Greenhouse Gas Inventory

141
REPORT ON Submitted to: Royal BC Museum Corporation 675 Belleville Street Victoria, BC V8W 9W2 DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies - Royal BC Museum Corporation 2 Copies - Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd. July 2, 2008 07-1018-0023 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ROYAL BC MUSEUM CORPORATION Phone: 250-881-7372 Fax: 250-881-7470 Email: [email protected] Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd. 2640 Douglas Street Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8T 4M1 www.golderecofyssolutions.com Your source to sustainable energy

description

Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Carbon Management Strategy

Transcript of Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Page 1: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

REPORT ON

Submitted to: Royal BC Museum Corporation

675 Belleville Street Victoria, BC V8W 9W2

DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies - Royal BC Museum Corporation 2 Copies - Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd. July 2, 2008 07-1018-0023

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

AND CARBON MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

FOR THE ROYAL BC MUSEUM CORPORATION

Phone: 250-881-7372Fax: 250-881-7470Email: [email protected]

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

2640 Douglas StreetVictoria, British ColumbiaCanada V8T 4M1

www.golderecofyssolutions.comYour source to sustainable energy

Page 2: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - i - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd. (GESL) was contracted by Royal BC Museum Corporation (RBCM) to prepare a Scoping Study, including a Greenhouse Gas (carbon) inventory, and the business case to implement a Carbon Management Strategy for RBCM’s facility located at 675 Belleville Street in Victoria, British Columbia. The need for this work is driven by the 2007 Provincial Throne Speech and subsequent GHG Reduction Act which requires that all Province of British Columbia entities, including crown agencies, to be carbon neutral by 2010.

The methodology used in the scoping study was to develop baseline information and carbon management plan recommendations by compiling carbon inventories, identifying and quantifying potential reduction measures and conducting a carbon awareness and capacity survey of the organization. Based on this work specific carbon management and related strategies were recommended.

A carbon inventory was developed to quantify carbon emissions for the past three years (2005 – 2007). Inventory development was generally consistent with methodologies outlined in existing protocols including those developed by the Climate Registry, California Climate Action Registry and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)/World Resource Institute (WRI). Emissions from natural gas consumption, the company vehicle, electricity consumption, air travel, boat travel, and taxis were included in the inventory. The carbon inventory results showed that emissions in 2005 and 2006 were very similar (126,467 and 125,702 kg CO2e for 2005 and 2006 respectively), however total annual carbon emissions (kg CO2e) increased by approximately 10% between 2006 and 2007 to 138,356 kgs of CO2e, or as more commonly used 138.4 tonnes of CO2e. This is primarily due to an increase in electricity consumption, as well as an increase in air travel. Although grid-based electricity in BC is relatively low in related GHG emissions, electricity consumption at RBCM was found to be the largest source of carbon emissions representing between 76% and 82% of total emissions in 2005-2007. BC’s low carbon grid GHG intensity becomes an issue in that, as an alternative, switching to renewable energy locally does not cost-effectively yield significant reductions in carbon emissions. However, RBCM may consider implementing renewable energy locally for other reasons.

A carbon awareness and capacity survey was completed by 90 RBCM staff and volunteers. The survey was intended to provide information about attitude, habits and knowledge of individual staff and the organization’s culture towards energy efficiency issue engagement as well as the technical tools available to influence energy consumption. Generally respondents were optimistic about their own knowledge, habits and attitudes, both about climate change, GHG emissions and the environment in general.

Page 3: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - ii - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

The opinion of the organization, technologies available for individuals to reduce energy and overall culture of energy awareness was less positive. Accepting the results as indicative for RBCM as a whole, the conclusion is that RBCM needs to work on approaches to harness interest and knowledge that is present within their organization and provide the tools, incentives and organization commitment to reduce energy consumption and other environmental impacts.

Potential carbon emission reduction opportunities identified within the “Facility Condition Assessment Final Report” were quantified using CarMan software to develop a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC). The MACC shows the effect of carbon reduction measures (amount of carbon emissions reduced) and the cost associated with the implementation of each measure. MACC analysis indicates that the combined result of all reduction measures currently identified is not enough to reach carbon neutrality. However, approximately 17 tonnes per year of carbon emission reduction can be achieved at a cost lower than the current market price for carbon credits (approximate $5 US/tonne), although it is unknown if purchase of such credits will be an option for BC organizations at this time.

Based on its 2007 inventory of 138.4 tonnes CO2e, on our current understanding the provincial government’s plans for the Pacific Carbon Trust, and on a cost of $25 per tonne CO2e which is being promoted by the provincial gov’t as the cost of travel-related carbon emissions, RBCM currently faces a cost of approximately $3,500 to achieve carbon neutrality. A conservative estimate for budget purposes in 2010, when carbon neutrality is required, would be approximately $5,000 plus reporting costs. These costs may escalate if carbon emissions increase and depend on changes in the price of carbon.

GESL recommends that RBCM only undertake currently cost effective, or near cost effective carbon mitigation measures, typically energy efficiency and energy management measures, and purchase carbon offsets when, as appears likely, they are made available through the Pacific Carbon Trust.

However, it should be emphasized that RBCM has a very motivated staff. To do nothing to manage its carbon and other environmental impacts would be to lose the opportunity to provide leadership and to present RBCM as a dynamic change agent within its community. In light of this, the following recommendations are broader than just carbon management, but do build on these objectives:

1. Continue to maintain RBCM’s carbon inventory per apparent regulatory requirements, but also as the basis for future risk and opportunity assessment.

Page 4: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - iii - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

2. Implement only cost effective carbon reduction opportunities now – essentially energy efficiency and energy management practices - but watch for opportunities to either advocate or participate in Provincial programs (like BC EMPR’s ICE fund) to increase the cost/benefit of other reduction opportunities related to RBCM.

3. All RBCM activities resulting in energy efficiency improvements need to be tracked to be included in annual “Progress Reports” as called for under the GHG Reduction Act. RBCM “community and staff climate change advocacy” activities should also be tracked and included in these reports.

4. Wait for more clarity on Provincial carbon management requirements of government entities, and watch the development of the Pacific Carbon Trust, particularly with respect to offset purchase cost and potential purchase restrictions. A change or restriction in the availability of offsets to RBCM will require a re-evaluation of other available emission reduction opportunities.

5. Engage the organization in pursuing environmental excellence, such as the BOMA Go Green or similar program. RBCM should aggressive launch internal environmental awareness and leadership activities to capitalize on staff’s apparent engagement and commitment, with a focus that is broader than just carbon management.

6. Organize an internal group to help deliver and maintain the above initiatives and to support delivery of an awareness campaign.

7. Consider implementing a display tool, such as the Energy Mirror, to track and communicate energy and other initiative’s progress to staff and the public.

8. Advocate for the “greening” of the District Energy System through relationship with other government entities such as ARES.

9. Pending confirmation of applicability, RBCM could consider the purchase of ‘Green Power Certificates’ from BC Hydro to further reduce it emissions.

10. Consider an alternative to the current company vehicle which would result in lower organization carbon emissions.

Page 5: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - iv - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project approach .....................................................................................2 2.0 CARBON NEUTRAL ORGANIZATIONS.................................................... 3

2.1 What is a Climate-Neutral Organization? ................................................3 2.2 Typical Guidelines for Climate-Neutral Organizations.............................3

3.0 CARBON EMISSIONS INVENTORY ......................................................... 6 3.1 Inventory Approach .................................................................................6 3.2 Scope of Inventory...................................................................................7 3.3 Greenhouse Gases .................................................................................7 3.4 Boundary of the Inventory .......................................................................8 3.5 Sources of Carbon Emissions .................................................................8 3.6 Methodology ............................................................................................9

3.6.1 Natural Gas Consumption (Scope 1).........................................10 3.6.2 Company Vehicle (Scope 1) ......................................................11 3.6.3 Electricity Consumption (Scope 2).............................................11 3.6.4 Air Travel (Scope 3)...................................................................13 3.6.5 Boat Travel (Scope 3)................................................................13 3.6.6 Taxi Travel (Scope 3) ................................................................14

3.7 Emission Inventory Results ...................................................................14 4.0 INVENTORY REFERENCES ................................................................... 19 5.0 CARBON AWARENESS & CAPACITY SURVEY.................................... 20

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................20 5.2 Survey Methodology..............................................................................20 5.3 Key Findings..........................................................................................22

5.3.1 Habits.........................................................................................24 5.3.2 Attitude.......................................................................................25 5.3.3 Knowledge .................................................................................26 5.3.4 Culture .......................................................................................27 5.3.5 Technical ...................................................................................28 5.3.6 Organization ..............................................................................29

5.4 Suggestions for improvement opportunities ..........................................30 6.0 REDUCTION POTENTIAL........................................................................ 31

6.1 Approach ...............................................................................................31 6.2 CarMan..................................................................................................31 6.3 Local reduction options and results .......................................................32 6.4 Energy Management to reduce Carbon Emissions ...............................35 6.5 Renewable Energy vs. Carbon Credits for carbon footprint reduction ..39

7.0 CARBON MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS................................. 41 8.0 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 51

Page 6: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - v - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Annual Carbon Emissions by Source 2005 -2007 Table 2 Interpretive scores Likert scale Table 3 Reduction Measures for the Royal BC Museum Table 4 List of Measures and Paybacks LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Climate Neutral Entrepreneurship Figure 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2005 Figure 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2006 Figure 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2007 Figure 5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Source Figure 6 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends Figure 7 Royal BC Museum - Spider Diagram with the Average Score per Aspect Figure 8 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Figure 9 Apparent Reduction Opportunities vs. Carbon Neutral Target Figure 10 Detail of Apparent Reduction Emission LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I Carbon Awareness & Capacity Survey Average Scores Appendix II Suggestions provided on Carbon Survey Appendix III Methods for Awareness Campaigns Appendix IV January Presentation to the RBCM Management Team Appendix V March 18 Presentation to the RBCM Executive Appendix VI RBCM 2005, 2006, 2007 GHG Inventory and Supporting Data (on CD)

Page 7: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 1 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In December, 2007 Golder Ecofys Solutions was contracted by the Royal BC Museum Corporation (RBCM) to prepare a Scoping Project Brief (Scoping Study), including a Greenhouse Gas (Carbon) inventory, and the business case to implement a Carbon Management Strategy for RBCM’s facility located at 675 Bellville Street in Victoria, British Columbia.

The need for this work is driven by the 2007 Provincial Throne Speech and subsequent GHG Reduction Act (the “Act”) which set a target to reduce GHG emissions by 33 percent below current levels by 2020, placing emissions 10 percent under 1990 levels. Additionally, the Act, which came into force on January 1, 2008, requires that all Province of British Columbia entities, including Crown agencies, to be carbon neutral by 2010. All public sector organizations will be required by law to produce annual public reports on their progress. Regulations will be developed and introduced over the course of 2008 under the new Act.

It should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty in terms of what is actually meant by the Province’s use of the term ‘Carbon Neutral” as well as reporting protocols and developing carbon credit markets. Some of this will be clarified by the release of regulations later this year.

In light of these events, this Scoping Study was undertaken to build an understanding of the carbon risk related to RBCM’s facility and activities, and to evaluate options to manage that risk going forward. This study is needed to define the boundaries of RBCM’s responsibilities and priorities for a carbon management strategy, to provide an overview level of the likely financial implications of executing a strategy, and to outline the steps to be followed, the timescales, milestones and outputs to be delivered, as well as other resources required.

GESL worked closely with key personnel from RBCM, and its contractors, such as Avalon Contracting, in developing the carbon, energy and organizational information contained. In this brief, “Greenhouse gas” and “carbon” emissions are used interchangeably throughout this report.

Page 8: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 2 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

1.1 Project approach

Carbon management is a systematic approach to identify and manage the risks and opportunities associated with carbon emissions.

GESL’s approach is to use a modified, five-step approach to Carbon Management originally defined by the Carbon Trust of the United Kingdom.

A typical five-step carbon management approach includes the following:

1. Developing baseline information by compiling a carbon inventory, building a carbon forecast and identifying carbon reduction targets (either voluntary or set by policy/regulation);

2. Identifying and quantifying carbon reduction options;

3. Developing a Carbon Management Strategy and Implementation Plan;

4. Implementing the Plan – with budgets, targets and success metrics; and,

5. Monitoring and revisiting frequently, at least initially, as carbon rules and opportunities (e.g., credit markets) evolve.

Developing a Carbon Management Strategy typically begins with a Scoping Study, which is the subject of this work. The Scoping Study focuses on compiling a GHG inventory, assembling - with limited analysis – the main drivers and opportunities available to an organization to reduce its carbon emissions, and also assessing an organization’s capacity to implement an effective Carbon Management Plan. The intent of this Scoping Study is to build the Business Case for Carbon Management, provide the necessary inputs to support the next phase – finalizing Carbon Management Strategy and implementing the Implementation Plan.

At the core of the entire process – developed initially in the Scoping Study and refined in next phase - is the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (the “MACC”). A MACC is a graphic representation of an organization’s carbon reduction options versus their costs. In its most effective form, a MACC is dynamic tool which provides support for senior management decision making about key carbon reduction activities.

Page 9: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 3 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

2.0 CARBON NEUTRAL ORGANIZATIONS

2.1 What is a Climate-Neutral Organization?

A climate-neutral organization has no net greenhouse gas emissions. Climate neutrality can be reached through a combination of:

• Own emission reduction efforts. • Offsetting of remaining emissions.

Own emission reductions can be attained in various ways, e.g. through more efficient use of energy, the application of renewable energy and carbon sequestration. “Offsetting” of remaining emissions can be done through ensuring that emissions elsewhere are reduced or carbon dioxide is captured through offset projects such as landfill gas capture or an afforestation project.

Note that while there are established rules and markets under Kyoto to enable ‘credit’ or offset trading, no rules are officially in place in British Columbia. Purchase of offsets in BC is currently through a voluntary market. Credits trade in BC is based on a number of voluntary “standards”, such as the Gold Standard or Voluntary Credit Standard (VCS), to add credibility to offset products. There is no certainty that such credits will be accepted by the Province to meet carbon neutral requirements.

However, the combination of emission reduction efforts and offsetting emission is crucial to achieving carbon neutrality. In many cases it is not possible to reduce emissions to zero, at least not in the short term, so offsetting the rest is necessary to reach net zero emissions. On the other hand it is not sustainable globally if net zero emissions were only reached through offset projects.

2.2 Typical Guidelines for Climate-Neutral Organizations

To make the concept of climate-neutrality more concrete, the following guidelines can be used. They are illustrated through figure 1. The guidelines should be considered as indicative and valid for the average of firms. Actual possibilities depend highly on the type of enterprise, local circumstances, past activities in this area, etc.

The proposed steps are:

• First: take energy efficiency and proactive energy management measures in order to stabilize or decline energy use, i.e. the growth of activities is compensated or over-compensated by measures to improve the energy efficiency (red area).

Page 10: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 4 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

• Secondly: In most parts of the world, investing in zero-carbon or low-carbon energy sources can reduce a carbon footprint further. These can include your own production of renewable electricity and/or the purchase of renewable energy credits. “Own production” of renewable energy typically makes up a substantial part of the total package of zero- and low-carbon measures. See the purple and blue area.

However, there is a misconception of the general applicability of this approach. For instance, under the current calculation methodologies carbon emissions associated with grid-based electricity in BC is very low, and therefore switching to renewable energy may not be a cost effective method of reducing carbon emissions (but may be attractive for other reasons).

• Third: the remaining greenhouse gas emissions are compensated by the purchase of carbon credits (offsets) representing emission reductions in elsewhere. Again, there is a common misconception that any activity that reduces carbon emissions can generate credits. While such activities may indeed reduce carbon emissions, creating emission credits which are tradable and meet a program’s conditions (e.g. offsets the Province may accept as being “real”) is not trivial and requires considerable time and effort to realize.

Additionally, a company may work proactively on the “upstream and downstream” emissions associated with company products and services to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Upstream emission reduction can be achieved e.g. through carbon-efficient product design or low-carbon procurement. Downstream emission reduction can be achieved e.g. through the design of energy-efficient products. Such an approach is typically termed a part of the product’s or service’s ‘lifecycle’ carbon emissions. While aspects of a lifecyle approach are often applied at a project level, companies have adopted a lifecycle approach under voluntary structure to affect their corporate emission profile. Such considerations are terms defining the ‘boundary’ of a company’s carbon responsibilities. Below we discuss the current considerations in setting RBCM’s carbon boundaries.

Page 11: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 5 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

FIGURE 1: Climate Neutral Entrepreneurship

Page 12: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 6 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

3.0 CARBON EMISSIONS INVENTORY

A carbon emissions inventory for the RBCM site (‘the site’) was developed to identify and quantify carbon emissions for the past three years (2005-2007). The following section outlines the sources of carbon emissions included and excluded from the inventory, the methodology used to quantify the various greenhouse gas emissions, and the inventory results. The carbon inventory is included in Appendix VI.

3.1 Inventory Approach

In general, selection of the boundary and scope for the development of the RBCM carbon inventory was done to be broadly consistent with the following documents:

• The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol (March 2008);

• California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (April 2008); and,

• World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), World Resource Institute (WRI), The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate and Accounting Standard, not dated.

We are aware that the B.C. Government (Climate Action Secretariat) are developing a framework to provide guidance for Crown Corporations regarding measurement and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. The framework is currently in draft format, ‘British Columbia Climate Action Secretariat, Draft Framework for GHG Measurement and Reporting’ dated March 2008. The draft framework and associated calculation tools are not currently available within the public domain, therefore have not been used to develop this inventory. The draft framework references the three protocols listed above, which were used to develop the carbon inventory, as best practice. However, we have reviewed the draft framework and are currently aware of differences in the ‘operational boundaries’ and ‘emissions measurement methodologies’ between the draft framework and the existing protocols. Therefore it is anticipated that this future final guidance document(s) and calculation tools will impact this inventory as the Provincial requirements and carbon management system develops. Main differences are that the draft protocol states that inventories should include indirect emissions from office paper purchases – a scope 3 emission that would be optional under other protocols. Additionally the draft protocol states that emissions should be calculated using web-based calculators ‘SMARTTool’ for calculating and reporting GHG emissions associated with corporate operations (buildings, fleet supplies, supplies) and ‘SMARTTec’ for calculating and reporting GHG emissions from employee business travel. At the time of this report, these tools were not available.

