Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program › pdf › green › gHgInventoryUpdate2010.pdf ·...

$: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program › pdf › green › gHgInventoryUpdate2010.pdf · Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program April 15, 2011 I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\46856.GHG-INVENTORY-U\DOCS\REPORTS\Inventory$
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory

Program

Finger Lakes Community College

Canandaigua, New York

April 2011

14421/46856

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program

Finger Lakes Community College

Canandaigua, New York

Aniket Sawant, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Yolanda F. Pagano, Esq., CPA

Director, Sustainable Strategies & Solutions

April 2011

301 East Germantown Pike

3rd Floor

East Norriton, Pennsylvania 19401

Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)


April 15, 2011 I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\46856.GHG-INVENTORY-U\DOCS\REPORTS\Inventory Update\GHG Report FY2010 Update.doc

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Greenhouse Gas Accounting Protocols ................................................................................... 6

2.2. Establishment of Inventory Boundaries and Definitions ......................................................... 6

2.3. GHG Activity Description ..................................................................................................... 8

2.4. GHG Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 9

2.5. GHG Accounting Methods..................................................................................................... 9

2.5.1. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.5.2. Scope 1 Methods............................................................................................................. 9

2.5.3. Scope 2 Methods........................................................................................................... 10

2.5.4. Scope 3 Methods........................................................................................................... 10

3. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 13

3.1. Fiscal Year 2009-2010 ......................................................................................................... 13

3.2. Baseline year ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.3. Historical emission trends .................................................................................................... 14

3.4. Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 16

3.5. Uncertainty .......................................................................................................................... 16

4. References ................................................................................................................................. 17




ii

Tables

Table 1 – Summary of 1999-2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 2 – Stationary Combustion Emissions Table 3 – Mobile Source Emissions

Table 4 – Indirect Emissions from Electricity

Table 5 – Indirect Emissions from Solid Waste Table 6 – Indirect Emissions from Student and Employee Commuting

Table 7 – Indirect Emissions from Business Air Travel




1

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the following individuals for their participation in the Finger Lakes Community

College’s greenhouse gas inventory program:

Jan Holloway, Finger Lakes Community College

Steve Ernhout, Finger Lakes Community College

Aniket Sawant, O’Brien & Gere

Parikhit Sinha, O’Brien & Gere




2

Executive Summary

O’Brien & Gere, in collaboration with Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC), has developed a

greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory program for FLCC in support of its participation in the American

College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). This report serves to update FLCC’s GHG inventory for fiscal year 2009-2010.

GHG emissions estimated for fiscal year 2009-2010 were 8,804 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E), with commuting (Scope 3) and purchased electricity (Scope 2) being the biggest contributors

(60% and 28%, respectively). Other contributors included stationary sources (Scope 1; 9%) and solid

waste (Scope 3; 4%). The remaining emission sources are de minimis (collectively comprising less

than 5% of total emissions).

As FLCC works towards its commitments under ACUPCC, it will need to focus on emissions from

commuting and purchased electricity in order to make significant reductions in its greenhouse gas emissions.

Relative to the 1999-2000 baseline year, GHG emissions in 2009-2010 increased by 8%, with the majority of the increase attributable to growth in emissions from commuting.

Stationary Sources

9%

Mobile Sources

1%Purchased

Electricity

28%

Commuting

60%

Air Travel

0.3%

Solid Waste

4%

FLCC, FY2009-2010

Total = 8,804 MTCO2E




3

Over the period 1999-2000 to 2009-2010, emission intensity normalized by full-time equivalent

students (FTE) decreased by 17%, while emission intensity normalized by gross square footage

(GSF) decreased by 40%. These decreases are significant and indicate an improvement in energy use over the years.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2009-2010

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(Me

tric

To

ns

CO

2E

)

Fiscal Year

Solid Waste

Air Travel

Commuting

Purchased Electricity

Mobile Combustion

Stationary Combustion




4

As FLCC works towards its commitments under ACUPCC, it will need to continue to progressively

reduce emission intensity over time in order to balance campus growth with long-term GHG emission reduction goals.

