMA – Growth management area

GRI – Global Reporting Initiative

ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO14064 – International Standardization Organization 14064

NACAA – National Association of Clean Air Agencies

TCR – The Climate Registry

VMT – Vehicle miles traveled

WBCSD – World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WRI – World Resources Institute

50


Addendum – Research of Potential Inventory Modifications

Natural Gas Emission Factor

As indicated in Section 3.4.3, The Climate Registry applies different emission factors for natural gas

than those from ICLEI that were applied in the original inventory. The Climate Registry’s factors for

residential, commercial, and industrial consumption are indicated in the following tables.

Community consumption of natural gas in 2007 was 35,289,770 therms, 14,110,580 therms, and

30,303,208 therms for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, respectively. Applying the

above factors to the appropriate sectors yields emissions of 210,666 tCO2e, 84,234 tCO2e, and

180,618 tCO2e, for respective sectors. Total emissions with The Climate Registry factors are 475,518

tCO2e, 15,465 tCO2e less than the emissions under the ICLEI factors that were previously applied.

This is equivalent to a 0.6% reduction over the 2007 community inventory.

TCR Residential

GHG

Emissions

Factor (kg

GHG/MMBtu)

Emissions

Factor (lb

GHG/MMBtu)

Emissions

Factor

(tons/MMBtu) GWP

Emissions

(tons

CO2e/MMBtu)

CO2 54.01 119 0.0595 1 0.0595

CH4 0.005 0.011 0.0000 21 0.0001

N2O 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 310 0.0000

Total Emissions 0.0597

TCR Commercial

GHG

Emissions

Factor (kg

GHG/MMBtu)

Emissions

Factor (lb

GHG/MMBtu)

Emissions

Factor

(tons/MMBtu) GWP

Emissions

(tons

CO2e/MMBtu)

CO2 54.01 119 0.0595 1 0.0595

CH4 0.005 0.011 0.0000 21 0.0001

N2O 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 310 0.0000


TCR Industrial

GHG

Emissions

Factor (kg

GHG/MMBtu)

Emissions

Factor (lb

GHG/MMBtu)

Emissions

Factor

(tons/MMBtu) GWP

Emissions

(tons

CO2e/MMBtu)

CO2 54.01 119 0.0595 1 0.0595

CH4 0.001 0.002 0.0000 21 0.0000

N2O 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 310 0.0000


51


Transportation – Data Sets Describing Community Fleet

As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the community inventory relies on a number of data sets to estimate

emissions from on-road transportation in the community. These data sets include:

A composition of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle class from the regional

Metropolitan Planning Organization’s modeling software

Fuel economy by vehicle class from ICLEI

Emission factors by fuel type from ICLEI

The fuel economy of vehicles has changed since these values were established in the original inventory in 1997. The current inventory estimates a weighted fuel economy of 16 miles per gallon while preliminary indications from other data sets below suggest that the value may be more than 10% higher. This will result in a reduction in the community emission inventory.

There are a number of data sources available that may be appropriate for updating the fuel economy by vehicle class data set:

1. ICLEI has recently released their CACP 2009 revision of the software from which the original factors were sourced. This update may include new factors for fuel economy by vehicle class.

2. The DOE’s Transportation Energy Data Book provides the most comprehensive descriptions of the at-large vehicle fleet found to-date (http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter4.shtml). The data in Table 4.1, 4.3, and 5.4 are particularly applicable to fuel economies by class of vehicle. The challenge in applying this data set is finding alignment between the vehicle classes represented in the MPO’s fleet composition data and the fuel economies in this data set.

3. There are a number of other federal sources for fuel economy by vehicle class including the Energy Information Administration, Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/htm/vm1.htm), and Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html). These sources were found to be more challenging to align with vehicle classes identified in the existing inventory than data provided by the DOE.

As an example, applying a weighted fuel economy of 18.8 miles per gallon based on factors from the Federal Highway Administration yields a decrease of 94,000 tCO2e or about 3.6% over the 2007 inventory.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/htm/vm1.htm

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html



52


Solid Waste - Landfill Emission Factor

As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the first-order-decay model for landfill emissions currently applied

through ICLEI’s CACP software can be further refined by using localized inputs to a first-order-

decay model from the EPA or IPCC. The CACP model currently applied uses localized waste

characterization but does not take input on the historical waste input quantities to a landfill that are

important to determining current GHG emissions. Under the current model, the emission factor is

0.449 tCO2e / ton of waste.

Larimer County provided a completed EPA LandGEM model for the landfill. The EPA’s

LandGEM is also a first-order-decay model but it takes into consideration the historical quantities of

waste input to the landfill. LandGEM does not account for the composition of materials input to the

landfill but assumes a default methane content per the Clean Air Act. The emission factor under

EPA’s LandGEM is about 0.649 tCO2e / ton of waste.

The Climate Registry endorses an implementation of the IPCC’s first-order-decay model such as the

one made available by the California Air Resources Board. This model was applied to the Larimer

County Landfill with the following inputs:

Landfill specific percentage of anaerobically degradable carbon (ANDOC%) based on the

Two-Season Waste Composition completed for Larimer County in May 2007. Resulting

ANDOC% is 5.3.

Historical waste input data from the LandGEM model provided by the County.

Assumption that the daily cover materials of dirt and a slurry of recycled newspaper and

tacky additive have very little degradable content and therefore do not contribute to

ANDOC%.

K-value of 0.02 which corresponds to an annual average rainfall of <20 inches/year.

The inputs to this model require verification but preliminary outputs indicate an emission factor of

0.32 tCO2e / ton of waste. This indicates that the preferred model for landfill emissions may indicate

a lower emission rate than the one currently applied in the community inventory.