Page 13: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 7 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

In addition to guidance provided in the protocols listed above, the development of the emissions inventory included a site visit undertaken by Ms. Rachel Wyles and Ms. Rebecca Cummings on February 13, 2008. During the site visit buildings and site conditions, carbon emissions sources were reviewed.

3.2 Scope of Inventory

Scope is a term that also defines what activities are considered “in or out” of a carbon inventory and which emissions are ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’. Categorization of emissions for this inventory has followed the WBCSD/WRI and Climate Registry protocols as follows:

• Scope 1: All direct carbon emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by RBCM;

• Scope 2: Indirect emissions associated with the consumption of purchased or acquired electricity, steam, heating or cooling.

• Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions not covered by Scope 2, and can include transportation related emissions such as business travel by employees.

Scope 1 and 2 emissions are generally currently ‘required’ to be reported as part of an inventory, whereas the reporting of scope 3 emissions is usually optional.

You will note that GESL has developed RBCM’s inventory using primarily Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions sources, but also included some Scope 3 emissions (employee business travel) as it has been indicated that the BC Government intends to include employee business travel in the scope which ministries must measure and report. Should this interpretation of current policy be incorrect, the inventory will need minor revision. Other Scope 3 emissions sources are noted. Once clarity is provided on Provincial reporting requirements, scope 3 emissions sources can be removed as necessary.

3.3 Greenhouse Gases

Preparation of a carbon inventory typically includes all six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). No significant emissions sources of HFCs, PFCs or SF6 were identified within information provided by RBCM, or observed during the site visit, therefore the carbon inventory focuses on emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O.

Page 14: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 8 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

3.4 Boundary of the Inventory

For the purposes of the emissions inventory, the ‘site’ boundary includes all buildings present on the RBCM site with the exception of the National Geographic Imax theatre (operated by a separate company) and the Heating Plant (operated by a separate company). Generally the emissions protocols define organizational boundaries to an inventory based on the concept of management (financial or operational) control. RBCM do not have either financial or operational control over the Imax theatre or the Heating Plant, therefore these operations have been excluded from the inventory. RBCM also leases warehouse storage space, which is not located on the main site, and this has been included in the emissions inventory.

The main buildings included in the carbon emissions inventory include:

• RBCM Exhibit Hall and associated lobby (675 Belleville Street); • Fannin Tower (621 Government Street); • Archives Building (655 Government Street); • Carving Studio, Mungo Martin House, Helmcken House and St Ann’s School House;

and, • Leased warehouse storage facility located at 4222 Commerce Circle, Victoria.

3.5 Sources of Carbon Emissions

Six predominant sources of carbon emissions were identified for inclusion in the emissions inventory as detailed within Table 1 below. The scope of the emissions (1,2 or 3) as defined within the Climate Registry Protocol (March 2008) is also included within Table 1 below.

TABLE 1: Summary of Emission Sources Included in Inventory

Emissions Source Scope (1,2 or 3)

Natural Gas Consumption 1

Company Vehicle 1

Electricity Consumption 2

Air Travel (Employee Business Travel) 3

Boat Travel (Employee Business Travel) 3

Taxi (Employee Business Travel) 3

Page 15: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 9 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

GESL is aware that the Provincial Gov’t is developing a calculation methodology for GHG emissions related paper usage. However, at the time of this work, this is not available.

Potential indirect sources of carbon emissions associated with RBCM that have currently been excluded from the emissions inventory include: staff commuting and visitor transport to/from RBCM.

Direct emissions associated with the RBCM van that is used for transport of RBCM materials in the Victoria area have been included in the inventory, however indirect emissions associated with the freight of RBCM artifacts/paperwork (air, land, boat freight) by external companies that are not directly under management or financial control of RBCM have currently been excluded.

Steam is supplied to RBCM by the district energy system (DES) operated by a separate company. Steam was reported by RBCM to only be used a few days per year to top up the existing electricity based heating system when outside temperatures dropped below minus 5 degrees Celsius. It was reported that steam usage by the site was not metered. However, based on information provided, it is likely to be small in the context of the whole emissions inventory. Also, it is likely that the DES operator, as a government entity, will be tasked with developing its own carbon emissions measurement and reporting under the GHG Reduction Act. We recommend that RBCM confirms that the DES operator has assumed this responsibility.

3.6 Methodology

The inventory has been developed in an Excel format to allow for future updates to be incorporated into the current inventory. Background data for the emissions inventory were provided by the Manager of Property Management and Operations, and the Finance Department within RBCM. The sources of data used have been referenced within the emissions inventory, and are provided on CD in Appendix VI. Data were obtained for a three-year period from 2005 to 2007 inclusive. The general methodology was to summarize the data per year and then apply emission factors in order to calculate carbon emissions in kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units.

Emission factors are commonly used to estimate a quantity of greenhouse gases released to atmosphere and are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant released per unit weight, volume, distance or duration. Global Warming Potentials (GWP) factors are used to relate carbon emissions into a single, common unit, a CO2 equivalent (CO2e).

Page 16: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 10 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

The following equation describes the basic emission calculation methodology:

EFAE ×=

Where:

E = Greenhouse Gas Emissions; A = Activity Rate (gas consumption, power use, etc.); and, EF = Emissions Factor

Two main sources of emission factors were used:

• Environment Canada, 2007, National Inventory Report: 1990-2005, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (Environment Canada, 2007); and

• Offsetters.ca, October 2007, Emissions Comparison Calculation, October 2, 2007 which presented greenhouse gas emission factors per passenger for various transport modes between Victoria and Vancouver that were quantified on behalf of Harbour Air by Offsetters.ca. These calculations included a comparison of Harbour Air, twin engine sea plane, BC Ferries and Helijet transport methods.

It should be noted that the Province has commissioned the development and distribution of a transportation carbon calculator for ministry organizations to use. GESL attempted to obtain this calculator; however, our understanding is that it is currently not generally in use yet and is not available to organizations outside the Provincial Government. Our attempts to obtain the methodology have been unsuccessful to date. RBCM should consider updating the emissions inventory with the Province’s approach, specifically the business transportation sections and the inclusion of emissions related to consumption of office paper. That said, we believe we have reasonably accounted for the transportation emissions using an alternative accounting method (i.e. Offsetters.ca).

A number of assumptions have been made to complete the emissions inventory; wherever possible these assumptions were conservative. The specific methodology and main assumptions used for each emissions source are described in further detail in the following sections.

3.6.1 Natural Gas Consumption (Scope 1)

The source of natural gas consumption at the site is the furnace used for heating Helmcken House. The furnace was reported by RBCM to be a residential style and sized forced hot air furnace.

Page 17: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 11 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Annual natural gas consumption for 2005 to 2007 was summarized based on consumption data provided by Terasen Gas. The consumption data in Gigajoules (GJ) were converted to m3 of gas using an average heating value calculated from four months (January – March 2008) heating value data provided by Terasen Gas. An emission factor for the combustion of natural gas from Table A12.1 within reference Environment Canada, 2007 was used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas consumption.

No consumption data were provided by Terasen gas for August and September 2006. It is possible that the consumption could be zero due to summer months, however within the inventory the assumption was made to use consumption figures for August and September from the previous year (2005) to fill in the potentially missing data. Applying this assumption to the gas consumption for 2006 increases emissions (in CO2e) from gas consumption by approximately 5%.

3.6.2 Company Vehicle (Scope 1)

RBCM operates one company vehicle that is based at the site to move freight and run general errands around the local area.

Emissions for the company vehicle were estimated based on the refueling expenses. Company vehicle fuelling costs were provided by the RBCM finance department for 2005 - 2007. The fuel usage of the company vehicle was calculated by dividing the total annual fuel cost by the average cost of a liter of fuel. Average fuel prices for 2005-2007 in Victoria, BC were based on data provided by the University of Victoria. Emission factors were taken from Table A12-7 of Environment Canada, 2007. The company vehicle was assumed to fall within the Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles category, complying with Tier 1 emission standards.

3.6.3 Electricity Consumption (Scope 2)

Electricity consumption for 2005 to 2007 was calculated based on monthly consumption data provided by BC Hydro. Two electric meters are present at the main RBCM site, attributed to the following addresses: '617 Government Street' and '621 Government Street'. Electricity data from the leased warehouse at 4222 Commerce Circle, Victoria were also provided. The following table summarizes the electricity consumption data included within the inventory.

Page 18: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 12 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

TABLE 2: Electricity Inventory Data Summary

Address Account Number BC Hydro ‘Rate’ category

617 Government Street 000005904680 1206

621 Government Street 000005904688 1210

4222 Commerce Circle 000005553096 1200

RBCM took over management of the building on April 1st, 2006. Prior to this date BC Building Corporation (now called ARES) managed the building. Therefore for meter reading data prior to this date the associated company is listed as BC Buildings Corporation.

A second electricity meter is listed at address 617 Government Street. The account holder of this meter is reported by BC Hydro to be ARES, therefore this consumption data has not currently been included within the RBCM inventory. However uncertainty exists regarding the final user of this electricity (ARES or RBCM). We recommend that RBCM confirms that the electricity consumption recorded by this meter is not consumed by RBCM.

In order to calculate the calendar year's consumption rate the monthly meter readings were summed inclusive of the calendar year. For the monthly meter readings that overlapped the preceding and following year (December and January) the following methodology was employed. If, for example, the meter was read on the 15th of January, to calculate the consumption for the first half of January the average daily consumption was found for that metered period (December 15 to January 15). This average daily consumption value was then multiplied by the number of days in January prior to the meter reading date (15), and then added to the annual consumption rate. The same methodology would apply to the December electricity consumption whereby the daily average consumption from the meter reading period (December 15 to January 15) would be multiplied by the number of days between December 15 and December 31st.

Emission factors were taken from Table A9-11 from Environment Canada, 2007. This table provides the greenhouse gas intensity specific to British Columbia. Data from this source for the most recent year (2005) were used.

Note that the electricity consumption excludes electricity utilized by the National Geographic Imax theatre as this is reported by RBCM to be metered separately.

Page 19: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 13 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

3.6.4 Air Travel (Scope 3)

For the purposes of the emissions inventory the air travel was divided into three specific categories;

• Commercial Helicopter Travel between Victoria and Vancouver (Helijet); • Seaplane Travel (Harbour Air); and, • Commercial Airline Travel (e.g. Air Canada, West Jet).

Carbon emissions from air travel between 2005 and 2007 were estimated based on flight destination and airline company information as provided by the finance department at RBCM. Note that occasionally private helicopters were chartered for business travel. This travel has not currently been included in the emissions inventory as it represents a small component of the business air travel (private helicopters were chartered for 6, 5 and 13 hours in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively).

For Helicopter travel by Helijet, carbon emissions per trip were taken from Offsetters.ca (Offsetters.ca, October 2007). This report indicates that for each Helijet flight between Victoria and Vancouver greenhouse gas emissions are 52 Kg CO2e per passenger, assuming an 85% occupancy rate, dividing total emissions by occupancy. Note that this source of calculation is unverified at this time, and GESL is seeking the new Provincial Gov’t travel carbon calculation process to compare calculation results.

For seaplane travel greenhouse gas emissions per trip were taken from Offsetters.ca (Offsetters.ca, October 2007). This report indicates that for each Harbour air flight between Victoria and Vancouver greenhouse gas emissions are 24 Kg CO2e per passenger, assuming an 85% occupancy rate, dividing total emissions by occupancy.

For commercial airline travel, flight distances were estimated using webflyer.com. Emissions were calculated using the methodology and emission factors provided by The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative (www.ghgprotocol.org). This methodology splits commercial airline flights into short haul, medium haul and long haul based on the distance of the flight leg, then applies emissions factors based on the length of each flight.

3.6.5 Boat Travel (Scope 3)

Travel using commercial ferries and water taxis were undertaken by RBCM staff during the period 2004-2007. Currently only boat travel using BC Ferries has been included in the inventory as this comprises a significant percentage of boat travel distance, 95%, 59% and 71% of total boat travel distance in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively.

Page 20: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 14 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Boat travel destinations were provided by the finance department at RBCM. Greenhouse gas emissions per trip were taken from Offsetters.ca (Offsetters.ca, October 2007). These calculations indicate that for each BC Ferry trip between Victoria and Vancouver greenhouse gas emissions were calculated to be 41 Kg CO2e per passenger when travelling on a ‘BC Ferry Spirit Class’ vessel and 34 Kg CO2e per passenger for travel on a BC Ferry ‘Queen Class’ vessel. For the purposes of this emissions inventory the larger number (41 kg CO2e per trip per passenger) was assumed.

The main assumptions used in boat travel were:

• Water taxis are not currently included in the calculations; • BC ferry travel emission assumes automobile transport; • BC ferry travel assumes 85% occupancy and therefore total emissions are divided by

occupancy to derive per passenger emissions; and, • Extra passenger freight is assumed to be negligible.

3.6.6 Taxi Travel (Scope 3)

Taxi emissions were based on taxi expenditure data provided by the RBCM finance department. Annual taxi rates from the B.C. Passenger Transport Board were used to calculate the estimated kilometers traveled based on the taxi fares provided. Fuel economy (miles per gallon) was determined based on taxi car fleet make and model for the three years provided by Yellow Cab of Victoria. Between 2005 and 2006, it was assumed that the entire fleet was composed of 2000 Model Ford Crown Victoria. In 2007, 60% of the fleet was assumed to be 2004 - 2007 Toyota Prius hybrid models. The remaining 40% was assumed to be 2000 Model Ford Crown Victoria. The ‘City’ fuel economy was used in conjunction with the kilometers traveled to determine greenhouse gas emissions. It was assumed that taxis were in motion at all times during the taxi fare.

3.7 Emission Inventory Results

Table 1 below presents an annual summary of greenhouse gas emissions broken down by each emissions source.

Page 21: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 15 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

TABLE 3: Annual Carbon Emissions by Source 2005 – 2007

Emissions (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total Emissions

Source Emissions Scope (1,2 or 3) 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Natural Gas Consumption 1 14287 11116 14392 11.3 8.8 10.4

Company Vehicle 1 4383 4228 4941 3.5 3.4 3.6

Electricity Consumption 2 10245

4 10324

7 10531

5 81.0 82.1 76.1

Air Travel Helicopter 3 572 260 2652 0.5 0.2 1.9 Seaplane 3 432 960 936 0.3 0.8 0.7

Commercial Airline 3 343 2499 6829 0.3 2.0 4.9

Subtotal of Air Travel 1347 3719 10417 1.1 3.0 7.5

Boat Travel 3 3362 2378 2829 2.7 1.9 2.0 Taxi 3 635 1015 461 0.5 0.8 0.3

TOTAL 126467

125702

138356 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 1 indicates that annual carbon emissions for 2005 and 2006 were similar at 126467 and 125702 kg CO2e respectively. Annual carbon emissions increased by approximately 10% between 2006 and 2007. The predominant source of carbon emissions is electricity consumption, which contributes between 76% and 82% of total emissions in 2005-2007.

Figures 2 to 4 below show the breakdown of carbon emissions by source. Emissions due to air travel showed a significant increase over the three years, and increased as a proportion of total emissions from 1.1% in 2005 to approximately 7.5% in 2007. Natural gas consumption decreased in 2006, then increased to 2005 levels in 2007, this could be due to seasonal weather variance and the associated requirement for heating. Taxi emissions increased significantly in 2006, then decreased back to approximate 2005 levels in 2007. As a percentage of annual emissions, boat travel and company vehicle emissions stayed at similar levels throughout the three year period.

Page 22: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 16 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Figure 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2005

11%1%3%

81%

3%1%

Electricity Consumption

Natural GasConsumptionAir Travel

Boat Travel

Taxi

Company Vehicle

Figure 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2006

9%

3%

2% 3%

1%

82%

Electricity Consumption

Natural GasConsumptionAir Travel

Boat Travel

Taxi

Company Vehicle

Page 23: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 17 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Figures 5 and 6 below indicates the trend in greenhouse gas emissions by source between 2005 and 2007.

Figure 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2007

10%

8%2% 4%

0%

76%

Electricity Consumption

Natural GasConsumptionAir Travel

Boat Travel

Taxi

Company Vehicle

Figure 5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Source

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Electricity ConsumptionNatural Gas ConsumptionAir Travel (helicopter)Air Travel (Seaplane)Air Travel (Commercial Airline)

Boat TravelTaxi

Company Vehicle

Source

Emissions (kg CO 2

equivalent)

2005 2006 2007

Page 24: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 18 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Figures 5 and 6 indicate that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, mainly due to the growth in air travel usage.

Figure 6: Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2005 2006 2007Year

Emissions (kg CO2

equivalent) Company Vehicle

Taxi

Boat Travel

Air Travel (helicopter)

Natural Gas Consumption Electricity Consumption

Page 25: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 19 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

4.0 INVENTORY REFERENCES

Source data and documents used in the inventory preparation are contained within an emissions inventory Excel file. A summary of the major references is provided below:

• The Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 1.0, March 2008.

• California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, April 2008.

• World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Resource Institute, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate and Accounting Standard, not dated.

• Environment Canada, National Inventory Report: 1990-2005, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, April 2007.

• Offsetters.ca, Emissions Comparison Calculation, October 2, 2007.

• British Columbia Climate Action Secretariat, Draft Framework for Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Reporting: Guidance for Crown Corporations, March 12, 2008.