FLCC has already begun mitigating GHG emissions through a refrigerant management program that minimizes leakage of refrigerants from air conditioning and refrigeration units, and through a

recycling program that avoids emissions of over 1,000 metric tons CO2E per year from landfilled

solid waste.

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2009-

2010

Tota

l G

ross

Em

issi

on

In

ten

sity

(M

etr

ic T

on

s C

O2E

pe

r F

TE

)

Tota

l G

ross

Em

issi

on

In

ten

sity

(M

etr

ic T

on

s C

O2E

pe

r 1

00

0 G

SF

)

Fiscal Year

MTCO2E/1000 GSF

MTCO2E/FTE




5

1. Introduction

O’Brien & Gere, in collaboration with Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC), has developed a

greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory program in support of its participation in the American College and

University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). The present report serves to update FLCC’s GHG inventory for fiscal year 2009-2010.

FLCC’s participation in ACUPCC represents a long-term institutional commitment to carbon neutrality. The ACUPCC requires adherence to set guidelines, including the completion of a

greenhouse gas inventory within one year of signing the carbon neutrality commitment. The creation

of the initial inventory was the first step to achieving carbon neutrality, followed in turn by an

institutional climate action plan, and subsequent updates to the inventory on at least a biennial basis.

The following sections of this report describe the methods used to develop the GHG inventory update

and the inventory results for fiscal year 2009-2010. The results present a profile of FLCC’s GHG emission sources as well as an analysis of emission trends relative to the baseline year.




6

2. Methods

2.1. Greenhouse Gas Accounting Protocols

The ACUPCC (2007) Implementation Guide recommends GHG inventory development using

methods consistent with the World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) GHG accounting protocols. These are the international consensus

GHG accounting protocols that form the basis for GHG programs adopted by the International

Standards Organization (ISO 14064), USEPA Climate Leaders (USEPA, 2005), California Climate Action Registry (2007), and the U.S. multi-state Climate Registry (2007; adopted by 39 U.S. states,

including New York). The WRI/WBCSD GHG accounting protocols are also consistent with the

Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator, which is widely used by U.S. colleges and

universities. In general, both the WRI/WBCSD and Clean Air Cool Planet tools are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines for national-level GHG inventories,

and thus represent international consensus scientific methods. In order to support FLCC’s

commitment to ACUPCC, FLCC’s GHG inventory program was developed with the WRI/WBCSD GHG accounting protocol.

2.2. Establishment of Inventory Boundaries and Definitions

Development of a GHG inventory program begins with establishment of inventory boundaries and

definitions. The key inventory boundaries are:

• Organizational boundary

• Operational boundary

The organizational boundary defines the extent of the reporting organization and is defined on the

basis of either ownership or control of emission sources. FLCC has chosen an organizational

boundary based on operational control of emission sources. Specifically, FLCC will report 100% of GHG emissions from sources that are metered/measured by FLCC and for which future emission

reduction actions can be taken.

Note that FLCC has extension centers in Geneva, Newark, and Victor, NY in addition to its main

campus in Canandaigua. However, since the extension centers are leased properties that are

controlled by the landlord, they are not within the organizational boundary of the GHG inventory and are not considered.




7

Once the organizational boundary is chosen, the operational boundary defines emission sources as belonging to one of three scopes:

• Scope 1: Direct emissions (within the organizational boundary)

• Scope 2: Indirect emissions (outside the organizational boundary) from purchased electricity

• Scope 3: Other indirect emissions (outside the organizational boundary)

ACUPCC specifically requires that emissions from commuting and business air travel be included as

Scope 3 emission sources to the extent that data are available. FLCC therefore includes both of these

sources, as well as landfilled solid waste, in its inventory.

In addition to inventory boundaries, there are inventory definitions that must be established before

development of the inventory program:

• baseline year

• emission intensity metrics

• de minimis threshold

• reporting frequency

The baseline year is the earliest year for which GHG inventory data is available. The ACUPCC does

not specify a particular baseline year, but FLCC has collected GHG data back to 1999 in accordance with the State of New York Executive Order 111. The inventory therefore uses fiscal year (FY)

1999-2000 as the baseline year. The baseline year’s GHG inventory forms the benchmark against

which future emission reductions are measured. Note that although FLCC’s fiscal year extends from September 1 to August 31, the New York State fiscal year (April 1 to March 31) is used for the GHG

inventory to correspond with Executive Order 111 reporting requirements.