Applying the lower emission factor from the IPCC model results in a reduction of emissions of

approximately 28,000 tCO2e or about 1.0% of the community inventory in 2007.

53


Upstream Impacts of Key Materials

As indicated in Section 3.4.5, there are a number of materials for which upstream benefits of

diversion are claimed in the CAP but the upstream emissions are not included in the community

inventory. This inconsistency arises from the historical approach of ICLEI’s CACP and impacts

materials including cardboard, wood, carpet, paper, aluminum, organics and others.

As indicated in the following life cycle graphic for materials, the landfill CH4 and long-term carbon

storage in the landfill are currently included in the community inventory. Upstream emissions,

highlighted in red, including CO2 from energy and non-energy sources as well as the impact on

carbon sequestration in forests are not currently included in the inventory. To create alignment

between the reductions represented in the CAP and the inventory these upstream emissions could be

added to the inventory. It is important to note that this is not the same as adding the upstream

emissions of all materials entering the community, only those being landfilled and which are

addressed by the diversion strategies in the CAP.

From EPA’s Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases

By applying the most recent waste characterization at the Larimer County Landfill it is estimated that

40% of incoming waste at the landfill, by weight, is material types that are addressed by diversion

measures in the CAP. The EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM), which is one of the sources for

the emission factors in ICLEI’s CACP and the source of recycling factors applied in the CAP,

provides source reduction factors that combine the three upstream emissions sources for the

materials in question. By applying the waste characterization and these source reduction factors on a

material-by-material basis, it is estimated that the 2007 inventory would increase by approximately

350,000 tCO2e, about 13%, with the addition of these upstream emissions.

54


Airline Travel

As indicated in Section 3.4.5, the emissions that result from airline transportation for which the

demand is generated by Fort Collins are not currently included in the inventory. ICLEI’s

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol suggests that these emissions

could be considered and the Demand Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology applied to the City

of Denver’s inventory allocates a portion of airline emissions from Denver International Airport

(DIA) to Denver’s inventory.

Few communities have addressed airline transportation in their inventories and the following table

summarizes some possible approaches.

Community

Basis for

Estimation

Basis for Allocation

to Community

Comments on

Approach

Denver, CO

Total fuel

consumption at DIA;

total enplanements

Vehicle miles traveled

modeling to DIA

from the

City/County of

Denver

By using the total fuel

consumption, it

appears that Denver

also takes

responsibility for the

enplanement of

connecting

passengers that don’t

leave the airport.

Seattle, WA

Total fuel

consumption at Sea-

Tac for domestic

passenger flights

Percentage of

residents from

passenger survey

Accounts only for

residents, not the

additional demand

created by visitors to

Seattle.

55


Community

Basis for

Estimation

Basis for Allocation

to Community

Comments on

Approach

Aspen, CO

Total enplaned and

deplaned at Aspen,

DIA, Eagle, and

Grand Junction

Airports

Based on visitor

demographics

Connecting traffic is

probably not a big

factor for Aspen as a

destination airport,

unlike DIA.

Accounts for both

residents and visitors.

Could lead to double

counting with other

origins/destinations

since both

enplane/deplane are

counted.

Park City, UT

Total enplaned and

deplaned at Salt Lake

City, connecting

passengers excluded

Percentage of

originating or

destined passengers

from passenger

survey

Connecting traffic

would be a significant

factor but is excluded.

Accounts for both

residents and visitors.

Could lead to double

counting with other

origins/destinations

since both

enplane/deplane are

counted.

To estimate demand-centered airline emissions for Fort Collins total fuel consumption at DIA was

adjusted to remove connecting passengers and passenger survey data was used to estimate the

allocation to Fort Collins. A similar approach was applied to fuel consumption at the Fort Collins-

Loveland Airport.

The resulting airline transportation emissions are about 102,000 tCO2e which is an increase of 3.9%

over the 2007 inventory.

56


Transportation – Demand-Centered Approach

As indicated in Section 3.4.5, the emissions that result from vehicle transportation that is centered on

Fort Collins but outside of the GMA are not currently included in the inventory. ICLEI’s

International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol suggests that these emissions

could be considered and the Demand Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology applied to the City

of Denver’s inventory allocates 50% of the VMT outside of the inventory boundary but having an

origin or destination in Denver to Denver’s inventory.

Modeling data requested from the MPO indicates that total annual VMT in the MPO’s modeling

region (which extends from the foothills to east of Greeley and from near the Wyoming boarder to

the north side of Longmont) that is demand centered on Fort Collins, in other words has a trip

beginning or ending in Fort Collins, is 1,682,588,000 VMT. Subtracting those trips within Fort

Collins’ GMA that are included in the current inventory leaves approximately 661,000,000 VMT

from trips that cross the GMA boundary. Allocating 50% of these VMT to Fort Collins leads to an

increase in emissions of approximately 249,000 tCO2e or about a 9.4% increase over the 2007

inventory.

The approach to subtracting existing VMT in the inventory from the regional modeling provided by

the MPO should be confirmed. In particular the following questions need to be addressed:

1. For a trip that eventually crosses the GMA are the VMT within the City of Fort Collins (e.g.

from the starting point to the GMA) being double-counted with VMT for trips within Fort

Collins?

2. How are rest-of-world trips treated in the MPO’s model? For example, are any VMT for a

vehicle traveling south on I25 that crosses the boundary of the MPO’s model included in

these regional estimates of VMT?

City of Fort Collins

Documents

Transcript of City of Fort Collins