Page 26: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 20 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

5.0 CARBON AWARENESS & CAPACITY SURVEY

5.1 Introduction

A Carbon Awareness and Capacity (Carbon) Survey was completed by 90 staff members and volunteers at the RBCM. This survey was intended to give more in-depth information about attitude, habits and knowledge of individual staff, the culture towards energy efficiency and the way the organization is perceived to be engaged in this area and the technical tools available to influence energy consumption (and the related carbon emissions).

Generally respondents were most optimistic about their own knowledge, habits and attitude towards energy efficiency. The opinion of the organization, the technology available for individuals to reduce consumption, and the overall culture of energy awareness was less positive. Participants provided suggestions for energy consumption reduction opportunities, which underpins the overall conclusion that individual knowledge is present, but that the organization has not picked up on some of the options. There is also evidence that RBCM staff has considerable interest and capability in the broader environmental context, not just in looking for energy efficiency opportunities, that should be considered and harnessed if possible through an appropriate strategy.

Accepting the results as indicative for RBCM as a whole, the conclusion is that RBCM needs to work on approaches to harness the interest and knowledge that is present within their organization, and provide the tools and incentives and organizational commitment to reduce energy consumption and other environmental impacts within their organization. That said, it would be wise to not exclude actions like awareness campaigns and educational activities at this stage to broaden the positive perception of energy efficiency, energy management and renewable energy, although the application of the latter may need to be adopted for reasons of demonstration of leadership rather than as the most cost-effective means to reduce carbon emissions. The high participation numbers are indicative of a strong level of interest in this issue within the organization.

This portion of the report provides the aggregate results for all participating staff members and volunteers at RBCM. All individual responses have been collected and an aggregate analysis performed.

5.2 Survey Methodology

An invitation to participate in the survey was distributed to all members of the RBCM staff and volunteer team. An online questionnaire was available to respondents. Ninety out of approximately 150 people completed the survey which, in our experience, is a very good participation rate.

Page 27: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 21 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

The survey explored the performance of the following 6 aspects (areas):

• Attitude; this aspect measures whether respondents have a positive or negative attitude towards energy efficiency and/or their carbon footprint.

• Culture; this aspect describes the culture within the organization in relation to energy efficiency and/or energy saving.

• Habits; this aspect queries people’s habits in the field of energy use and energy saving.

• Knowledge; this aspect describes how much people know about (relative) energy use, and abatement opportunities.

• Technical; this aspect measures whether an inclination to energy efficient behaviour is prevented or stimulated by technological barriers or appliances (e.g. standby power option).

• Organization; within this aspect questions are asked to measure the willingness of the organization to properly respond to the energy and carbon challenge.

The first three areas can be seen as relatively ‘soft’, whereas the last three can be regarded as relatively ‘hard’.

Almost all answers to the questions of this survey were so-called Likert scales, ranging from: “Totally agree” to “Totally disagree” in five steps. These answers have been assigned to scores ranging from “poor” to “good” depending on the way the question was phrased. Finally, these scores have been transformed in numerical scores ranging from minus 2 through 0 to 2 to facilitate statistical analyses (as shown in Table 1 below). Score of 2 indicates the best performance. Organizations that are ambitious in the field of climate policy and energy awareness, should aim at a score between 1 and 2.

Page 28: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 22 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

TABLE 4: Interpretation Scores Likert Scale

Response Score

Totally disagree (5) Poor -2

Partly disagree (4) Rather poor -1

Don’t agree Don’t disagree (3) Neither poor nor good 0

Partly agree (2) Rather good 1

Totally agree (1) Good 2

5.3 Key Findings

Figure 7 a-b shows a spider diagram with the averages scores per area. In figure 7 b the same scores are presented on a larger scale. The overall average score for all aspects together is 0.251, which is between the scores “neither poor nor good” and “rather good” (see remark above about explaining the scores in a table in the introduction). The average score is not bad, but there is a lot of room for improvements. The scores for Knowledge, Attitude and Habits are relatively high, whereas the score for Organization, Technical and Culture are relatively low. This suggests that while individuals may have the knowledge, habits and a positive attitude for energy efficiency, the perception exists that the organization and culture in the workplace do not support or allow for taking full advantage of the individual knowledge, habit and attitudes. The low scores in the Organization aspect may reflect the need for educating staff and volunteers about RBCM’s energy efficiency plans and programs. A “don’t know” answer is statistically a “0”, which may skew the results negatively simply due to a lack of knowledge.

1 Calculated as the average of all six aspect averages

Page 29: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 23 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

FIGURE 7: Royal BC Museum - Spider Diagram with the Average Score Per aspect

-2

-1

0

1

2Attitude

Culture

Habits

Knowledge

Organization

Technical

(a)

-0.5

0

0.5

1Attitude

Culture

Habits

Knowledge

Organization

Technical

(b)

Closer analyses show clear patterns in the answers. These include:

• Respondents are positively disposed towards energy savings issues, and issues related to energy consumption reductions and carbon management.

• Respondents are generally knowledgeable about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, although there is still room for some improvement.

• It is encouraging that respondents feel some responsibility for energy consumption and know it makes sense to pay attention to energy savings.

• People show good habits in terms of switching off lights that are unnecessarily on and wearing sweaters if they are cold.

• At the same time they claim they are not able to influence organization’s energy consumption.

• However, there are areas where people can make a difference, e.g. switch off appliances when they don’t need them, save energy when they stop working but they generally can not influence thermal conditions at their working place.

• Culturally, energy saving is not seen as a priority within the organization. Generally, people do not try to stimulate others into more energy efficient or energy saving behaviour.

Page 30: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 24 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Partly this is reflected by the low score in the Organization aspect. Employees seem to lack organizational support for energy efficiency and energy savings. Alternatively, they might simply not be aware of the organizational support that exists. Effort should be made to improve the communication of RBCM’s policy towards energy efficiency to staff and volunteers.

The numerous suggestions provided by respondents provide a clear signal there is a lot of room for improvement and the engagement of staff. All suggestions provided by the respondents during the survey should be explored and used as a support for further action (Appendix II).

5.3.1 Habits

Results

The aspect of Habit showed the highest score with an average value of 0.71. This is mostly caused by high scores on the respondent’s own behaviour:

+ Switch off the lights when leaving room (1.21)

+ Too cold, will put on a sweater (1.62)

± Score for turning off the unnecessarily turned-on equipment is rather modest (0.45) and could be higher

− Furthermore, respondents observe office equipment is unnecessarily left switched on (-0.75), when at the same time some of the respondents claim to generally not forget to turn off equipment which is not being used (0.72). Obviously, if everybody switches off equipment, there is no office equipment “left on unnecessarily”. An explanation could be that people may wish their behaviour is energy efficient, while in real life they may forget to act accordingly. This pattern is seen in many organizations.

Recommendations

• Close the gap between perceived own behaviour and observed behaviour of everybody else by a combination of a targeted information campaign, improved/open culture and more positive attitude

• Also attaching special reminders to turn off the equipment when not necessary will increase the score for Habits even further.

Page 31: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 25 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

5.3.2 Attitude

Results

The aspect Attitude scored second with the result of 0.60 which indicates a somewhat positive attitude towards energy savings and energy use issues:

+ Remarkably high score for the item “Makes sense to pay attention to energy savings” (1.78), close to the highest possible score and the highest individual score per item

+ Respondents feel they can affect climate change (1.21) and

+ They seem mostly to have time to pay attention to energy savings (0.64)

± On the other hand, respondents do not feel that energy efficiency plays an important role in their work (0.26)

− Respondents do not have a really open attitude towards other colleagues as they are not good at telling them not to waste energy (-0.08)

− Respondents believe they are not able to influence energy consumption at their work place (-0.42), which is “neither bad nor good”. However, at the same time the technological possibilities seem to be there as the respondents claim in another aspect (see high scores in Technical “Appliances can be switched off (0.93). It may mean respondents are not aware of the existing possibilities they can use to contribute to energy savings.

Recommendations

• Organize targeted campaign for workers to inform and raise awareness on how energy savings play a role in their working environment.

• Organize information campaigns to inform and make people aware about the possibilities they already have and can use in their area (and not only there) to limit energy use.

Page 32: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 26 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

5.3.3 Knowledge

Results

The Knowledge Aspect scored somewhat high, with an average response value of 0.49.

+ Most respondents clearly understand what climate change is (1.60).

+ Respondents know very well that energy use contributes to higher GHG emission (1.42)

+ Some respondents claim to be able to identify 3 options for energy saving (0.60)

+ People are moderately familiar with operations that are high energy users (0.51)

± Many respondents are not aware of actions they could take to save energy (0.09).

− Respondents’ awareness about the relative height of energy use (energy use of site or building compared to the energy use of other sites or buildings) is rather poor (-1.59). They are not well informed how energy use of processes and/or usage in particular departments and/or buildings relates to the total energy usage.

Recommendations

• Pay more attention to relative amounts of departmental energy usage (set targets, monitoring & communication)

• Estimate the use of energy for various workplaces along with their reduction potentials – done by employees, to make them think of the actual figures they could influence

• Improve communication channels to increase the exchange of knowledge between internal groups, as well as other museum groups in North America with a similar focus.

• Use options suggested by staff and volunteers (see Appendix II)

Page 33: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 27 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

5.3.4 Culture

Results

Culture scored 0.08 (neither bad nor good), which is the third lowest result out of all six aspects.

± People claim to encourage each other to save energy (0.66), though there is still a room for improvement

± Management could be a better example for others in respect to energy savings (0.51)

± Energy waste is seen as moderately wrong within the organization (0.46).

± Energy savings on an organizational level is seen as somewhat good (0.11).

− Respondents say they are seldom challenged about their own energy behaviour (-0.77).

− Energy savings lacks attention on departmental level (-0.70).

Recommendations

• More openness and a different mindset could help to encourage colleagues more often to practice energy saving behaviour.

• Make energy saving issues a topic of meetings, open discussions, platforms, targeted campaigns in RBCM’s departments both separately as well as for all of them together.

• Improve even more the role of management in setting good examples.

• Activate the staff with a system of incentives for good energy saving and carbon reduction ideas.

Page 34: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 28 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

5.3.5 Technical

Results

Technical scored somewhat low, with an average response value of -0.13.

+ Appliances can be switched off scored the highest in this aspect (0.93)

+ Many of the respondents indicated that when they stop working they can reduce energy consumption in their area (by using e.g. standby mode) (0.69)

± Still there is some unnecessary equipment or installations turned on after regular working hours, (0.27)

± According to the respondents, lay-out of their working environments does not support them to be energy efficient (0.02).

− There appears to be minimal use of reminders for people to turn off equipment (-1.02).

− People generally do not feel that they can influence the thermal conditions in their work space (-1.13) Improving this score will bring energy and heat savings and will give people more influence on their energy consumption.

− Generally respondents note that their equipment is old, and by inference energy inefficient. (-0.67).

Recommendations

• Attach reminders on devices wherever necessary reminding users to turn them off when not in use.

• Assess technical status and possibilities of lay-out of working environment (including heating system and air conditioning) per department in order to improve even more of the possibilities to reduce energy consumption; (see Suggestions for Opportunities).

• Exchange good examples of action being carried out in different departments.

• Update older, less-efficient office equipment.

• In the organization recommendations to follow, RBCM may wish to continue to solicit office efficiency improvement suggestions from their staff by periodically

Page 35: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 29 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

providing examples of such work to stimulate such discussions. The best of the ideas generated from such a process may need an external technical assessment of the idea feasibility, given the apparent lack of internal technical resources.

• RBCM could task some of its long term energy contractors and consultants to put on ‘brown baggers”, which are presentations of general interest related to energy and sustainability, to provide ideas and encouragement to staff. Again, the best of the ideas may need an external technical assessment.

5.3.6 Organization

Results

The Organization scored the lowest out of all six aspects (-0.25). Low scoring items suggest:

− Energy efficiency is not a regular topic at departmental meetings (-0.95)

− Energy efficiency is not yet included in staff training programmes (-0.89)

− Organization does not have quantitative energy savings targets (-0.07)

− Energy efficiency is generally not communicated and perceived as an important operational driver (-0.01)

− There is no budget for energy savings measures (-0.60)

− Organization does not have energy consumption monitoring at the departmental level (-0.31)

− Generally respondents do not think that there are any carbon reduction policies in the organization (-0.09).

Some promising starting points in the organization are:

± Respondents claim to know staff responsible for energy consumption (0.14), though for a really good score there is still a big gap to bridge.

± The appointed people responsible for energy savings and energy efficiency, to some extent, are perceived to practice what they preach (0.21).

Page 36: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 30 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Recommendations

Scores can be improved easily (“quick wins”) by translating and implementing an energy saving and carbon reduction policy into all layers of the organization. This includes formulating an action plan on departmental level which includes:

• Setting (quantitative) targets and measurable objectives;

• Assigning a budget to enable achievement of these targets. If targets are set, they need to be monitored (and evaluated) as well;

• Assigning tasks, adapt job profiles, create energy/carbon managers if necessary;

• Ensure proper monitoring of task performance; and

• Have regular energy/carbon meetings, with those that are responsible, at regular intervals and exchange knowledge and lessons learned.

5.4 Suggestions for improvement opportunities

More than 50 respondents offered energy savings suggestions in their survey submission. Most of the suggestions included energy saving options that can be achieved by:

• Upgrading the lighting system to a higher efficiency (use LED, motion sensors and timers).

• Using renewable energy sources. • Saving water. • Using more energy efficient equipment (energy star appliances). • Enabling computer updates to take place while still allowing computers to be turned

off at night. • Turning off unnecessary equipment and lighting when not in use. • Smaller, more fuel-efficient company vehicle. • Better heating and cooling control.

All the suggestions can be found in Appendix II. Some of the recommendations are explored in our reduction potential section to follow, however, we recommend that suggestions not addressed below be further explored and their value assessed.

Page 37: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 31 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

6.0 REDUCTION POTENTIAL

6.1 Approach

This project did not include an extensive on-site analysis of all energy consumption and carbon emission reduction options (e.g. through an energy audit). Rather, existing reports have been used to extract information about potential reduction measures. The main source of info was the “Facility Condition Assessment Final Report”, as prepared by VFA Inc. in October of 2007.

The focus was put on those measures with a quantifiable energy efficiency effect, and those that had been labeled “currently critical”, with suggested implementation in 2009. For these measures an “order of magnitude” evaluation of energy savings potential was made, and the potential greenhouse gas reduction effect calculated.

A number of more generic measures have been added to this list, and likewise energy savings and greenhouse gas reduction potential determined. Without a detailed investigation of energy consuming equipment on-site it was difficult to quantify the effect of some measures per building. No information was available about which energy using equipment or even buildings are connected to which of the two electricity meters that serve RBCM’s site.

6.2 CarMan

In order to evaluate the options that are available to RBCM to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the CarMan tool (Carbon Management) has been used. CarMan is a software module that is designed to enable users to evaluate different carbon-saving measures on the basis of their cost-effectiveness. Different scenarios can be developed and assessed by changing important parameters such as interest rate, subsidy level, energy and CO2e credits prices. In addition, the structure of the module facilitates analysis of more than one site at the same time. Developing integral strategies and supporting decision making on holding level is an inbuilt feature of the program.

CarMan helps assess risks and identify opportunities related to carbon assets and liabilities. It will be easy to take ‘make, buy or sell’ decisions in boardroom settings. The consequences of selecting or deselecting specific reduction options to the distance-to-target are immediately visualized and presented on screen.

Local measures (see Section 5.3) were used to construct the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC; see figure 8), using the CarMan online tool. The MACC shows the effect of carbon reduction measures (amount reduced) on the Y-axis, and the cost involved with implementation (per tonne of achieved emission reduction) on the Y-axis. Also indicated

Page 38: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 32 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

are the target for reduction, and the apparent market value of carbon credits (carbon credits, offsets). In this way the MACC shows at a glance which measures are cost-effective in their own right (all measures with a negative cost per tonne CO2e saved), and which measures cost money but are below the market value of carbon credits (those measures above the X-axis but below the market value line. The latter measures could (at least theoretically) be used to generate carbon credits, which could then be sold at a profit. Measures that are lying above the market value line are not cost-effective, but may be required to reach the desired target.

FIGURE 8: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve

6.3 Local reduction options and results

Table 2 indicates which measures were investigated. Only the measures for which the carbon reduction effect could be quantified were used to demonstrate the usefulness of the CarMan management tool. This list of measures should be considered as a cross section of the total range of measures potentially available to reduce emissions. To get a more complete insight into the options a more detailed study would be required, and would entail options such as suggested for further study in the VFA Energy Management proposal.

In the case of RBCM, the combined effect of all investigated measures is not enough to reach the envisaged target of carbon neutrality (see figure 9.)

Page 39: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 33 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

FIGURE 9: Apparent Reduction Opportunities vs. Carbon Neutral Target

As can be seen from Figure 9, the combined result of all measures equals to an annual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of about 24 tonne per year. The total emissions range from 125 tonnes CO2e in 2005 to 138 tonnes of in 2007 (approximate average of 130 tonnes CO2e per year). The gap between the two could be covered by purchasing greenhouse gas credits.

FIGURE 10: Detail of Apparent Reduction Emission

Figure 10 shows an expanded view of the left part of the MACC diagram, which allows a better appreciation of the relationship between the financial impact of the investigated measures in comparison to the (current) cost of purchasing greenhouse gas emission credits.

The figure shows that about 17 tonnes per year of reduction can be achieved at a cost that is lower than the current market price for carbon credits (the average trading price at the Chicago Exchange, which was US$5.00, at the time of investigation). The remaining measures are more expensive. From a purely economic perspective, these measures should not be taken at the present time, particularly as the cost and acceptable standard of carbon credits is highly uncertain.

Page 40: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 34 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

An overview of investigated measures, their costs and expected GHG effect is given in the table below.