In addition to reporting absolute GHG emissions, FLCC’s GHG inventory program also reports emission intensity, which is emissions normalized by an institutional metric. The ACUPCC requires

the use of gross square footage (GSF) and full-time equivalent students (FTE) as emission intensity

metrics.

The WRI/WBCSD GHG accounting protocols acknowledge that it may not be prudent to invest

undue effort in quantifying emissions from sources that are small relative to the institution-wide carbon footprint. Emissions from such sources may be labeled “de minimis” and approximated,

rather than precisely documented. In order to avoid underestimation of emissions from de minimis

sources, the approximation methods should represent upper bound emission estimates. The inventory

uses a de minimis threshold of 5% consistent with the Climate Registry (2007) General Reporting Protocol. Consequently, emission sources that sum to less than 5% of the institution-wide carbon

footprint can be considered de minimis and approximated using upper bound estimation methods.

Under ACUPCC, a GHG inventory must be developed for the baseline year and at least every other

year subsequent to that. Either calendar year or fiscal year reporting is acceptable, but FLCC uses

fiscal year.




8

Inventory boundaries and definitions for FLCC’s GHG inventory program were agreed to during a meeting conducted in October of 2008. The GHG inventory boundaries and definitions established

by FLCC are summarized in the table below.

Parameters

GHG Accounting Protocol World Resources Institute / World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WRI/WBCSD; www.ghgprotocol.org)

Intended Audience American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment

(ACUPCC) Organizational boundary Based on operational control – report 100% of GHG emissions for

those sources metered/measured by FLCC and for which future

emission reduction actions can be taken. Note that extension centers are excluded on this basis.

Operational boundary Report Scope 1 (direct) emissions from stationary combustion, mobile

source combustion, process emissions, and fugitive emissions; Report Scope 2 (indirect) emissions from purchased electricity; Report Scope

3 (other indirect) emissions from commuting, business travel, and

landfilled solid waste.

Baseline Year Fiscal year 1999-2000 (New York State fiscal year extends from April 1 to March 31)

Emission Intensity metrics Gross square footage, full-time equivalent students

De Minimis Threshold Emission sources that account for a small percentage of entity-wide emissions (<5%) can be called de minimis and approximated.

Reporting Frequency At least every two years (fiscal year basis)

2.3. GHG Activity Description

One of the critical steps in developing an institutional GHG inventory is the identification of all relevant GHG-emitting activities at the organization. As part of the original inventory, a GHG activity

description questionnaire was distributed to FLCC staff to identify Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emission

sources at FLCC. The results of the completed questionnaire are summarized below:

• Scope 1 GHG emission sources

- Stationary Sources – boilers, generator, chillers, water heaters, and burnishing machine burning natural gas, #2 fuel oil, and propane

- Mobile Sources – light trucks, passenger cars, backhoe, mowers, gators, and tractors burning

gasoline and diesel

- Process Sources – None - Fugitive Sources – chillers using refrigerants HFC-134a and R22; note that fugitive emissions

from refrigerants are expected to be zero, because in recent years air conditioning and

refrigeration units on campus have not required refilling of refrigerant charge; additionally, the units have reclaimers that collect any refrigerant charge that may potentially leak.


- Purchased electricity




9


- Employee and student commuting

- Employee business air travel - Landfilled solid waste

2.4. GHG Data Collection

Based upon emission sources identified in the GHG activity description, a GHG data collection scorecard was developed and distributed to FLCC staff to facilitate collection of data needed to

estimate FLCC’s GHG emissions. Because fiscal year 1999-2000 is the baseline year for the

ACUPCC commitment, data was collected for fiscal year 1999-2000 and subsequent years through 2009-2010 (except 2008-2009).

