Transition to Carbon ReductionCampus Carbon and AB32

Lecture 8

EECE 449/549

Main Components of WU Carbon Emissions: On Campus Energy Use in Buildings and Transportation

The impact on carbon arises from on-campus energy use and from transportation

On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact

Students

Heating

Cooling

Appliances

Faculty/Staff

Transportation Carbon Impact

Commuting

Air Travel

University Fleet

Linear Causality Model for Campus Carbon Emissions

• The carbon impact of on-campus energy is due to direct fuel consumption and indirectly from electricity use

• The overall carbon impact for on campus energy consumption has increased 50% from 1990-2007

• Electricity use contributed about 80 percent to the on-campus carbon impact

PopulationStudents

Activities $ Expend./yr

Buildings Sq. Ft

Fuel Cons. BTU/yr

C Emission Ton C/yr

Fuel Cons.BTU/yr

C EmissionTon C/yr

Electr. ConsKw-Hr/yr

$/Student Sq. Ft./$ BTU/Sq.Ft.

Kw-hr/Sq.Ft.

BTU/Kw-hr Carbon/BTU

Carbon/BTU

Carbon Emission due to On Campus Energy Use,Danforth Campus 1990-2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Year

C T

onne

s (t

hous

ands

)

50% Increase

Electricity

Fuel Cons.

Causality Drivers for Carbon Emission due to All Energy Use on Danforth Campus

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year

Rat

io to

199

0

Emission

$/Student

# Students

$/Sq.Ft

Energy/Sq.Ft.

Energy

Carbon

SqFt

Energy

Expen

FtSq

Student

ExpenStudentsEmission

$

$#

• The student population increased only by 10% since 1990

• However, the expenditures/student have increased by 60 percent

• The buildings/expenditure has barely changed and the increased expenditures were matched by 60% growth in campus building area

• Neither the energy use/sq ft nor the C emission/energy use has changed much

• Hence, the key driver for the 60% carbon emission growth were the increased expenditures (prosperity) and the associated growth in the physical campus expansion.

Change in Causality Drivers from 1990-2005 for On Campus Energy Consumption

Students

$ per student

Sq.ft per $

Energy per Sq. Ft.

Carbon Emission- Buildings

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% C

han

ge

1990

-200

5

Students $ per student Sq.ft per $ Energy per Sq. Ft. Carbon Emission- Buildings

Washington University Transportation Emission

• Incomplete analysis – More work needed

Next Steps for Campus Carbon Project

• Stationary source forecasting the transition to sustainability

• Verification and improvement of transportation inventory – Researching transportation inventory methods– Additional data gathering

• Transportation forecast to transition toward sustainability

Connection between AB 32 and Campus Carbon

• AB 32 is a goal (compass) to transition – GHG should be at1990 levels by 2020

• With it came a scoping plan for how CA could implement the required reductions

• We can study the scope plan and apply it to Wash. U.’s carbon emissions. – AB32 looks to link with national efforts, but it is calling all

citizens to make changes.

Introduction to AB 32

• Law passed in 2006, marks turning point that BAU is not acceptable– States that by 2020 CA should reduce GHG

emissions to 1990 levels

• Used as a method to mitigate global warming

• Designed to allow CA to flourish while reducing GHG emissions

• This is not the only process we’ll look at.

What lead to AB 32?• 1988 – AB 4420 directed CA Energy Commission (CEC) to study global warming

impacts and develop an inventory of GHG emission sources

• 2000 – SB 1771 established the CA Climate Action Registry for voluntary GHG emission reporting

• 2002 – AB 1493 required CA Air Resource Board (ARB) to reduce GHG emissions from passenger cars and light trucks

• 2005 – Gov. Schwarzenegger signed Exec. Order to reduce CA GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and further reduce emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.

• 2006 – SB 1368 created GHG performace standards for new long-term investments in base-load electricity.

• 2006 – AB 32 created the law that requires CA emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 TimelineAB 32 Timeline

20202007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GHG reduction

measures enforceable

Adopt GHG reduction measures

Publish list of early actions

Adopt scoping plan by 1/1/09

Mandatory reporting &

1990 Baseline

Adopt enforceable early action regulations

Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels

Identification/ implementation

of further emission reduction strategies

Early action regulations enforceable

Kathleen Mead

11

Proposed Scoping PlanProposed Scoping Plan

• Describes how California will reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020

• Identifies measures to achieve GHG reductions

• Addresses individuals, individual sectors, State government and local government

• Combines Early Actions, CAT efforts, voluntary reductions, market-based regulatory approaches, other regulations

• Evaluates economic and public health impacts

Kathleen Mead

Proposed Scoping PlanCap and Trade Program

• Links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create regional market system

• Majority of reductions from capped sources• Offsets must be real, additional, quantifiable and

enforceable– No geographic limits

• 100% auction of allowances is worthwhile goal, but careful consideration needed.

Kathleen Mead

Proposed Scoping PlanNew Regulations and Policies

• Land-use and community design to increase walking, biking and transit options

• High global warming potential gases

• Oil and gas industry/refinery measures

• Medium and heavy-duty vehicle regulations

Kathleen Mead

Sector-Based MeasuresCapped Sectors

• Transportation– Pavley I and II, Low carbon fuel standard, Regional

transportation-related targets, Light, medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency, High speed rail

• Electricity/Energy– Energy efficiency, 33 percent renewables, Million

solar roofs

Kathleen Mead

California 2020 GHG Emissions and Recommended Reduction Measures

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Business-as-Usual Scoping Plan

Transportation

Recycling & waste

Industry

Natural gas

Electricity

Agriculture

High GWP

Recycling & waste

Capped sectors

Agriculture

High GWPReductions from capped sectors:

Total reductions of 146.7 MMT(including 112.3 MMT

from specified measures): Pavley standards: 31.7 MMTEnergy efficiency: 26.3 MMT33% RPS: 21.3 MMTLCFS: 15.0 MMTRegional targets: 5.0 MMTVehicle efficiency: 4.5 MMTGoods movement: 3.7 MMTMillion solar roofs: 2.1 MMTHeavy/medium veh: 1.4 MMTIndustrial measures: 0.3 MMTHigh speed rail: 1.0 MMT

Reductions from uncapped sectors: Total reductions of 27.3 MMT

Industrial measures: 1.1 MMTHigh GWP measures: 20.2 MMTRecycling & waste: 1.0 MMTSustainable forests: 5.0 MMT

Reduction Measures

Total Emissions 422 MMTCO2E

Cap is set at 365 MMT

Total Emissions: 596 MMTCO2E

MMTCO2E

Kathleen Mead

References

• AB32 Legislation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20081201_introduced.pdf

• AB32 Scoping Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf

• Kathleen Mead, Presentation Nov. 6, 2008http://www.caltransit.org/files/resources/AB%2032-Mead.ppt