TABLE 3: Reduction Measures for the Royal BC Museum

Building Measure name Investment GHG effect

(kg CO2e)

kWh savings

Measure in

CarMan Laboratory Air Compressor $16,410 54.4 3200 Y Curatorial Block Replace Vacuum system $11,718 Y Domestic Hot Water Tank $16,915 58.1 3420 Y Helmcken House Forced Air Furnace $10,474 N Boiler Replacement $91,808 1509.9 88815 Y Aged Air Handling Units $1,327,742 N Piping Insulation refurbishment $38,814 N

Phased Window Replacements $251,782 4250.0 250000 Y

Replace HVAC service from Central Plant $5,027,200 N

Replace control air compressor $10,588 27.2 1599 Y

Museum Exhibit Hall

Recovery of heat from exhaust air $16,000 1105.0 65000 Y

Optimize settings on timers (or install them) $1,000 8047.0 473351 Y

Energy monitoring / management $20,000 8047.0 473351 Y

Solar Hot Water Generation $3,000 32.6 1920 Y

Photovoltaic Panels $95,000 204.0 12000 Y Hybrid Museum Vehicle $6,000 400.0 Y

General

Carbon Credits Chicago Carbon Exchange $688 137604.1 N

TOTAL 23,335 TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRICITY USE (2007) 105,315

Table 4 below is a companion table to figures 9 and 10 showing the reference to the specific reduction measure (e.g. S0012 Optimize setting on timers). In essence, three carbon reduction measures have paybacks which pay for themselves though energy savings based on the current cost of energy. These are: Optimize settings on timers, Implementing energy monitoring/management and Recovering heat from exhaust air related to RBCM Exhibit Hall. In total, these measures will result in approximately 17 tonnes of carbon reductions per year. If all measures were implemented regardless of

Page 41: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 35 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

cost, carbon reductions would be on the order of 24 tonnes per year, far short of the 130 tonne target.

TABLE 4: List of Measures and Paybacks

6.4 Energy Management to reduce Carbon Emissions

As discussed above, currently cost-effective carbon reduction opportunities are limited to three activities: Optimizing timer settings, Implementing energy monitoring/management and Recovering heat from exhaust air related to RBCM Exhibit Hall. GESL understands that RBCM’s energy contractor, Avalon, has been contracted to undertake an energy management program. Below is GESL’s view of energy management for comparison.

The main driver for energy management used to be cost savings, but more and more it is becoming a tool to reduce environmental impact of operation and the most cost effective way to comply with increasingly tight governmental regulations related to carbon and other emissions. A 2000 study by representatives of the commercial building industry and co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and other Canadian and American organizations found that a 30% improvement in energy efficiency could be achieved using existing technologies. With aggressive implementation of more innovative technologies, energy-efficiency improvements of 50 to 80% could be realized. The effect on carbon emissions is commensurate.

Page 42: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 36 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Other benefits can come from improved asset management due to energy efficiency measures. Asset management involves the systematic review of a facility’s operations and equipment, and a logical repair or upgrade schedule that focuses on a proactive approach to improvements. Proactive and improved asset management can extend the lifespan of a building and lower expenditures. Finally, investments in utility infrastructure due to growing activities could be avoided by improving energy efficiency.

Qualitative benefits resulting from effective energy management often include a better working environment (i.e., improved lighting, better indoor air quality, reduced noise, etc.), increased productivity and employee morale, improved service delivery, and an opportunity for organizations to show leadership and influence other community stakeholders to take action.

Effectively demonstrating the benefits of an energy management program is often one of its few shortfalls. Often energy management program deliver many such benefits without explicit recognition. A number of attractive presentation technologies, such as the Energy Mirror, can help provide the recognition as well as motivate better energy and environmental performance.

Energy Monitoring and Reporting

Energy Management starts by knowing your actual energy consumption. Without up-to-date knowledge on consumption of the main functional entities it is not possibly to take timely corrective action, or to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of implemented measures. The following paragraphs give an introduction into Energy Monitoring and Reporting.

Page 43: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 37 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Introduction to Reporting

The day-to-day working of an energy information system can be illustrated by the following closed loop diagram.

The energy data that are collected (via utility meters, or submeters per building) can be analyzed using available proprietary software, or a spreadsheet developed to match RBCM’s needs. If an energy information system is to fulfill its prime objective - to support energy management - effective communication is a critical part of that system. There is little point in collecting, collating and analyzing data for storage purposes only.

It is essential to discover who needs what information to support their role in the energy management process. It should be clear that the information needs vary throughout the organization. What information does the board require? Is this the same as the facility manager?

Correctly identifying the recipients of energy information is essential for communication to be efficient and effective. Therefore who needs to know? The answer, though very general, is anyone and everyone who can have an impact. This may cover a wide range of people. With the growth of environmental management, we also have to consider communication with stake-holders. Stakeholders include employees, regulatory bodies, interested groups and members of the public. What should be immediately apparent is that information needs vary widely. At one extreme it may be a single key statistic, at the other a comprehensive and detailed report.

Communication

Action

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Page 44: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 38 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

It is equally important to realize that not everyone needs to know everything. The information that is communicated should be the minimum required for achieving results. It should also be information that recipients can easily assimilate. It may mean that the style and nature of output needs to be tailored.

Typically, communication falls into one of three categories:

• Regular report - typically, the weekly or monthly report. Issued on a time basis rather a need basis.

• Exception report - produced when something has gone wrong - or right!

• Ad-hoc report - initiated by request or as the result of investigation. Possibly produced to coincide with a relevant event or activity.

A typical reporting for a larger organization is given in the following diagram:

Annual Report

Monthly Report

Weekly Report

Key Indicators

Exception Report

Chief executive

Accountant

Department heads

Procurement

Facility manager

Workforce

Members of public

There are two key time-related aspects to the issue of communication:

• Speed - The value of information is time-dependent. Information delivered at the right time has a high value. Information delivered too late, when little can be done, wastes time and can discredit the system.

Page 45: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 39 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

• Frequency - Communicating too often introduces information overload. It is commonly accepted in today’s work environment that managers have access to too much information, rather than too little. Conversely, sending reports and information too infrequently can mean that interest is lost.

For some people, you may need to deliver information in an exact form to their desk; for others you may need only to give them access to the system. The best methods to choose are the ones which achieve results. This will vary from site-to-site and from year-to-year. What works for one group of people may not work for others. A key factor for the successful implementation of energy monitoring and reporting is to make the internal resources available to guide and support the communication processes.

It must be recognized that the utility meters in the current configuration do not collect all the necessary information and are not able to generate information that is aggregated and easy to understand. Meter information is not regularly stored for easy access, and it is unclear which parts of RBCM complex are serviced by which meter.

It is recommended to investigate, as a minimum, the users that are connected to each meter, and the main electric infrastructure on site. The latter will provide information about what effort would be required to install submetering for the main buildings of the complex. Electricity meters are relatively cheap, and metering per building will provide valuable information about actual consumption. This will be a starting point to allow for later reporting on the success of efficiency measures.

6.5 Renewable Energy vs. Carbon Credits for carbon footprint reduction

As previously mentioned, a key consideration with selecting cost effective carbon reductions in British Columbia is the current low carbon emission factor (i.e. “grid intensity”) and low cost associated grid-supplied electricity. This typically makes most forms of renewable energy and other measures uneconomic on a $/tonne of carbon reduced basis.

Based on a conservative carbon exposure for RBCM of approximately 200 tonnes CO2e annually, and given an apparent carbon credit cost range of $5 to as high as $25/tonne, cost to RBCM to achieve carbon neutrality is currently estimated at $1000 to $5000 annually. GESL cannot, given the regulatory and market uncertainties, and given the focus of this work to evaluate cost-effective carbon reduction options, make recommendations to implement renewable energy options based on carbon emission reduction potential alone. It is simpler and more certain to continue to seek cost effective energy efficient options, track their related carbon reduction benefits, and buy emission credits as necessary, when they become available as proposed by the Provincial government through the Pacific Carbon Trust.

Page 46: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 40 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

That said, renewable energy can have other qualitative benefits that may make it attractive to RBCM, such as increased security and control over long term costs and operation, demonstrating leadership, engaging and energizing staff and the community, and supporting local technology development. When viewed from these perspectives, RBCM may choose to implement some form of renewable energy, potentially using one of the many technologies support funds (e.g. BC’s ICE fund2) as they become available. One real opportunity to investigate is for RBCM, as a customer to act as an advocate for the redesign of the District Energy System to use renewable energy. Changing such systems to use renewable energy sources are potentially more cost effective and, particularly when connected to highly political users (e.g. the parliament buildings), may be promoted on their qualitative benefits.

2 BC Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources runs a $25-million program called the Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) fund. The ICE Fund is to help make British Columbia a world leader in alternative energy and power technology by showcasing B.C. technologies to the world and fostering solutions to B.C.’s pressing energy challenges. It is designed to accelerate the commercialization of new, clean and renewable energy technologies. The 2008 program application deadline was in March, 2008 and was over subscribed; however, another ICE fund offering is anticipated.

Page 47: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 41 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

7.0 CARBON MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The core carbon management strategy recommendations are as follows:

1. Continue to maintain RBCM’s carbon inventory per apparent regulatory requirements, but also as the basis for future risk and opportunity assessment.

2. Implement only cost effective carbon reduction opportunities now – essentially energy efficiency and energy management practices - but watch for opportunities to either advocate or participate in Provincial programs (like BC EMPR’s ICE fund) to increase the cost/benefit of other reduction opportunities related to RBCM.

3. All RBCM activities resulting in energy efficiency improvements need to be tracked to be included in annual “Progress Reports” as called for under the GHG Reduction Act. RBCM “community and staff climate change advocacy” activities should also be tracked and included in these reports.

4. Wait for more clarity on Provincial carbon management requirements of government entities, and watch the development of the Pacific Carbon Trust, particularly with respect to offset purchase cost and potential purchase restrictions. A change or restriction in the availability of offsets to RBCM will require a re-evaluation of other available emission reduction opportunities.

5. Engage the organization in pursuing environmental excellence. RBCM should aggressive launch internal environmental awareness and leadership activities to capitalize on staff’s apparent engagement and commitment, with a focus that is broader than just carbon management.

6. Organize an internal group to help deliver and maintain the above initiatives and to support delivery of an awareness campaign.

7. Consider implementing a display tool, such as the Energy Mirror, to track and communicate energy and other initiative’s progress to staff and the public.

8. Advocate for the “greening” of the District Energy System through relationship with other government entities such as ARES.

9. RBCM could consider the purchase of ‘Green Power Certificates’ from BC Hydro to further reduce it emissions.

10. Consider an alternative to the current company vehicle which would result in lower organization carbon emissions.

Page 48: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 42 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

These recommendations are discussed further below:

1. Inventory Maintenance

GESL has developed and provided RBCM an excel-based inventory for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. While this meets the intent of this phase of work, carbon inventories are dynamic as RBCM’s, regulatory and offset market circumstances change. Typically, organizations task an internal individual or group with the responsibility to maintain the inventory, and while this is currently an annual event, as circumstances change experience in the EU shows that more frequent updates to the inventory become necessary to effectively manage carbon risk. However, this is also typical of larger emitters than RBCM, so an annual update may suffice for some time. It is prudent to anticipate in future budgets a line item to support some level of inventory verification as may be required.

The future Government framework is likely to require GHG measurement and reporting on an annual basis. Following the exercise of data collection for the purposes of this report the Property Management and Operations Department and the Finance Department are aware of data that are required to develop (and update) a GHG inventory. There may be potential opportunity for these departments to review how these data are currently captured, stored and retrieved, with a view to enabling efficient access to the same data in the future. This assessment can be undertaken by internal staff (possibly the respective department managers) for relatively little cost.

There is also value in the organization internally maintaining its GHG inventory if recommendations (below) regarding the Energy Mirror or similar system are implemented. In such a case, GHG information needs to be routinely updated and is likely more cost effectively if done by internal staff.

2. Energy Efficiency and Energy Management

As described above, implementing the identified energy efficiency opportunity (i.e. timer setting) and effective energy management are the key cost effective carbon reduction opportunities currently available to RBCM. GESL understands that the energy efficiency opportunities have been costed by RBCM’s energy contractor, Avalon. We also understand that Avalon have been contracted by RBCM to implement an energy management program. It is important that carbon reductions resulting from energy management implementation are tracked and reported as part of RBCM’s Progress Report. Additionally, RBCM should consider how dynamic the proposed energy measurement program is compared to the EM description provided above, particularly if RBCM considers the installing the proposed Energy Mirror. GESL would welcome the

Page 49: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 43 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

opportunity to work with RBCM and Avalon to enhance the effectiveness of the proposed work.

Specifically, GESL recommends the following steps be considered:

• Investigation of how current utility meters are connected to RBCM’s electric infrastructure (which consumer is connected to which meter).

• Investigation of lay-out of electrical system.

• Determine locations for submeters for the main buildings; or determine electrical work required to ensure that submeters provide the desired information.

• Analyze information requirements for the various potential users (board, facility manager, internal committees, employees, energy mirror etc.)

• Design a system for collection of data and communication of results.

• As RBCM’s energy manager, Avalon’s EM work will be impacted by the above. GESL would be happy to work with RBCM and Avalon to amend the current energy management programs terms of reference. Note that GESL does not have Avalon’s field technical capabilities and has no desire to supplant them in doing this work.

3. Progress Reports

While general protocol guidelines have been issued in draft, the specific content requirements of the Progress Reports required under the GHG Reduction Act have not been published. We envision this process to be a scaled down version of the compliance process recently implemented in Alberta under the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation. In that process, emitters provide carbon emission (and production) information, onsite carbon reduction information, offset purchase information and finally, if necessary, a reduction amount required to be purchased from the government’s ‘technology fund” to reduce carbon emissions to a specific target.

BC’s carbon requirements for government entities may not be as numerically driven as Alberta’s, although we suspect that BC’s implementation of the Pacific Carbon Trust will provide both a clearinghouse function for government carbon emission inventory and related information, as well as facilitating and reconciling Carbon Neutral requirements for individual government entities. While there will be a numeric component to this process, there will undoubtedly be a qualitative part to such reports as well, particularly those activities which are news worthy or demonstrate leadership.

Page 50: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 44 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

RBCM is currently undertaking a number of energy efficiency and energy management initiatives. While it is unclear how such initiative’s carbon attributes will be accounted for, it is clear that developing a project description, cost, carbon benefit, other benefits and impacts to RBCM’s carbon inventory is a necessary and on-going process. As mentioned above, typically organization’s task and resource an internal person or group to maintain the inventory. We recommend the same process to maintain the content and support the delivery of the Progress Report as well.

4. Engagement in Carbon Markets

RBCM has been proactive in developing its inventory, building its internal awareness and establishing a Carbon Management Strategy. The inventory provided through this project, beyond being simply a regulatory requirement, provides RBCM with a sensitive risk management tool. As the GHG Regulations are released over the course of this year and next, organizational liability and specific reduction actions need to be assessed and implemented. Typically, in larger organizations this task falls to an individual or group to maintain a regulatory watch. However, this work can be outsourced to provide periodic updates and impact assessments to RBCM to companies such as GESL that track such information closely.

However, by being engaged and through implementing this project (e.g. via the Carbon Survey) RBCM has developed a sense of urgency and expectation amongst its staff for action. The recommendation below will help RBCM stay engaged and harness RBCM’s internal interest and (renewable) energy.

5. Pursuit of Environmental Excellence

As apparent through the results of the Carbon Awareness and Capacity Survey, RBCM’s staff is interested and ready to engage in energy and carbon reductions activities, but lacks the organizational and technical support to do so. Additionally, it is apparent that staff’s engagement is broader than just reducing their carbon footprint, but also in managing other environmental attributes of the RBCM operation (e.g. “save water”), which moves the organizational requirement toward more of an environmental “sustainable” operation, than simply undertaking carbon management.

There are a number of initiatives, such as the popular LEED initiative, which relate to buildings and operations. Implementing such initiatives help create a framework and a target for an organization to pursue a broad array of physical and organizational environmental aspects (e.g. energy consumption, water consumption, waste management), and to set in place activities to reduce these aspects environmental impact.

Page 51: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 45 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

LEED is developing an initiative for existing buildings; however, as a potential interim step GESL recommends that the RBCM engage its staff to seek certification through the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) ‘Go Green’ Program. This is a voluntary program designed to recognize buildings where environmental best practices have been implemented based on a set of standards. In addition to energy use and carbon emissions, this program recognizes a broader range of environmentally responsible initiatives. The ‘Go Green’ requirements are presented in 5 categories with a total of 10 requirements:

1. Resource Consumption – Energy Use and Water Use 2. Waste Reduction & Recycling – Construction Waste and Recycling 3. Building Materials – Hazardous Materials, Material Selection & Ozone Depleting

Substances. 4. Interior Environment – Indoor Air Quality and HVAC Maintenance 5. Tenant Awareness – Communication Program

In order to apply for the ‘Go Green’ certification, an organization must first become a member of BOMA BC which costs between $850 and $2700 per year, depending on the organization’s square footage. Following this, an organization must complete a Go Green Application for each building under consideration and submit the application fee (between $1500 and $7000 depending on square footage). The Application must include a Declaration that the organization has successfully implemented all ten requirements as identified above. The online Application Guide provides further detail on the requirement for certification:

(http://www.bomagogreen.com/docs/Application_Guide.pdf)

Following receipt of the Application, BOMA BC conducts a site visit to verify the application and verify that all declared programs and policies are in place and consistent with Go Green criteria. If the organizations gains approval, BOMA issues as Go Green designation that is valid for a 3-year period.

BOMA provides an additional program called ‘Go Green Plus’. This program is run through a web-based assessment tool that matches the ten requirements of the Go Green program and drills deeper into the detail of each requirement. Data is gathered online to provide a benchmarking component of the program. The Go Green Plus program is designed to enable participants to:

• Develop action plans for saving on resource consumption costs and by reducing waste;

• Evaluate a portfolio of buildings and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each;

Page 52: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 46 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

• Capitalize on a valuable marketing and tenant relations tool;

• Foster increased environmental consciousness in building design and operations; and

• Recognize that environmental objectives are a key part of strategic asset planning.