2.5. GHG Accounting Methods

2.5.1. Definitions

This section presents the GHG accounting methods utilized to estimate GHG emissions for the ACUPCC commitment. Emissions of the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6,

hydroflourocarbons, perfluorocarbons) were considered, as appropriate, and related to carbon dioxide

equivalents (CO2E) using global warming potentials. Note that in the equations below, the following abbreviations are used:

• CF = conversion factor

• GWP = global warming potential

• CO2E = Carbon dioxide equivalent

The specific values of each parameter are provided in Tables 2-7.

2.5.2. Scope 1 Methods


Carbonheatvolume CFfactorOxidationcontentCarbonCFValueHeatDensityCFUsageEmissionsCO ×××××××= ___2

4__4 CHheatvolume factorEmissionCFValueHeatDensityCFUsageEmissionsCH ×××××=

ONheatvolume factorEmissionCFValueHeatDensityCFUsageEmissionsON2

__2 ×××××=

)_()_(_ECO224422 ONCH GWPemissionsONGWPemissionsCHemissionsCOEmissions ×+×+=




10

Mobile Source Combustion - Based on a Fuel Usage Emission Factor

Mobile Source Combustion – Based on Mileage

MileageFactorEmissionMileageEmissionsECO _2 ×=

Process Emissions

Not applicable. There are no process emission sources.

Fugitive Emissions

Not applicable. Fugitive emissions from refrigerants are expected to be zero, because in recent years

air conditioning and refrigeration units on campus have not required refilling of refrigerant charge. Additionally, the units have reclaimers that collect any refrigerant charge that may potentially leak.


Electricity Emissions

The electricity emission factor is from the USEPA (2007) upstate New York (NYUP) eGRID

subregion.


Landfilled Solid Waste

GHG emissions estimated from landfilled solid waste are calculated using USEPA (2002) emissions

factors.

Recycled Solid Waste

GHG emissions avoided by recycling were estimated using USEPA (2002) emission factors which

are negative to indicate emissions avoided that would have otherwise occurred at a landfill (see

Section 3.4 below on GHG mitigation).

FactorEmissionValueHeatUsageEmissions __ ECO 2 ××=

factorEmissionCFDensityVolumeQuantityEmissionsBinType

MassTrashBinBin _ ECO2 ∑ ××××=

factorEmissionUsageEmissions _ ECO 2 ×=




11

Commuting Emissions

FLCC has accounted for the GHG emissions resulting from students and employees commuting to

campus via personal vehicle. Emissions are estimated using the following equation:

The emission factor is for a mid-sized auto.

Based on the FLCC (2008) Enrollment Report, approximately 11% of students live in college suites

and walk to campus; the remainder are assumed to drive to campus. The number of FLCC employees

commuting by car is inferred from the number of parking permits.

The distance a student travels to campus is estimated from the student’s county of residence. The

table below shows the distance assumed for each county, as well as the number of students from each county in Fall, 2008.

County ONTARIO MONROE SENECA WAYNE YATES OTHER

One-way mileage 5 37 28 39 20 40

Student population (FTE) 738.5 212.2 135.5 435.2 102.2 323.2

For employees, the commuting distance is based on the zip codes associated with parking permits.

Similar zip codes were grouped together and a sample distance to campus estimated, as shown in the

table below for data from Fall, 2008.

Residential zip

codes

Number of

Employees

One-way mileage to

campus

Total one-way employee

mileage

13066 3 77 231

13148 9 26 234

13165 8 19 152

14051 3 88 264

14221 2 86 172

14414 6 28 168

14424 163 1 163

14425 36 11 396

14432 17 12 204

14441 5 27 135

14450 24 19 456

14456 43 14 602

14469 22 12 264

14472 7 24 168

FactorEmissionMileageEmissions _ ECO 2 ×=

factorEmissionCFDensityVolumeQuantityEmissionsBinType

MassTrashBinBin _ ECO 2 ∑ ××××=




12

14487 12 28 336

14507 14 16 224

14512 21 23 483

14513 20 21 420

14522 13 15 195

14527 13 24 312

14534 18 20 360

14544 20 10 200

14561 12 10 120

14564 21 15 315

14580 21 38 798

14618 42 26 1092

14850 9 62 558

The number of commuting trips is based on the assumption that students and employees commute 30

weeks per year, with students coming to campus 4 days per week and employees coming 5 days per week. Student commuting estimates are based on the number of full-time equivalent students (FTE).