Further recognition is possible through BOMA’s prestigious Earth Award which recognizes excellence in environmentally sounds building management. Winners at the Canada level go on to the BOMA International Earth Award competition. Go Green certification and any additional Earth Awards would serve as effective marketing and public relations tools for the RBCM.

The BOMA Go Green certification would require that certain audits be performed (e.g. an energy audit and a water use audit), and that certain policies be formulated and adopted. This has the advantage that good information is obtained about what opportunities exist for improvement in the targeted areas, and that management will have to take a position on what actions to take to actually improve. Getting BOMA Go Green certified would improve the overall environmental impact of operating RBCM, and would likely have cost benefit in certain areas as well.

In the area of communications, the BOMA Go Green program meshes with other recommendations in this report, such as implementing an awareness program (see below), and the Energy Mirror (see below). The communication program requirement by BOMA Go Green would be served to a large extent by the communication aspects of the suggested awareness program. The Energy Mirror in its new design is open to display all sorts of information in addition to energy consumption or efficiency data. Results of recycling programs, water use reduction, and so on, could be visualized using this tool.

All in all, the BOMA Go Green program provides a logical framework for the development of environmentally beneficial initiatives, as well as a recognition tool and a way to demonstrate to the public that RBCM is taking action on environment. As such it is worthy of consideration.

6. Awareness Campaigns

The campaign discussed below focuses on increasing carbon and energy awareness with the intent of reducing energy consumption and carbon footprint. However, if RBCM adopts the Boma Go Green recommendation (above), the campaign can be modified to address the additional environmental aspects, that such a program requires.

Page 53: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 47 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

The first focus for awareness campaigns should be internal operations, but the public can be regarded as just as important. Key lessons learned in setting up awareness campaigns about energy efficiency are that a campaign should be long-lasting (e.g. two years) with very specific actions that support the message. Repeat the message over and over! Examples of actions are: efficient lighting campaign, train-the-trainer program for the workforce, sticker campaigns, newsletters, or an energy quiz.

Monitoring the effect of awareness campaigns on energy use can be done if combined with the implementation of energy monitoring and reporting. Monitoring of the results in terms of uptake (number of staff trained, number of internal energy use scans done, number of recipients of newsletter) and implementation of measures (e.g. equipment upgrades) is essential.

The first step in an effective awareness campaign is management commitment. This commitment does not mean managers have to devote a lot of time, but it is important that their commitment is visible, practical and effective. Practical ways senior management can demonstrate commitment include:

• Develop an energy policy; • Energy management on agenda; • Appointment of an Executive Energy Champion; • Appointment of a Campaign Team; • Ensure energy management is adequately resourced; • Support at energy campaign launch; • Personally brief middle managers; and • Release staff for training.

It is important to design a campaign appropriate to the organization’s culture. Every culture is different so “off the shelf” campaigns are rarely effective. Each campaign must be carefully crafted and tailored for maximum impact. To develop a campaign strategy it is useful to ask questions such as:

• What are the current levels of awareness? • How motivated are people? (see results of Awareness Survey) • What are the barriers? • What are the opportunities? • What would get people interested and committed? • Can some people make much larger savings than others because of their job function? • What are the best ways of communicating with people? • What are the best ways of giving feedback? and • Which sites are likely to yield the largest savings?

Page 54: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 48 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

The answers should help to select the appropriate methods relevant to RBCM’s situation. An overview of possible methods is given in Appendix III.

Cost and Benefits: To run an effective campaign the investment level needs to be between 2% and 4% of the total annual utility expenditure to reach critical momentum. It would be wiser to do nothing if less than 2% of the annual energy budget is available.

An investment of 2 to 4% of the annual utility expenditure can often result in savings of between 5% and 15% in 12 months. They also have rapid paybacks which mean the cost of energy awareness campaigns can be funded from the annual utility budget without having to seek special capital funding for a campaign.

7. Organization, building energy and/or environmental attribute display

GESL and its parent companies work with numerous clients who are excellent environment performers. However, we are continually surprised at how poorly such excellence is communicated, both as a means of gaining recognition and as a means to motivate further excellence.

One of the more effective tools in this regard is Ecofys’ Energy Mirror, depicted below.

The Energy Mirror has been implemented in a number of buildings, including the Ecofys building in Utrecht. Approximate costs to implement the above etched glass version is in the region of $10,000, however, a newer, ‘digital’ version is available that is less

Page 55: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 49 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

expensive and considerably more flexible in its display contents. The design specifications are currently being finalized. Should this tool be of interest to RBCM, it is recommended that a detailed RBCM specific quote is obtained.

8. District Energy System’s green redevelopment

GESL understands there is an initiative to upgrade or replace the district energy system that provides steam to RBCM and other buildings in the area. However, GESL is unaware of discussions to implement renewable energy, such as geothermal or geoexchange as part of this initiative. As a key customer of this system, RBCM can and should engage with the system operator to encourage the use of renewable energy as part of the district energy system. GESL would be please to support RBCM’s engagement in this process by providing advice about what is possible and what is likely cost effective, rather than what is expedient which is often what gets implemented in such cases. GESL is in a unique position in that internally we have specialists in most renewable energy fields, and where we lack, we have potential project partners who are knowledgeable in our partners network, therefore we do not advocate for a particular RE technology because we sell just that technology, , just advocate the one that makes sense. Additionally, GESL tracks a number of funding initiatives, such as the ICE fund, that may expand the possibilities of possible technologies available to such an initiative. Note that the first traunch of ICE Fund funding was over subscribed and is now closed. However, indications are that BC EMPR will launch another traunch shortly due to the first traunch’s success.

9. ‘Green Power Certificates’ or equivalent

Carbon emissions due to electricity purchase are the most significant source of emissions within the carbon inventory, and accounted for ~76% of total emissions in 2007. Green power certificates can be purchased from BC Hydro. This potentially is a practical way for organizations to offset their electrical consumption with green energy thereby reducing carbon emissions. BC Hydro have indicated that the Green Power Certificate scheme is currently under review and certificates are not available for sale. However, if the scheme becomes commercially available, or a similar scheme is developed this could be considered in future as a way of RBCM reducing total emissions. Prior to entering such as scheme, the acceptability of this method of emissions reductions should be verified with the Provincial Government. The cost of emission reduction using this method would need to be compared to simply buying offsets from the Pacific Carbon Trust to determine which is most cost effective.

Page 56: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 50 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

10. Greener Alternatives to the company vehicle

Emissions from the company vehicle represented ~4% of total emissions in 2007. Total emissions could be reduced by exploring alternative lower emission vehicles powered by fuel sources such as biodiesel, hybrid (electric/gasoline) electric or propane. It is understood that the company vehicle is currently leased, therefore this option can probably not be explored until the lease renewal time. Once the government framework for GHG measurement, reporting and procedures on how to offset emissions (e.g. purchase of emissions credits) has been defined, it would be a relatively straightforward task to undertake a cost analysis of introducing a lower emissions vehicle versus the cost of potential emission offsets.

Page 57: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - 51 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

8.0 CONCLUSION

Golder Ecofys Solutions has appreciated and enjoyed working with the Royal BC Museum to complete this work. We would appreciate the opportunity to assist you on further work as described above or otherwise.

GOLDER ECOFYS SOLUTIONS LTD.

Roger Ord, MBA, P.Eng. Senior Consultant

Frans Diepstraten Senior Consultant

RO/knb/lw O:\FINAL\2007\1018\07-1018-0023\RPT 0702_08 RBCM FINAL REPORT.DOC

Page 58: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

APPENDIX I

CARBON AWARENESS & CAPACITY SURVEY AVERAGE SCORES

Page 59: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - I - 1 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

QUESTION AVERAGE Makes sense to pay attention to energy saving 1.78 Do not have time to pay attention to energy saving 0.64 Tell colleagues not to waste energy -0.08 Not able to influence energy consumption -0.42 EE does not play a role in my work 0.26 People can't affect climate change 1.21 I can reduce energy consumption 0.57 Things I do will impact CC 0.87 Average score Attitude 0.60 Energy waste is seen as wrong 0.46 Colleagues challenge me about my energy awareness -0.77 Saving energy is key within department -0.70 Saving energy is key within our entire organization 0.11 Encourage colleagues to save energy 0.66 Management set good example 0.51 Management supports employees 0.35 Economic payback is only criteria 0.30 Encourage colleagues low GHG -0.15 Average score Culture 0.08 Switch off lights 0.79 When I leave room I never switch off light 1.21 Turn off equipment that is unnecessarily turned on 0.45 Forget to turn off equipment 0.72 Office equipment is left on unnecessarily -0.75 Purchases - climate change impacts 0.49 Too cold wear sweater 1.62 Too cold plug in 1.09 Too hot AC 1.15 Too hot Fan 0.34 Average score Habits 0.71 Energy causes GHGs 1.42 No idea about relative height of energy use -1.59 Could identify 3 options for energy saving 0.60 Am aware of actions I could take to save energy 0.09 What process operations are high energy users 0.51 Understand climate change 1.60 Know carbon neutral and footprint 0.80 Average score Knowledge 0.49 Know staff responsible for energy consumption 0.14 Those responsible do not practice what they preach 0.21 Regular communications stressing energy efficiency is important operational driver -0.01

Energy is a regular topic in departmental meetings -0.95 Energy efficiency in staff training programmes -0.89 Organization has energy saving policy 0.02

Page 60: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - I - 2 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

QUESTION AVERAGE Organization has carbon reduction policy -0.09 Business unit has budget for energy saving measures -0.60 Energy consumption of department is monitored -0.31 Organization has planned future energy saving measures -0.07 Average score Organizational -0.25 Cannot influence thermal conditions in work space -1.13 Lay-out of working environments prevents energy efficiency 0.02 Appliances can be switched off 0.93 In overtime more installations are switched on that required 0.27 Standby mode 0.69 Reminders are attached to turn off equipment -1.02 Old business technology -0.67 Average score Technical -0.13 TOTAL AVERAGE 0.25

Page 61: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

APPENDIX II

LIST OF SUGGESTIONS FOR GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS AT THE ROYAL BC MUSEUM CORPORATION

FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS (STAFF & VOLUNTEERS)

Page 62: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - II - 1 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Opportunities Employee Name

Programs to have staff more aware of turning off office and meeting room lighting. Turn off lights/equipment. Buy energy efficient equipment. Walk/ride bike instead of drive. Use less lighting over work area. Buy local - reduce transportation emissions.

Turn off computer monitors. Leave lights off when no one is in the room. Replace the freezers (for film) in Archives. Bus-pass.

Photocopiers are shut off at night. The computers are all logged off. Lights in all the buildings are turned off at night. RBCM has changed some of the lights to use those that use less electricity.

Policy to buy local. Shut down computers. Turn off lights in office area, hallway and bathrooms when not in use. It would be great if exhibits made an effort to purchase "green" building materials. Other sites have done this and found that the cost is not much more, but it does take more time to get supplies in and located.

Turn off lights in passageways at night. Turn off computers.

Turn off the lights when not in use! Lower blinds after hours - keep the heat in & the sun out. Switch to fluorescent bulbs as often as possible. Recycle recycle recycle!

Car Pool Program Tray in photocopiers for paper that can be recycled. Orientation to organization policy and understanding what uses how much.

F. Yaxley

Encourage working at home (even one day a week) for those who can so that they do not need to travel to work. Turn off lights in washrooms when not in use. Walk up the stairs and do not use elevators for lowest floors!!

Turn off lights. Turn off computer. Close window blinds in summer. Recycle paper, reuse paper on both sides for internal documents. Get smaller company vehicle, van too large. Always walk to work.

Turn off computers and lights. Turn off photocopiers and microfilm reader/printers.

I do know that we have an agreement with BC Hydro to replace some of our equipment with energy efficient new equipment and that there are energy efficient flashlights, and other systems used by staff and partners, but I'm not aware of a specific policy or energy saving measures used other than just common sense and awareness by staff to be energy efficient.

Turn out lights after use. Unplug electronic devices that use "standby" mode. Recycle everything possible.

Page 63: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - II - 2 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Opportunities Employee Name

Upgrade to more efficient appliances. Light bulbs have been changed, for ex. sun shading has been added to some windows to reduce summer air conditioning needs.

2-sided printing, e-forms, avoid printing. Promote transit, walking or cycling to commute if less than 30km away.

Fly less. Reduce e-consumption due to changing lights. Elimination of equipment. Lower temperatures in office spaces. Undergoing an assessment now.

None within my sphere of involvement with the organization. Putting in motion switches on light use rooms in the common areas of our building. Switch off computers. Switch off lights in empty rooms (i.e. washrooms). Close blinds against sun.

Using public transit more. Turn heat down at night. Turn off home lighting/appliances when not in use. Recycle paper, glass and plastic bottles. Reduce use of plastic bags.

Change light bulbs. Keep heat lower.

Dr. Elias Mandel

Setup all staff computers to sleep overnight -but can be awakened to do updates etc - and all monitors to shut down.

CFL low energy light bulbs. Turn off monitors & printers at end of day.

Switching off 150 LCD Monitors and CPU's. Install motion sensors in low use hallways. Mark Dickson

Install low energy using equipment. Note: Energy usage and carbon emissions are clearly confused in this survey!!!! Did this survey originate in Ontario?

Use the bus for short uptown trips. Use energy efficient vehicles. Keep the building temperatures lower. Lighting controls should be more area specific. Dimmer switches may be appropriate in some areas. Do not use the elevator if only going four floors or less. Put solar tubes for hot water heating on the roofs. Use small scale photovoltaics for inside emergency and outside lights. Use your own coffee cup.

Work with car sales lots to reduce all night spotlights that reach great distances. I am often the last person to leave the library and have to turn out ALL lights that have been left burning for hours with nobody using them. I inquired about having a toggle switch for each floor so the lights could be switched off easily by those leaving at 4:30, but it was too expensive. So, many excess lights are left on for hours each day. Since part of preserving the rare books is to decrease exposure to light I am constantly turning out lights and had alternate fixtures permanently disabled in the book stacks to reduce exposure. However, we need toggle switches

Page 64: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - II - 3 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Opportunities Employee Name

for each of the 4 stack floors to increase both awareness and ease of reducing lighting use. Motion detection/auto shut off of lights and escalators. Energy Star lights and appliances. Reuse materials. Purchase reused/refurbished materials. Geothermal heating/cooling. Solar heating. Promote carpooling/transit/cycling. Buy locally.

Leaving lights off in offices with windows. Changing to energy efficient lights and fixtures. People can use mass transit rather than individual vehicles (but I walk to work). Bicycles also should be encouraged with arrangement for secure bike storage. Use stairs rather than elevator (better for fitness anyway). Purchase small energy efficient vehicles for office use rather than using our large van for every trip. Eliminate gas-powered leaf blowers.

Cheap energy credits, such as lowering hydro rates should be increased for major industrial consumers of energy, instead of being reduced. This would improve BC's energy deficit far more than the sum total of individual actions. BC could also look at ending energy exports as a major conservation initiative. This would enforce faster improvements in energy efficiency in other jurisdictions.

Most of our areas are lights off when not in use. Computers have to stay on to receive updates but monitors are shut off. Heating cooling is controlled outside. We have blinds drawn all the time to keep collections areas dark and the heat build up down.

Switching off lights when not in use. Informing facilities if I see unneeded lights on during the daytime. Encourage the setting of set building temperature a couple of degrees colder.

I don't drive a car. I turn off lights when not needed. I try to eat food that is grown locally and organic. I turn off my computer when not in use.

Stop use of throw-away cups for coffee. Turn off lights, unplug unused equipment I keep all the blinds down in my area in order to reduce need to change temperature and humidity controls from physical plant. Keep lights off when not in collections area.

Low flush toilets and not leaving water running when doing dishes. More options for recycling/waste materials. Ensuring lights and office equipment are turned off when possible. More effective HVAC.

Energy efficient light fixtures or natural lighting. Gray water for toilets. Solar panels, energy star appliances, efficient HVAC systems. Offer car pooling/reduced bus fares.

Tom Wilson

Turn off every 2 out of 3 floors worth of lights in the Fanning Tower hallways; some Elaine Gibb

Page 65: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - II - 4 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Opportunities Employee Name

is needed for safety, etc., especially top floor - but not all lights. Ask staff to turn off monitors at end of day/week. Have light timers shut off lights when closed. Turn off lights. Unplug equipment at power point that is not being used. Wear layers of clothing to regulate heat. Bicycle or bus to work. Insulate homes. Replace old windows with new thermal ones. Buy energy star appliances.

Efficient lighting. Low emission vehicles.

Hydrogen flashlights. Museum light reduction after we close to the public.

Turning off equipment. Keeping blinds closed.

Turn off lights. Turn off equipment, especially at night. Purchase new energy-efficient equipment. Renew HVAC and freezers.

Not aware of any at the site. Currently purchasing software to evaluate and eventually regulate energy use by computer systems. Developing Green Purchasing Policies. Monitoring consumption of paper and consumables like toner (with goals of reducing in future).

Withdraw staff work stations from collections storage areas so that creature comfort is not the primary environmental consideration, but rather cooler, drier storage environments become the norm. Reduce some building lighting in evenings: e.g. Fannin north-facing hallways, as this may be simply a matter of appearance. More emphasis on task lighting in offices rather than ceiling fluorescents. Motion sensors to control less frequently used restroom lights. Process to allow for CPUs at workstations to be shut off upon exiting building. Better blinds on Fannin windows to control sunlight. Vent heat generated by commercial freezer units in Archives - even in advance of a major cold storage solution, there must be a more efficient short-term solution to cooling contents of freezers while heating adjoining collections and taxing the air-handling system.

Don Bourdon

Overhead lights for entire area I work in are on one switch. Would be good to have sections so that if I'm working outside regular hours not using as much power. Not sure if all equipment now has lower power standby mode and if those are being used. Cannot switch off our computers, due to nightly network backups.

Turning off the lights when not in use. I unplug equipment when I am not using it. I walk or bicycle around town on government business.

Page 66: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

APPENDIX III

METHODS FOR AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS

Page 67: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - III - 1 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Most methods for awareness campaigns can be divided into the following categories:

• Personal/face-to-face; • Literature; • Point-of-use; • Participative schemes; • Current standard methods; • Exhibitions; • Video; and • External initiatives.

PERSONAL/FACE-TO-FACE

Presentations

These might be used to brief managers before a campaign and to launch the campaign itself. An outline of the campaign aim, benefits and strategy can be described and the role of the audience. Other short presentations can be made once the campaign is launched. These could highlight the impact of saving energy and give advice on how to save energy.

Workshops

Possibly one to three hour sessions explaining in more detail to smaller groups, possibly by job function, about the benefits of saving energy and what they can do. Idea generation sessions might be appropriate.

Use of Existing Meetings

Face to face contact can be made at staff focus groups, regular department or section meetings, team briefings or information gatherings.

Internal Training

For people with direct involvement and responsibility in the campaign. (e.g. energy coordinators) to equip them for their role and to help them pass on information about energy saving actions to people in their area.

Page 68: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - III - 2 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Energy Walkabouts

Short visits to a building or area with the energy coordinator, Energy Manager or Energy Champion to affirm good practice and encourage people to take the campaign seriously.

Word Of Mouth

This is often one of the most powerful methods of communication within an organization, and probably the one that is more difficult to control. It can be both negative and positive. The most important aspect is to try to generate messages which stimulate interest and get people talking about the campaign, i.e. high in conversational value. It is also important to nip in the bud any negative comments or misinformation that may be circulating.

LITERATURE

Special Energy Booklet

Tailor-made with municipal and campaign logo, colours and style. Specific advice to the people in your organization possibly with content on energy in the home and environmental impact. These can be designed and printed professionally or produced in-house. They can be distributed with wages or salary slips. It is usually worth including information in the booklet on the cost of producing the booklet expressed as a ratio of the annual utility cost. Details of the recycled paper used for the booklet should also be included.

Energy Newsletters

These can be produced at regular intervals using campaign letterhead and logo.

Energy Leaflets

A new leaflet, every four weeks, could be distributed to employees. Each new leaflet would have a theme (e.g. lighting, office equipment, water use etc.).

POINT-OF-USE

Energy Posters

There are three types:

Page 69: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - III - 3 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

• Professionally produced and tailor-made using campaign logo, colours and style. Alternatively, they can be produced in-house.

• Ready-made energy posters free from an energy agency and other voluntary or commercial organisations.

• Posters generated as part of a competition by employees and/or their children. Twelve winning entries could be made into an energy calendar.

Energy Stickers

Same comments can be applied as energy posters above.

Promotional 'Merchandise'

Such as coffee mugs, mouse mats, pens, diaries, screen savers etc. carrying an energy-saving message.

Pop-up Messages on intranet featuring ‘energy thought for the day’.

PARTICIPATIVE SCHEMES

Suggestion schemes

If suggestion schemes work well then energy saving ideas could be incorporated.

Competitions

Energy based competitions or quizzes with prizes can be useful. Also, if a particular cost centre or building has done well a prize or some sort of recognition could be given.

Incentives

In the form of bonuses, rewards, outings, gifts and most importantly, recognition. Individual rewards should be used with caution because it is often a team effort which results in success. A proportion of savings could go to improving staff amenities or to the organization’s support of a local charity or fund raising project.

Page 70: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - III - 4 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Recognition

Any person or team making a significant contribution should be given appropriate recognition. This does not need to be financial, but it could be a meal out with their partner, hot air balloon flight with the story appearing in local press and energy newsletter.

CURRENT STANDARD METHODS

Letters/Memos

These can keep people informed and do have an impact if they are signed personally by the Chief Executive or Energy Champion.

E-mail

Can be effective for keeping people informed. Also e-mail can be used for people to contact the Energy Manager with questions, ideas, suggestions.

Regular Cost Reports

If cost reports are weekly, monthly or quarterly then it is possible to add a section on energy performance. See also 'Feedback' below.

Public Relations

Your organization’s image can be enhanced by communicating environmental achievements including energy savings. It could feature in the annual report and as part of the environmental report. Information could also be incorporated into brochures, direct mailings and other communication with suppliers and customers.

In-House/Staff Magazine

Articles on energy can be placed in the magazine at regular intervals.

DISPLAYS/EXHIBITIONS

Special Exhibitions

These can be positioned in key locations with energy advice including saving energy at home. They can be moved between buildings and sites.

Page 71: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

July 2008 - III - 5 - 07-1018-0023

Golder Ecofys Solutions Ltd.

Energy Noticeboards

Can be located in buildings with energy information specific to that building or cost centre.

EXTERNAL INITIATIVES

Discounts at Local DIY Stores

It might be possible to arrange a discount on a range of energy saving items in the home at a local DIY store for a limited period during the campaign. Employees would be eligible for a discount on the production of their ID card.

Sponsorship

Local organizations might wish to sponsor prizes in exchange for free publicity.

External Publicity

Can be useful in promoting the organization’s image. Energy efficiency may not make the headlines but if you do something a little more innovative then it can be a newsworthy item. Teaming up with a good cause such as hospice or getting celebrities involved is a good example.

Source: SEI Building Energy Manager’s Resource Guide.

Page 72: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

APPENDIX IV

JANUARY PRESENTATION TO THE RBCM MANAGEMENT TEAM

Page 73: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

GHG Inventory and Carbon Management Strategy

Royal BC Museum FacilitiesJanuary 2008

Page 74: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Agenda

• Introductions• Carbon Management Drivers• Overview of the BC Museum Carbon

Management Strategy• Timing

Page 75: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Golder Ecofys Solutions

We harness two forces:Golder’s global capacity, reputation, client relationships and extensive expertise in delivering innovative client-oriented solutions

Ecofys’ leading edge carbon and energy management services, and “hands on” renewable energy project development experience.

Provides services, solutions and innovations in carbon management and sustainable energy

Page 76: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

GHG Reduction Targets Act• Royal Assent 29, 2007

– reduce BC GHG emissions by 33% below current (2007) levels by 2020

– Proclamation?• Carbon Neutral target by 2010 for Public

Sector Organizations (PSOs)• Progress required of PSOs in 2008 and

2009

Page 77: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Carbon Neutral Organizations

Page 78: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Carbon Management Strategy -Overview• Identify and manage risks and opportunities

associated with carbon emissions– 1. Develop baseline inventory– 2. Identify/quantify carbon reduction options– 3. Develop CMS and Implementation Plan– 4. Implement with budgets, targets and

success metrics– 5. Monitor

Page 79: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Baselines & Forecasting

• GHG Inventory– Collect data and calculate emissions

• Forecasting– Identify and model future scenarios (interview

staff)– Identify carbon reduction targets (voluntary or

set by policy/regulation)

Page 80: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Inventory Scope?Scope 1

All direct GHG emissionsScope 2

Indirect GHG emissions associated with consumption of purchased electricity, heating, cooling, or steam

Scope 3All indirect GHG emissions not covered in Scope 2 (e.g. upstream and downstream activities)

Page 81: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Identify/Quantify Carbon Reduction Options• Carbon Awareness and Capacity Survey

– Online survey to assess “carbon attitude”– Identifies strengths and weakness to be

addressed in Carbon Management Plan– Inputs used in the “decision making tool” and

developing the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve

Page 82: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Carbon Awareness & Capacity Survey

• Items / indicators divided in 6 categories:

–Knowledge–Technical–Organization–Culture–Habit–Attitude

⇒Only attitude and technical scored sufficient

knowlegde

technical

organisation

culture

habit

attitude

knowledge

organization

Page 83: Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Page 84: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Carbon Management Strategy: Define Variables & Scenarios

Page 85: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Identify Options

Page 86: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Make Decision

Page 87: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Final Carbon Management Strategy• Senior Management Workshop

– Senior management and key operational staff work with Big MACC

– Decide on key carbon reduction opportunities to consider for further refinement

– Implement and monitor as carbon opportunities evolve

Page 88: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Timelines & Uncertainties

• GHG Inventory and Forecasting• Carbon Awareness and Capacity Survey• Development of Big MACC• Senior Management Workshop• Final Report

Page 89: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

APPENDIX V

MARCH 18 PRESENTATION TO THE RBCM EXECUTIVE

Page 90: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

GHG Inventory and Carbon Management Strategy Senior Management Workshop

March 2008

Page 91: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Workshop Agenda

– Review Objectives– Update – Inventory Development Results– Awareness Survey Results– Discuss key carbon reduction opportunities

and carbon management options– Final Deliverables, next steps

Page 92: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Project Objectives• Help RBCM create a plan to

meet provincial GHG reduction requirements

• Define the boundaries of GHG emission responsibility

• Provide an overview level of the likely financial implications

• Develop a carbon management (CM) strategy

• Outline the steps, timescales, milestones, resources and outputs to deliver the CM.

Carbon Neutral Organizations

Page 93: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Workshop Objectives• The current GHG position of the Museum• The impact of current plans on that position• The Museum’s relative position in terms of

achieving Carbon Neutrality• The possible options and related, potential

‘high-level’ option costs; and,• The Museum’s organizational capacity to

implement GHG reductions and opportunities.

Page 94: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Updates

• Federal• Provincial• Municipal

Still very few hard rules or clear guidance!

Page 95: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Emissions Inventory: Main CO2SourcesIncluded in Inventory:• Electricity Consumption• Natural Gas Consumption (Helmcken House)• Company Vehicle • Air Travel (Commercial flights, float planes, helicopter)• Boat Travel (Ferry, Water Taxi and Boat Charter)

Currently Excluded:• Staff Commuting • Visitor Transport to/from Museum• Steam Consumption (Steam only used a few days each year to

‘top up’ heating system) • Museum Freight

Page 96: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Emissions Inventory Methodology• Site visit/Interviews undertaken in February• Data provided by Facilities Supervisor and Accounts Department• Majority of Greenhouse gas emission factors sources from

Environment Canada 2005 National Inventory Report

• Excel based emissions inventory• Main assumptions stated• Provides full references to data

used/assumptions where appropriate

Page 97: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS 2000 (kt CO2e)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Transa

ltaOPGAlca

nSas

k Power

TransC

anad

a (Can

adian

Facilit

ies)

Imperi

al Oil

Canad

ian N

atural

Res

ource Ltd.

Husky E

nergy

Suncor

New B

runsw

ick Power

Syncru

de

Shell C

anad

a Lim

ited

DEGT

PetroCan

ada

NOVA Chem

icals

EnCanna C

orporat

ion

BP Energy C

ompany C

anad

a Gas

BC Hyd

ro

BP Energy C

ompany

Anadark

o Can

ada C

orporat

ion

Newfoundala

nd Hyd

ro

Dow Chem

ical C

anad

a Inc.

ExxonMobilDupont

Chevro

n Can

ada R

esource

sNoran

da

Devon C

anad

a Corp

oration (N

orthsta

r)k

tonn

es

Page 98: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Go to Inventory

Page 99: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Emissions Inventory Preliminary Draft Results[Note ferry travel and Domestic air currently not included]

155037170832185085TOTAL

534440613710Company Vehicle

1042954561Taxi

To be addedBoat Travel

31556858911126Subtotal

To be addedCommercial Airline

14251462658Float Plane

30131712710468Helicopter Air Travel

14392884114060Natural Gas Consumption

102702148387155628Electricity Consumption

200720062005Source

Emissions (Kg CO2e)

Page 100: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Source: Harbour Air “Announcing North America’s 1St

Carbon Neutral Airline” Brochure,

Page 101: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Emissions Inventory Preliminary Draft Results

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

020000

4000060000

80000100000

120000140000

160000180000

200000

2005 2006 2007

Year

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2 e

quiv

alen

t) ElectricityConsumption Natural GasConsumptionAir Travel

Boat Travel

Taxi

Company Vehicle

TOTAL

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000200000

2005 2006 2007

Year

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2

equi

vale

nt)

Company Vehicle

Taxi

Boat Travel

Air Travel

Natural GasConsumptionElectricity Consumption

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2005

8%

6%

0%

84%

2%0%

Electricity Consumption Natural Gas ConsumptionAir TravelBoat TravelTaxi Company Vehicle

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2007

0%

1%

67%9%

20%

3% Electricity Consumption

Natural Gas ConsumptionAir Travel

Boat TravelTaxi

Company Vehicle

Page 102: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Approximate Liability

• ~200 tonnes annually• Price Range $5 to $25 per CO2e tonne• Assumed Liability

– ~$1000 to $5000 annually

Page 103: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Carbon Awareness & Capacity Survey

• 6 categories:– Knowledge– Technical– Organization

• Completed by 90 staff

• Three Parts:–46 questions ~ 1 to 5 scale–6 questions ~ Yes/No –3 freeform ~ suggestions

-0.5

0

0.5

1Attitude

Culture

Habits

Knowledge

Organization

Technical

−Culture−Habit−Attitude

Page 104: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Interpreting Results

-0.5

0

0.5

1Attitude

Culture

Habits

Knowledge

Organization

Technical

•2•Good•Totally agree (1)

•1•Rather good•Partly agree (2)

•0•Neither poor nor good•Don’t agree•Don’t disagree (3)

•-1•Rather poor•Partly disagree (4)

•-2•Poor•Totally disagree (5)

ScoreResponse

Overall = 0.24, between “Neither poor nor good” and “Rather good”

Page 105: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Positive Results

Most respondents optimistic about their own knowledge, habits and attitude towards energy efficiency and climate change.

-0.5

0

0.5

1Attitude

Culture

Habits

Knowledge

Organization

Technical

Page 106: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Not-so-Positive ResultsThe organization and culture do not support or allow for taking full advantage of the individual knowledge, habit and attitudes.

-0.5

0

0.5

1Attitude

Culture

Habits

Knowledge

Organization

Technical

Page 107: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Staff Reduction Suggestions• 50 respondents offered suggestions:

– Upgrading the lighting system to a higher efficiency (use of LED, motion sensors and timers)

– Using renewable energy sources– Saving water– Using more energy efficient equipment (energy star

appliances)– Enabling computer updates while still allowing

computers to be turned off at night.– Turning off unnecessary equipment and lighting

when not in use– Smaller, more fuel-efficient company vehicle– Better heating and cooling control

Page 108: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Staff Organizational SuggestionsAwareness Campaign• To inform and raise awareness on how energy savings play a role in the

working environment• To encourage colleagues more often to move towards energy saving

behaviour• To improve and open the culture and to build on/create more positive

attitudesOrganize, Act, Measure & Manage• Energy saving issues as topic of meetings & open discussions• Pay more attention to departmental energy usage (set targets, monitoring

& communication)• Estimate the use of energy for various workplaces along with their

reduction potentials – done by employees, to make them think of the actual figures they could influence

• Improve even more the role of management in setting good examples• Activate the staff with incentives for good energy saving and carbon

reduction ideas• Establish network with other museums to exchange good practices and

ideas (“sister” museum idea)

Page 109: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

2

13

4

Enwave

All Great Ideas, but at what cost?All Great Ideas, but at what cost?

Page 110: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Concept of “Grid CO2e Intensity”

• Ontario = 0.22 kg/kWh

• Sask.= 0.822 kg/kWh

• Alberta = 0.882 kg/kWh

• Quebec = 0.009 kg/kWh

• BC = 0.017 kg/kWh

Very low!!!

Renewable Energy may be great, but it doesn’t generate a large GHG reduction in BC (yet)!

Page 111: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Reductions

• Options– Generate GHG reductions locally– Buy from Voluntary Credit Markets– Wait for Pacific Carbon Trust to provide

• “Write a cheque”

Page 112: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Local Reduction Options Considered

Page 113: Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Page 114: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Go to CarMan

Page 115: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Offset System-Project Cycle for a GHG Reduction Project

Certification and Issuance of Offset Credits

Verification of Reductions/Removals

Validation & Registration of

the Project

Application for

Registration

Assess Project Concept/ Feasibility,

Eligibility

Validate Project Document

Initiate Project

Verify GHG Assertion

Process repeats for the duration of the registration period (8 years)

Prepare Project Document

Register Project (Registered Project

Document)

Prepare Reduction/Removal

Report (including GHG Assertion)

Process of preparing a Reduction/ Removal Report, verification and issuance of credits is repeated

Describe the project, explain how offset system eligibility

criteria are met and establish procedures to monitor, quantify

and report GHG reductions and

removals

Application for Certification of

Reduction/Removals

Offset CreditsIssued

The proponent implements procedures for monitoring, quantifying and

reporting GHG reductions, removals and reversals as set out in the Registered Project Document

***Time

***An application for re-registration of a project, starts the credit creation process again

Page 116: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Do your own offset project?

• Consider:– Validation, Verification and Monitoring– Transaction costs ~$10,000– @ 200 tonnes = $50/tonne– Future rules may reduce this burden, or not.

Page 117: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Buy Offsets?• CCX ~ $5• Project Business Case are using ~$8• RGGI $1.80 reserve bid• Montreal Futures Launch May 30• …will these qualify?• Role of Pacific Carbon Trust?