Commuting estimates were made for fiscal year 2007-2008. For other years, estimates from 2007-2008 were scaled based on the student and employee population.

Business Air Travel

GHG emissions from employee air travel were estimated using flight itineraries which record the

origin and destination of flight legs. Emissions from air travel are based on the following equation:

FactorEmissionMilesPassengerEmissionsECO __2 ×=

The emission factor depends on the flight leg distance (short, <281 miles; medium, 281-994 miles; or

long, >994 miles trip), since shorter trips require more fuel per mile than longer trips.




13

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Fiscal Year 2009-2010

ACUPCC Commitment (WRI/WBCSD protocol)

GHG emissions for fiscal year 2009-2010 were estimated to be 8,804 metric tons CO2E (Table 1).

Tables 2 to 7 show the supporting calculations for 2009-2010 and historical years back to 1999-2000.

The contribution of Scope 1, 2, and 3 sources to the entity-wide footprint is shown below.

It is observed that commuting is the largest contributor to FLCC’s emissions with a contribution of 60%. The rural areas served by the campus, and the high percentage of students who commute,

contribute to the extent of commuting emissions. This is followed by emissions due to purchased

electricity, contributing 28% of total 2009-2010 emissions.

As FLCC works towards its commitments under ACUPCC, it will need to focus on emissions from

commuting and purchased electricity in order to make significant reductions to its greenhouse gas

emissions.

Other contributors to FLCC’s emissions include stationary source combustion (Scope 1; 9%) and

solid waste (Scope 3; 4%). Emissions from the remaining sources (Scope 1 mobile source emissions, and Scope 3 business air travel) together comprise approximately 1% of the total footprint and can

Stationary Sources

9%

Mobile Sources

1%Purchased

Electricity

28%

Commuting

60%

Air Travel

0.3%

Solid Waste

4%

FLCC, FY2009-2010

Total = 8,804 MTCO2E




14

therefore be classified as de minimis. For these de minimis sources, emissions from 2009-2010 can be used as a proxy for other years reported.

3.2. Baseline year

One of the main goals of the inventory program is to establish a baseline for FLCC’s commitment to

ACUPCC. The baseline year (1999-2000) is the year against which future emission reductions will

be measured. For fiscal year 1999-2000, total GHG emissions were 8,161 metric tons CO2E (Table 1). Source contributions for this year are similar to that of 2009-2010, with ~56% of emissions from

commuting and ~28% from purchased electricity.

3.3. Historical emission trends

Annual GHG emissions from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 are summarized in Table 1 and the figure

below.

Relative to the 1999-2000 baseline year, GHG emissions in 2009-2010 increased by 8%, with the

majority of the increase attributable to growth in emissions from commuting. The latter increased

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2009-2010

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(Me

tric

To

ns

CO

2E

)

Fiscal Year

Solid Waste

Air Travel

Commuting

Purchased Electricity

Mobile Combustion





15

from 4,606 metric tons CO2E in 1999-2000 to 5,268 metric tons CO2E in 2009-2010. Given the significant increase in student enrollment (~30%), increased commuting emissions over the 1999-

2000 to 2009-2010 period are not surprising.

Annual GHG emission intensity from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 is summarized in Table 1 and the

figure below.

Emission intensity normalized by GSF has decreased by 40% over this period, indicating an

improvement in energy efficiency in building space. A significant decline in emission intensity normalized by GSF occurred between FY 2002-2003 and FY 2003-2004, as building space expanded

while emissions remained relatively constant. Emission intensity normalized by FTE decreased by

17% during this period, driven by a significant increase in FTE (30%) during a period of relatively

constant emissions.

As FLCC works towards its commitments under ACUPCC, it will need to continue to progressively

reduce emission intensity over time in order to balance campus growth with long-term emission

reduction goals.