Page 118: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Safety, Health and Environment

Forecasting the risksGreenhouse Gas Offset Price Forecasts (CDN $/tonne CO 2e)

$-

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

Com

plia

nce

Inst

rum

ent P

rice

(CD

N $

/tonn

eC

O2e

)

Scenario 3 High Scenario 3 Medium Scenario 3 Low

Scenario 2 High Scenario 2 Medium Scenario 2 Low

Scenario 1 High Scenario 1 Medium Scenario 1 Low

Scenario 1: Continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, no U.S. engagement or action and no further Canadian actionScenario 2: Kyoto Protocol entry into force plus post-2012 international agreement including the U.S. and CanadaScenario 3: Kyoto Protocol with more stringent requirements for industrialized countries plus separate U.S. / Canada reduction program

Page 119: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Energy Management

www.enerlyser.com

• Avalon’s Proposal

Make it proactive and part of the culture

• Smart Metering

• More metering

Page 120: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

EnergyMirror®

Page 121: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Recommendations• Anticipate “writing a check”

– Do not engage (yet) in creating your own offsets• Expand energy reporting (internally & externally) & use

of real-time energy management tools• Focus on museum’s core strengths

– Education– Community Engagement– Displays/Demonstration

• Organize an internal group:– Custody of official & “unofficial” inventories, survey results,

progress reporting– Encourage your staff to act personally, but also to engage in

developing opportunities (e.g. displays)– Organize & Act on energy measurement information– Track and report on staff, RBCM and other museum successes

Page 122: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

• Through this internal group, develop an awareness campaign: – Personal action awareness– Stimulate “core strength” idea identification (show example)– Identify opportunities

• Engage with the District Energy System redevelopment– Demonstration using ICE Funds

• Consider pursuing an Environmental “certification” to set targets and focus ongoing efforts– BOMA “Go Green”– Developing LEED for existing buildings

• Report current and future upgrade works in your Progress Reports – track related reduction, even if not “Net”

Recommendations

Page 123: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Soft Options• Awareness “Campaigns”

– Build on internal awareness & capacity– Built on core strengths for community leadership

• Carbon & Energy Management– Make carbon reporting routine well before progress reporting

due• Demonstration

– Energy Mirror– Build on Adaptation Display

• Build a mitigation display• Build RE models (public explanations)

Page 124: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

APPENDIX VI

RBCM 2005, 2006, 2007 GHG INVENTORY AND SUPPORTING DATA (ON CD)

Page 125: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007Natural Gas Consumption 1 14287 11116 14392 11.3 8.8 10.4Company Vehicle 1 4383 4228 4941 3.5 3.4 3.6Electricity Consumption 2 102455 103247 105315 81.0 82.1 76.1Air Travel Helicopter 3 572 260 2652 0.5 0.2 1.9

Seaplane 3 432 960 936 0.3 0.8 0.7Commercial Airline 3 343 2499 6829 0.3 2.0 4.9

Subtotal of Air Travel 1347 3719 10417 1.1 3.0 7.5Boat Travel 3 3362 2378 2829 2.7 1.9 2.0Taxi 3 635 1015 461 0.5 0.8 0.3TOTAL 126468 125702 138356 100.0 100.0 100.0

Comments:Scope of emissions as defined within The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, World Business Council for Sustainable Development/World Resources InstituteEmployee travel to work has currently been excluded from the inventoryVisitor travel has been excluded from the inventory

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (2005-2007)

Emissions Scope (1,2 or 3)

Emissions (Kg CO2e) Percentage of Total Emissions

Source

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 126: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Summary Table of Source Emissions

2005 2006 2007Electricity Consumption 102455 103247 105315Natural Gas Consumption 14287 11116 14392Air Travel Helicopter 572 260 2652

Seaplane 432 960 936Commercial Airline 343 2499 6829Subtotal 1347 3719 10417

Boat Travel 3362 2378 2829Taxi 635 1015 461Company Vehicle 4383 4228 4941TOTAL 126468 125702 138356

Comments:Employee travel to work has been excluded from the inventoryVisitor travel has been excluded from the inventory

Emissions (Kg CO2e)Source

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2005

11%

1%

3%

81%

3%

1%

Electricity Consumption Natural Gas ConsumptionAir TravelBoat TravelTaxi Company Vehicle

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 127: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2006

9%

3%

2%3%

1%

82%

Electricity Consumption Natural Gas ConsumptionAir TravelBoat TravelTaxi Company Vehicle

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2007

10%

8%

2% 4%

0%

76%

Electricity Consumption Natural Gas ConsumptionAir TravelBoat TravelTaxi Company Vehicle

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 128: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Source

020000400006000080000

100000120000

Electric

ity C

onsu

mption

Natural

Gas

Con

sumpti

on

Helico

pter

Seapla

ne

Commerc

ial A

irline

Boat T

ravel

Taxi

Compa

ny V

ehicl

e

Source

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2 e

quiv

alen

t)

2005 2006 2007

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 129: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2005 2006 2007

Year

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2 e

quiv

alen

t)

ElectricityConsumption Natural GasConsumptionAir Travel

Boat Travel

Taxi

Company Vehicle

TOTAL

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2005 2006 2007

Year

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2 e

quiv

alen

t)

ElectricityConsumption Natural GasConsumptionBoat Travel

Taxi

CompanyVehicle Helicopter

Seaplane

CommercialAirline

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 130: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2005 2006 2007

Year

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2

equi

vale

nt) Company Vehicle

Taxi

Boat Travel

Air Travel

Natural GasConsumptionElectricity Consumption

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2005 2006 2007

Year

Emis

sion

s (k

g C

O2 e

quiv

alen

t)

Commercial Airline

Seaplane

Helicopter

Company Vehicle

Taxi

Boat Travel

Natural GasConsumptionElectricityConsumption

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 131: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

12 Natural gas consumption for 2005 to 2007 was calculated within reference spreadsheet: RBC Terasen Gas.xls

3

4

1 An average heating value from the four dates provided by Terasen Gas (January - March 2008) was applied to the consumption figures for 2005 through 2007 to convert from GJ to m3.

2

Table 1: Summary of Total Natural Gas Emissions from 2005-2007Year Annual Consumption (GJ) Annual Consumption (m3) CO2 (Kg) CH4 (Kg) N2O (Kg) Total Emissions (Kg CO2e)2005 288 7509 14199 0.28 0.26 142872006 224 5842 11048 0.22 0.20 111162007 291 7564 14304 0.28 0.26 14392

Natural gas consumption for 2005 through 2007 was calculated based on meter readings provided by Terasen Gas. Annual consumption was calculated from the data provided by summing meter readings during their respective consumption periods. Average heat content values provided by Terasen Gas for the Victoria area were applied to the data to convert from consumption data in GJ to m3 of gas. Emission factors for natural gas combustion from Environment Canada (2007) were applied to the gas consumption data to determine total emissions of greenhouse gases in CO2 equivalent.

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Natural Gas Consumption

No consumption data was provided by Terasen gas for August and September 2006. It is possible that the consumption could be zero due to summer months, however the consumption figures for August and September 2007 were used to fill in the missing data

Methodology:

Supporting Data:

Main Assumptions:

Natural gas consumption data 2005 to 2007 provided by Terasen Gas within file 'Terasen Gas Consumption.pdf'

Emission factors taken from Environment Canada (April 2007). National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990-2005, Table A12-1: Emission Factors for Natural Gas and NGLs. Emission factors used for the source category 'Residential, Construction, Commercial/Institutional, Agriculture'

Heating values provided by Terasen gas summarized within file 'RBC Terasen Gas Victoria heat content values.xls'.Original heating values provided by Terasen gas within Feb13._2009_801am.txt, Jan16_2008_802am.txt, Jan23_2008_802am.txt and March5_2008_801am.txt

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 132: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Methodology:

Supporting Data:1 Company vehicle fuel cost per year was provided by RBCM Finance Department.2 Reference data provided in "2005, 2006, & 2007 Carbon Data from RBCM for Golder.pdf"

Main Assumptions: 1 Average fuel prices based on data from http://climate.uvic.ca/people/ewiebe/car/fuel_price.html, majority of data from the Victoria Area

Table 5: Summary of Total Company Vehicle Emissions from 2005-2007Litres of Fuel Consumed CO2 (Kg) CH4 (Kg) N2O (Kg) Total Emissions (Kg CO2e)

2005 1853 4372 0.52 8.39E-05 43832006 1787 4217 0.51 8.10E-05 42282007 2088 4929 0.59 9.46E-05 4941

Table 6: Average Gasoline Prices Average Gasoline Price ($/L)

2005 0.922006 0.982007 1.04

Table 7: Gasoline expenditure and equivalent litres of fuel 2005 - 2007

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007$156.92 $186.94 $88.90 171 191 85$60.00 $186.71 $196.98 65 191 189

$226.63 $75.50 $164.13 246 77 158$214.60 $114.25 $265.08 233 117 255$136.69 $199.42 $93.00 149 203 89$169.92 $157.45 $196.21 185 161 189$178.32 $126.37 $319.20 194 129 307$137.85 $184.19 $219.16 150 188 211$47.00 $57.45 $80.50 51 59 77

$156.60 $127.94 $193.74 170 131 186$219.79 $102.07 $188.94 239 104 182

$233.02 $166.17 238 160

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Company Vehicle

Expenditure ($) Litres of Fuel

Emissions for the company vehicle were estimated based on the fuel expenditure ($). Using average fuel prices for 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the average fuel price for the Victoria area, fuel consumption in litres was calculated. Emission factors from Tier 1 of Table A12-7:Emission FactorsEnergy Mobile Combustion Sources from 2007 Environment Canada's National Inventory Report (1990-2005) were applied to the fuel usage figures to calculate annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 133: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Methodology:

1

2

3

45

Supporting Data:

1

2

Main Assumptions:

Table 8: Summary of Total Electricity Emissions from 2005-2007Year Consumption (kW) Emission Factor (Kg CO2/kWh) Total Emissions (Kg CO 2e)2005 6059827 1.7E-02 1024552006 6106679 1.7E-02 1032472007 6229023 1.7E-02 105315

Table 9: Summary of Electricity Consumption for 617 Government Street 2005-2007Year Month Consumption (kW) Comments2005 Jan 2939102005 Feb 2029802005 Mar 2007412005 Apr 1604462005 May 410442005 Jun 486522005 Jul 508842005 Aug 560322005 Sep 1004702005 Oct 1864092005 Nov 2744002005 Dec 3027802006 Jan 2961752006 Feb 2787532006 Mar 241016 Note in March the meter was read twice (on the 16th and 31st)2006 Apr 1915392006 May 916722006 Jun 55800 Note in June the meter was read twice (on the 15th and 30th)2006 Jul 448062006 Aug 522192006 Sep 796702006 Oct 1385292006 Nov 2150422006 Dec 2661972007 Jan 262530 Note in Jan the meter was read twice (on the 15th and 31st)2007 Feb 2264562007 Mar 2202702007 Apr 1783872007 May 1373302007 Jun 875802007 Jul 684302007 Aug 673482007 Sep 1143922007 Oct 1824592007 Nov 256278

2007 Dec 310217January data for 2008 not provided, therefore the daily average consumption for the period 1-12th December was applied for the whole month.

Calculations of monthly electricity usage, and annual totals for each site are presented within:Electricity Summary 617 Government St.xlsElectricity Summary 621 Government St.xls andElectricity Summary Commerce Circle.xls respectively

Electricity consumption for 2005 through 2007 was calculated based on meter readings provided by BC Hydro. Calendar month average consumption was calculated based on the meter readings. For example if the meter was read on the 15th of every month, say March 15th, to calculate the consumption for the first half of March the average daily consumption between February 15th and March 15th was used. To calculate the consumption for the second half of the month the daily averages from March 15th - April 15th was used, then summed together.

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Electricity Consumption

Emission factors applied to calculate total emissions were taken from Environment Canada's Inventory Report (1990-2005). As 2005 was the last year in which data was presented, the emission factors were taken for 2005 from Table A9-11: "Electricity Generation anGHG Emission Details for British Columbia" in the Inventory Report.

Electricity consumption data provided by BC Hydro within the following file617 Government Street: "BCBC 617 Government St AHR 05-06.xls", "Royal BC Museum CA 5904680 ahr.xls", "Royal Museum 617 Govt St AHR 05-06.xls" 621 Government Street:"BCBC 621 Government St AHR 05-06.xls", "Royal BC Museum CA 5904688 ahr.xls", "Royal BC Museum AHRs.xls"4222 Commerce Circle:"Royal BC Museum CA 5553096 ahr.slx"

Two electric meters that RBCM are the account holder for are present on the main RBCM site, and have different addresses associated with One additional electric meter is associated with the off-site leased warehouse: 4222 Commerce Circle. Emissions from the leased warehouse

RBCM took over the management of the buildings on April 1, 2006.Prior to this time electricity bills were sent to BC Buildings Corporation.

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 134: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Table 10: Summary of Electricity Consumption for 621 Government Street 2005-2007Year Month Consumption (kW) Comments 2005 Jan 3311632005 Feb 3037282005 Mar 3314082005 Apr 3078362005 May 3148562005 Jun 3166202005 Jul 3327752005 Aug 3435122005 Sep 3304952005 Oct 3366472005 Nov 3302562005 Dec 3368352006 Jan 3306802006 Feb 3047692006 Mar 334928 Note in March the meter was read twice (on the 16th and 31st)

2006 Apr 309810 Meter not read during April. Daily averages for April taken from May 03 meter reading

2006 May 339976 Meter read twice in May2006 Jun 3450002006 Jul 3637212006 Aug 3576372006 Sep 3298342006 Oct 3366152006 Nov 3245742006 Dec 3276002007 Jan 3233122007 Feb 2943162007 Mar 3280842007 Apr 3247762007 May 3422762007 Jun 3358002007 Jul 3457742007 Aug 3439222007 Sep 3349602007 Oct 3368502007 Nov 319252

2007 Dec 333467January data for 2008 not provided, therefore the daily average consumption for the period 1-12th December was applied for the whole month.

Table 11: Summary of Electricity Consumption for 4222 Commerce Circle 2005-2007Year Month Consumption (kW) Comments 2005 Jan 264742005 Feb 214202005 Mar 174722005 Apr 165662005 May 16536 Note in May the meter was read twice (on the 10th and 30th)2005 Jun 163442005 Jul 163532005 Aug 162352005 Sep 160262005 Oct 170012005 Nov 188102005 Dec 257112006 Jan 215992006 Feb 243322006 Mar 29469

2006 Apr 9270 Meter not read in April; Daily averages for April taken from May 01 meter reading

2006 May 4629 Note in May the meter was read twice (on the 1st and 31st)2006 Jun 720

2006 Jul 755 Note in July the meter was read twice (on the 6th and 28th). The 28th was missing data for daily consumption

2006 Aug 7452006 Sep 28262006 Oct 111812006 Nov 197382006 Dec 248532007 Jan 25035 Note in Jan the meter was read twice (on the 19th and 31st)2007 Feb 212432007 Mar 198942007 Apr 134402007 May 68012007 Jun 18002007 Jul 6682007 Aug 948 Was read twice (21st and 31st)2007 Sep 48902007 Oct 144482007 Nov 204662007 Dec 24924

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 135: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Methodology:

Supporting Data:1 Air travel data provided by RBCM within file 2005, 2006, & 2007 Carbon Data from RBCM for Golder 2 Based on GHG Protocol website: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools (CO2 emissions from business travel)

Emissions based on distance travelled by aircrafts. 3 Distances for air travel were calculated using http://www.webflyer.com/travel/milemarker4 Offsetters.ca emission factors provided within Harbour to Harbor trip comparison.pdf

Main Assumptions: 1 Calculations for seaplanes, jet planes, and helicopters were calculated separately

2

3 Offsetters.ca assumes 85% occupancy, dividing total emissions by occupancy4 See Harbour to Harbour trip comparison.pdf for further assumptions 5 Offsetters.ca assumes GHG emissions per one passenger for air travel

6

Table 12: Summary of Total Air Travel Emissions from 2005-2007Year Transportation Mode Total Emissions (kg CO2)

Commercial Flights 343Helicopter 572Seaplane 432Commercial Flights 2,499Helicopter 260Seaplane 960Commercial Flights 6,829Helicopter 2,652Seaplane 936

Table 13: Helicopter Emissions

2005 2006 2007Emission Factor

(Kg CO2 per passenger)

2005 2006 2007

Vancouver - Victoria (Helijet) 11 5 51 52 572 260 2652

Table 14: Seaplane Emissions

2005 2006 2007Emission Factor

(Kg CO2 per passenger)

2005 2006 2007

Victoria Harbour - Vancouver Harbour 18 40 39 24 432 960 936

Emission (Kg CO2)

Emission (Kg CO2)

Flight

Flight

Number of trips

2005

2006

2007

Number of trips

Emissions factors for helicopter and seaplane travel between Victoria and Vancouver estimated from " Downtown Vancouver to Downtown Victoria GHG Emissions (kg) by Transportation Mode (1 passenger)" from Harbour to Harbour trip comparison.pdf titled "Re: Emissions Calculation Comparison", Oct. 2, 2007(provided by Donovon Woollard, Offsetters.ca)

In their calculation of GHG emissions, Offsetters.ca assumes that:for seaplanes, "Consumption of 200 lbs of kerosene-based jet fuel (trip average);"for helicopters, " 12 seat Sikorsky S76A " is used on route" and is 35 minutes in length.

CO2 equivalents from air travel were estimated using the list of purchased flights (2005-2007) provided by the RBCM Finance Department.Flights were divided between seaplanes, regular commercial jets and helicopter travel. Helicopter and seaplane travel emissions between Victoria and Vancouver were calculated using an emissions factor based on data provided by Offsetters.ca, while commercial flights were calculated using the methodology presented by ghgprotocol.org.

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Air Travel

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 136: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Table 15: Commercial Flights - Air Travel Calculations of Distance-Based Activity Data

Route Flight Leg Kilometres Short? (0=Yes) Medium? (1=Yes) Long? (2=Yes)

Short Flights (km) Medium Flights (km)

Long Flights (km)

Victoria Harbour - Vancouver Harbour 100 0 100 0 0Victoria - Kelowna 317 0 317 0 0Vancouver - Kelowna 277 0 277 0 0Victoria - Vancouver 63.4 0 63 0 0Vancouver - Terrace 694 1 0 694 0Victoria - Toronto 3360 2 0 0 3360Toronto - New York 586 1 0 586 0New York - Montreal 534 1 0 534 0Vancouver - Montreal 3690 2 0 0 3690Toronto - Boston 713 1 0 713 0Vancouver - Toronto 3350 2 0 0 3350Vancouver - Ottawa 3560 2 0 0 3560Vancouver - Smithers 682 1 0 682 0Victoria - Cranbrook 565 1 0 565 0Vancouver - Ft. St. John 800 1 0 800 0Victoria - Seattle 157 0 157 0 0Seattle - Minneapolis 2240 2 0 0 2240Vancouver - Prince Rupert 755 1 0 755 0Vancouver - London, UK 7610 2 0 0 7610Victoria - Calgary 727 1 0 727 0Victoria - Ottawa 3570 2 0 0 3570Victoria - Saskatoon 1250 1 0 1250 0Toronto - Minneapolis 1090 1 0 1090 0Minneapolis - Denver 1090 1 0 1090 0Vancouver - Denver 1790 2 0 0 1790Victoria - Prince George 584 1 0 584 0Victoria - Edmonton 861 1 0 861 0Vancouver - Calgary 687 1 0 687 0Vancouver - Anchorage 2140 2 0 0 2140Victoria - Anchorage 2170 2 0 0 2170Regina - Edmonton 689 1 0 689 0Edmonton - Victoria 861 1 0 861 0Regina - Calgary 660 1 0 660 0Victoria - Albuquerque 2040 2 0 0 2040Calgary - Ottawa 2880 2 0 0 2880Vancouver - Prince George 523 1 0 523 0Edmonton - Calgary 243 0 243 0 0Seattle - Los Angeles 1540 1 0 1540 0Vancouver - San Francisco 1290 1 0 1290 0Victoria - Hamilton 3360 2 0 0 3360Calgary - Hamilton 2690 2 0 0 2690Vancouver - Houston 3170 2 0 0 3170Houston - Baton Rouge 407 0 407 0 0Baton Rouge - Dallas 616 1 0 616 0Dallas - Seattle 2670 2 0 0 2670Toronto - Ottawa 362 0 362 0 0Toronto - Montreal 504 1 0 504 0Montreal - Quebec City 235 0 235 0 0Toronto - Washington DC 555 1 0 555 0Seattle - Fairbanks 2460 2 0 0 2460Vancouver - Powell River 125 0 125 0 0Seattle - Houston 3010 2 0 0 3010Houston - Orlando 1370 1 0 1370 0Orlando - Seattle 4100 2 0 0 4100Calgary - Chicago 2220 2 0 0 2220Chicago - Toronto 702 1 0 702 0

Total km 2,286 20,928 62,080

Table 16: CO2 Emissions from Business Travel - Distance Traveled Approach

Short Flight 2286 km 0.15 kg/km 343 0.34Medium Flight 20928 km 0.12 kg/km 2,499 2.50

Long Flight 62080 km 0.11 kg/km 6,829 6.83

Commercial Flight LengthsCO2 emissions in metric

tons kg/UnitCO2 emission factor

kg/unitDistance Traveled Unit CO2 emissions in kg

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 137: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Methodology:

Supporting Data:

12 Offsetters.ca emission factors provided within Harbour to Harbor trip comparison.pdf

Main Assumptions: 1 GHG emission factor (kg CO2e) of BC Ferry (Spirit Class) based upon data provided from Offsetters.ca 2 Offsetters.ca emission factor assumes 85% occupancy, includes drive-on cars and boat emissions and assumes one passenger per vehicle.3 Water taxis and other forms of boat travel that are occasionally used by RBCM were not included in the inventory

4

Table 17: Summary of Total Boat Travel Emissions from 2005-2007Year Total Emissions (Kg CO2e)2005 33622006 23782007 2829

Table 18: Summary of Boat Travel from 2005-2007

2005 2006 2007Tsawwassen - Swartz Bay BC Ferries 82 58 69

Offsetters.ca assumes the following in the calculations of GHG emissions:"Single Occupancy vehicle with standard fuel efficiency (10L/100km) driving to, onto and from the ferry""Occupancy in the case of ferry is based upon cars, not foot passengers, as the former determines capacity and foot passengers have litle incremental weight impact.""Ferry fuel consumption and fuel grade inputs are based upon figures from BC Ferry Corporation..."

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due To Boat Travel

CompanyFerry Ride

Ferry usage was estimated based on Ferry and boat travel journey destinations provided by RBCM Finance Department. Boat travel emissions for travel between Victoria and Vancouver was calculated using an emissions factor based on data provided by Offsetters.ca

Number of trips

Boat travel data provided by Manager of Financial Services,refer to source: "2005, 2006, & 2007 Carbon Data from RBCM for Golder.pdf"

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 138: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Methodology:

1

Supporting Data:1 Taxi travel data provided by Finance Department, refer to source: "2005, 2006, & 2007 Carbon Data from RBCM for Golder.xls"2 Fuel economy (mpg) calculated from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm3 Flag and distance rates for taxi prices provided by Passenger Transport Board within 'statement of metered taxi rates.pdf'.

4

Main Assumptions: 1

2 City' fuel economy for 2000 Ford Crown Victoria is 16 mpg3 City' fuel economy for 2004-2007 Toyota Prius Hybrid is 48 mpg4 Analysis is based on the assumption that the taxi is moving at all times.

Table 19: Summary of Total Taxis Emissions from 2005-2007Year Litres of Fuel Consum CO2 (Kg) CH4 (Kg) N2O (Kg) Total Emissions (Kg CO2e)2005 268 633 0.08 1.22E-05 6352006 429 1012 0.12 1.94E-05 10152007 195 460 0.06 8.83E-06 461

Table 20: Distance and Fuel Usage of TaxisYear 2005 2006 2007

Total Distance (km 1825.8 2917.0 3183.5Fuel (l) 268.4 428.8 194.9

Table 21: 'City' Fuel Economy of Taxi FleetVehicle Name FORD TOYOTA

Fuel economy (mpg 16 48Fuel economy (mpl 4.2 12.68Fuel economy (km/ 6.80 20.41

Table 22: Taxi Price Price (with GST) Flag (base rate $) Distance ($/km)

2005 2.74 1.572006 2.85 1.642007 2.85 1.64

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due To Taxi Travel

Taxi emissions were based on taxi expenditure data provided by the Finance Department. Taxi expenditure was converted to km travelled using annual taxi rates from the Passenger Transport Board, which is specific to British Columbia. Taxi fuel usage was calculated using information on taxi vehicle type and associated fuel consumption. Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using information on emission factors provided by Environment Canada's 2007 National Inventory Report.

Assume that all taxis b/w 2005 and 2006 are 2000 Model Ford Crown Victoria2007 models are assumed to be 60% 2001-2003 Model Toyota Prius Hybrids and 40% 2000 Model Ford Crown Victoria(data provided by correspondence from Yellow Cab of Victoria)

Emission factors from Tier 1 of Table A12-7:Emission Factors Energy Mobile Combustion Sources from Environment Canada's National Inventory Report (1990-2005)

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 139: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Table 23: Taxi Expenses Provided by RBC

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007$45.60 $20.00 $12.01 27.3 10.5 5.6$20.00 $11.00 $12.00 11.0 5.0 5.6$12.00 $24.00 $60.00 5.9 12.9 34.8$51.00 $52.00 $56.00 30.7 30.0 32.4$20.00 $82.10 $153.30 11.0 48.3 91.7$27.00 $13.13 $14.81 15.5 6.3 7.3$5.00 $10.47 $50.95 1.4 4.6 29.3$15.05 $61.00 $43.77 7.8 35.5 25.0$10.46 $157.20 $7.00 4.9 94.1 2.5$12.00 $92.40 $138.00 5.9 54.6 82.4$10.00 $44.10 $74.48 4.6 25.2 43.7$35.00 $25.00 $145.65 20.5 13.5 87.1$20.00 $14.00 $34.00 11.0 6.8 19.0$22.00 $9.35 $14.00 12.3 4.0 6.8$10.00 $10.00 $15.00 4.6 4.4 7.4$43.70 $32.00 $15.00 26.1 17.8 7.4$43.00 $10.00 $47.00 25.6 4.4 26.9$29.70 $14.00 $55.00 17.2 6.8 31.8$7.00 $10.00 $52.00 2.7 4.4 30.0$32.50 $12.00 $30.00 19.0 5.6 16.6$30.00 $8.00 $56.00 17.4 3.1 32.4$20.00 $12.90 $12.00 11.0 6.1 5.6$7.00 $7.00 $10.00 2.7 2.5 4.4$29.00 $42.00 $64.00 16.7 23.9 37.3$30.86 $35.00 $10.00 17.9 19.6 4.4$25.00 $60.00 $9.00 14.2 34.8 3.8$29.40 $30.00 $12.00 17.0 16.6 5.6$32.00 $18.00 $18.00 18.6 9.2 9.2$10.00 $10.00 $20.00 4.6 4.4 10.5$10.00 $5.00 $17.00 4.6 1.3 8.6$15.00 $4.00 $58.00 7.8 0.7 33.6$8.00 $52.00 $57.00 3.4 30.0 33.0$12.00 $38.00 $32.00 5.9 21.4 17.8$31.00 $36.00 $15.00 18.0 20.2 7.4$7.00 $56.00 $13.89 2.7 32.4 6.7$18.00 $5.90 $15.00 9.7 1.9 7.4$13.00 $35.94 $38.00 6.5 20.2 21.4$4.50 $21.27 $10.25 1.1 11.2 4.5$28.00 $4.81 $302.70 16.1 1.2 182.8$44.00 $17.53 $121.40 26.3 9.0 72.3$20.00 $15.48 $186.55 11.0 7.7 112.0$5.00 $5.33 $90.90 1.4 1.5 53.7$44.91 $8.75 $106.30 26.9 3.6 63.1$17.10 $8.75 $44.95 9.1 3.6 25.7$7.00 $8.55 $201.90 2.7 3.5 121.4$11.00 $7.85 $47.95 5.3 3.0 27.5$15.00 $9.00 $13.00 7.8 3.8 6.2$14.93 $15.00 $12.00 7.8 7.4 5.6$63.48 $29.00 $7.00 38.7 15.9 2.5$15.07 $7.45 $13.00 7.9 2.8 6.2$65.00 $28.00 $6.55 39.7 15.3 2.3$20.00 $20.00 $7.00 11.0 10.5 2.5$12.00 $20.00 $5.55 5.9 10.5 1.6$48.27 $13.00 $6.00 29.0 6.2 1.9$304.95 $24.30 $6.00 192.5 13.1 1.9$71.00 $60.00 $9.25 43.5 34.8 3.9$182.85 $58.35 $5.85 114.7 33.8 1.8$9.00 $65.00 $7.15 4.0 37.9 2.6$98.25 $10.00 $6.35 60.8 4.4 2.1$70.20 $15.00 $238.25 43.0 7.4 143.5$23.78 $309.05 $73.60 13.4 186.7 43.1$53.50 $62.40 $13.35 32.3 36.3 6.4$55.00 $43.00 $71.15 33.3 24.5 41.6$9.20 $59.00 $100.05 4.1 34.2 59.3$17.00 $13.05 $74.75 9.1 6.2 43.8$15.00 $41.00 $47.30 7.8 23.3 27.1$15.60 $9.15 $76.90 8.2 3.8 45.2$15.00 $7.95 $42.80 7.8 3.1 24.4$7.00 $324.55 $26.00 2.7 196.2 14.1$15.00 $420.05 $35.00 7.8 254.4 19.6$10.00 $16.00 $6.60 4.6 8.0 2.3$15.00 $71.20 $24.05 7.8 41.7 12.9$15.00 $35.00 $48.48 7.8 19.6 27.8$10.00 $35.00 $11.00 4.6 19.6 5.0$15.00 $45.00 $12.00 7.8 25.7 5.6$9.00 $10.00 $34.00 4.0 4.4 19.0$24.00 $29.00 $30.00 13.5 15.9 16.6$10.00 $21.00 $30.00 4.6 11.1 16.6$5.00 $18.00 $42.00 1.4 9.2 23.9$5.00 $23.00 $32.60 1.4 12.3 18.1$6.00 $20.00 $18.00 2.1 10.5 9.2$8.00 $59.00 $33.00 3.4 34.2 18.4$13.70 $24.00 $41.00 7.0 12.9 23.3$13.00 $48.20 $42.00 6.5 27.7 23.9$15.00 $46.40 $79.55 7.8 26.6 46.8$6.25 $30.10 $29.00 2.2 16.6 15.9$6.75 $31.00 $12.00 2.6 17.2 5.6$45.25 $24.00 $10.00 27.1 12.9 4.4$20.00 $20.00 $8.00 11.0 10.5 3.1$8.50 $12.95 $25.00 3.7 6.2 13.5$9.00 $40.00 $20.45 4.0 22.7 10.7

$181.50 $22.00 $25.00 113.9 11.7 13.5$70.00 $15.00 $65.00 42.8 7.4 37.9$5.00 $44.80 $7.50 1.4 25.6 2.8$9.00 $52.00 $7.50 4.0 30.0 2.8$45.59 $51.50 $45.00 27.3 29.7 25.7$54.00 $22.55 $64.80 32.6 12.0 37.8$22.00 $18.45 $16.00 12.3 9.5 8.0$22.00 $23.95 $40.00 12.3 12.9 22.7$82.00 $29.30 $7.50 50.5 16.1 2.8$50.00 $69.50 $70.00 30.1 40.6 40.9$60.00 $21.20 $32.00 36.5 11.2 17.8$17.00 $72.50 $33.00 9.1 42.5 18.4$12.00 $56.00 $15.00 5.9 32.4 7.4$15.00 $52.00 $30.00 7.8 30.0 16.6$15.00 $54.06 $69.00 7.8 31.2 40.3$12.00 $55.00 $62.00 5.9 31.8 36.1$25.00 $56.00 $85.30 14.2 32.4 50.3

$55.00 $17.00 31.8 8.6$16.00 $74.00 8.0 43.4$31.00 $10.00 17.2 4.4$7.00 $9.65 2.5 4.1$17.00 $10.00 8.6 4.4$48.00 $38.25 27.5 21.6$12.00 $45.15 5.6 25.8$8.00 $10.00 3.1 4.4$24.00 $29.15 12.9 16.0$12.00 $10.75 5.6 4.8$45.00 $13.05 25.7 6.2$56.15 $48.45 32.5 27.8$9.00 $50.15 3.8 28.8$28.85 $7.00 15.9 2.5$11.00 $12.00 5.0 5.6$10.00 $70.00 4.4 40.9$38.00 $75.00 21.4 44.0$50.25 $150.00 28.9 89.7$44.20 $15.00 25.2 7.4$44.00 $12.00 25.1 5.6$49.35 $3.95 28.4 0.7$23.15 $25.60 12.4 13.9$22.00 $35.72 11.7 20.0$10.10 $21.89 4.4 11.6$8.80 $39.29 3.6 22.2

$190.17 114.2

Expenses Distance Travelled (km)

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 140: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

Emission Factors

TABLE 24: Electricity ConsumptionElectricity Generation Greenhouse Gas

Intensity Emission Factor (g CO2/kWh) Emission Factor (Kg CO2/kWh)2005 16.9 1.7E-02

Emission factors taken from National Inventory Report 1990-2005, Table A9-11: Electricity Generation and GHG Emission Details for British Columbia.Data for the overall total for different sources of electricity generation for 2005 (the most recent year published) has been used *as emission factors for 2006 and 2007 have not yet been released.

TABLE 25: Natural GasEmission Factors (Kg/m3)

CO2 CH4 N20 CO2 CH4 N20Residential, Construction,Commercial/Institutional, Agriculture 1891 0.037 0.035 1.891 0.000037 0.000035

Environment Canada (April 2007). National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990-2005, Table A12-1: Emission Factors for Natural Gas and NGLs. (www.ec.gc.ca/ghg-ges)

TABLE 26: Air TravelTransportation Mode Emission Factor (kg/passenger)

Short Flight 0.15Medium Flight 0.12Long Flight 0.11

Helicopter 52Seaplane 24

Emission factors for commercial flight based on GHG Protocol website: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools (CO2 emissions from business travel)

TABLE 27: Boat TravelBoat Class Emission Factor (kg/trip per person)

BC Ferry Spirit Class 41

TABLE 28: Taxi Travel

CO2 CH4

Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (LDGVs) 2360 0.12

TABLE 29: Company Vehicle

CO2 CH4

Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (LDGVs) 2360 0.12

Emission factors for ferries taken from graph titled " Downtown Vancouver to Downtown Victoria GHG Emissions (kg) by Transportation Mode (1 passenger)" from Harbour to Harbour trip comparison.pdf titled "Re: Emissions Calculation Comparison", Oct. 2, 2007(provided by Donovon Woollard, Offsetters.ca)

0.16

Emission Factor (g/L fuel)Vehicle Category

N2O

Emission factors from Tier 1 of Table A12-7:Emission Factors Energy Mobile Combustion Sources from 2007 Environment Canada's National Inventory Report (1990-2005)

Emission factors from Tier 1 of Table A12-7:Emission Factors Energy Mobile Combustion Sources from 2007 Environment Canada's National Inventory Report (1990-2005)

Emission Factors (g/m3)

Emission Factor (g/L fuel)

0.16

N2O

Natural Gas

Vehicle Category

Commercial Flight

Emission factors for helicopter and seaplane taken from graph titled " Downtown Vancouver to Downtown Victoria GHG Emissions (kg) by Transportation Mode (1 passenger)" from Harbour to Harbour trip comparison.pdf titled "Re: Emissions Calculation Comparison", Oct. 2, 2007(provided by Donovon Woollard, Offsetters.ca)

Golder Ecofys Solutions

Page 141: Greenhouse Gas Inventory

June 2008

ConstantsStandard Conversions

1 US gallon 3.785412 litres

1 mile 1.609344 km

Natural Gas

38.4175 MJ/m3

For heat content values, Terasen Gas company was contacted

Boat Travel

1 nautical mile 1.852 km

http://www.unit-conversion.info

Average Heating Value of Natural Gas

Gallons to litres

Miles to kilometres

Nautical mile to km

Golder Ecofys Solutions