FLCC’s emission intensity in FY 2009-2010 was 5.5 metric tons CO2E per FTE and 15.2 metric tons CO2E per 1000 GSF. For comparison, emission intensity for fourteen other community colleges

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2009-

2010

Tota

l G

ross

Em

issi

on

In

ten

sity

(M

etr

ic T

on

s C

O2E

pe

r F

TE

)

Tota

l G

ross

Em

issi

on

In

ten

sity

(M

etr

ic T

on

s C

O2E

pe

r 1

00

0 G

SF

)

Fiscal Year

MTCO2E/1000 GSF

MTCO2E/FTE




16

reporting to ACUPCC ranged from 1.3 to 13.2 metric tons CO2E per FTE and 14.9 to 63.3 metric tons CO2E per 1000 GSF. Therefore, FLCC’s emission intensity lies within the range of its peer

schools.

3.4. Mitigation

FLCC has historically mitigated GHG emissions through the following efforts:

• Refrigerant Management

• Recycling

FLCC has successfully eliminated fugitive emissions from refrigerant leakage. Air conditioners and

refrigerators are equipped with reclaimers that capture any refrigerant that might leak. The success of the refrigerant management is demonstrated by the fact that FLCC has not had to refill any refrigerant

charge from campus units in recent years.

Recycling waste rather than sending it to a landfill reduces GHG emissions by reducing the amount of

material in the landfill available to emit methane. FLCC has an active recycling program for paper,

aluminum and plastic. The total volume recycled in 2007-2008 (1248 yd3), as well as its distribution

(evenly split among paper, aluminum, and plastic), was used as a proxy for 2009-2010 emissions.. By recycling these wastes instead of sending them to a landfill, FLCC avoided ~1,422 metric tons (MT)

of CO2 equivalents in fiscal year 2009-2010, as shown in the table below.

Type Volume

(yd3)

Density

(metric ton/yd3)

Conversion Factor

(US ton/metric ton)

Emission Factor (metric

ton CO2E / US ton)

Emissions

(metric tons CO2E)

Paper 416 0.1667 1.1023 -3.5 -271

Plastic 416 0.1667 1.1023 -1.5 -114

Aluminum 416 0.1667 1.1023 -13.6 -1,037

3.5. Uncertainty

Uncertainty with regard to historical estimates of GHG emissions are primarily related to commuting

emissions. Commuting distances for students were estimated based on county of residence, and

employee commuting distances were estimated based on parking permit zip codes. These estimated commuting distances were combined with an assumed frequency of commuting (in days per week

and weeks per year) and a generic vehicle emission factor (medium size auto) to estimate commuting

emissions.

For reference, at the California State Polytechnic University at Pomona where commuters also

typically drive to campus, “commuting accounted for 55% of all greenhouse gas emissions at the

college during the 10-year inventory period” (1995-2005) (Poly Post, 2008). Emissions from commuting for FLCC have been estimated as approximately 15% of total emissions.




17

4. References

American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), 2007.

Implementation Guide: Information and Resources for Participating Institutions. (Available

at: http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/).

California Climate Action Registry. 2007. General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2. (Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org).

Climate Registry. 2007. Draft General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program.

(Available at: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/crdocuments.html).

Finger Lakes Community College. 2008. Enrollment Report. Fall 2008. Office of Institutional

Research.

Finger Lakes Community College. 2009. Enrollment Report. Fall 2009. Office of Institutional

Research.

International Standards Organization (ISO). 2006. ISO 14064-1: Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Removals. (Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/).

Poly Post. 2008. Emission Report Released, Commuter transportation number one cause for

greenhouse gases. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA. January 14, 2008.

State of New York Executive Chamber. 2007. Executive Order No. 111: Directing State Agencies to

be More Energy Efficient and Environmentally Aware. (Available at:

http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/exorder111.asp).

United Kingdom National Energy Foundation. 2008. Simple Carbon Calculator (Available at:

http://www.nef.org.uk/greencompany/co2calculator.htm)

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. USEPA Solid Waste Management

and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 2nd EDITION,

EPA530-R-02-006, May 2002.

USEPA. 2005. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Design Principles. (Available

at: http://www.epa.gov/stateply/resources/guidance.html)

. USEPA, 2007, eGRID2006 Version 2.1 (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-

resources/egrid/index.html)

World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development

(WRI/WBCSD). 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting

Standard. (Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program › pdf › green › gHgInventoryUpdate2010.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program › pdf › green › gHgInventoryUpdate2010.pdf ·...