Grand Canyon Railway

Transcription

1 Grand Canyon Railway Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY CLIMATE SCIENCE & SOLUTIONS PROGRAM 2011 Authored by: Chase Waddell, Annikki Chamberlain, Erin Henry, Nevin Kohler

2 Grand Canyon Railway Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report Table of Contents: Table of Contents 1 List of Tables and Figures 3 Executive Summary 5 Introduction 7 Methodology 8 Scope 8 Inventory Results 10 Section 1: Locomotive Shop Emissions Electricity Related Emissions Welding Gas Consumption Emissions Propane Consumption Emissions Locomotive Shop Emissions HVAC Maintenance Emissions 12 Section 2: Locomotive Diesel Emissions Diesel Consumption Emissions Waste Vegetable Oil Consumption Emissions 14 Section 3: Summary of GCR Operations Total Emissions Locomotive Shop Total Emissions Locomotive Total Direct Emissions GCR Operations Total Emissions 18 Section 4: Emissions Scenarios Scenario 1 Baseline Emissions Scenario 2 Current Emissions & Realized Emissions Reductions Scenario 3 Future Emissions & Planned Reductions 22 Section 5: Transportation Comparison Analysis 24 1

3 5.1 Road Travel GCR Travel Break Even Passenger Counts CO 2 Intensity Ratios Emissions Savings Estimated Annual CO 2 Emissions Savings 26 Recommended Actions CFC Refrigerant Phase-out Increased Data Collection and Periodic Review 29 Appendix A 30 Appendix B 32 Appendix C 34 Appendix D 35 Appendix E 39 2

4 List of Tables and Figures: Figure 1.1 Total Electricity Related GHG Emissions for Locomotive Shop Operations Table 1.1 Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Electricity Consumption Figure 1.2 GHG Emissions from Welding Gas Consumption Table 1.2 Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Welding Gas Consumption 2010 Figure 1.3 Total GHG Emissions from Propane Combustion, Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Propane Combustion Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Locomotive Shop Heaters 2010 Figure GHG Emissions from HVAC Operations Figure Contribution of PFCs and CFCs to Total HVAC Emissions Figure 2.1 Total GHG Emissions from Locomotive Diesel Fuel Combustion Table 2.1 Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Locomotive Diesel Fuel Combustion Figure 2.2 Total GHG Emission from Locomotive Waste Vegetable Oil Combustion Table 2.2 Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Locomotive Waste Vegetable Oil Combustion Figure Contribution to Total Locomotive Shop GHG Emissions by Gas Figure Contribution to Total Locomotive Shop GHG Emissions by Operation Table 3.1 Total Locomotive Shop GHG Emissions by Operation Figure Contribution to Total Locomotive Direct GHG Emissions by Gas Figure Contribution to Total Locomotive Direct GHG Emissions by Fuel Table 3.2 Total Direct Locomotive GHG Emissions by Fuel Figure Contribution to Total GHG Emission for GCR Operations by Gas Figure Contribution to GCR Total GHG Emissions by Operation Table 3.3 Total Locomotive Shop GHG Emission by Operation Figure GHG Emissions by Operation (metric tons CO 2 e) Baseline Scenario 19 Figure GHG Emissions by Operation (metric tons CO 2 e) Current Scenario 19 Table 4.2 Realized Emissions Reductions from Baseline Scenario 20 3

5 Figure Potential Reduction in GHG Emissions Resulting from PV System Installation 22 Figure Percent of Electricity Supply by Source After PV System Installation 22 Figure Reduction in GHG Emissions from the GCR from PV System Installation 22 Table 5.3 Fuel Efficiency Estimates, CO 2 Intensity, and Break Even Passenger Counts for Road Travel Table 5.4 CO 2 Intensity Ratios for GCR to Road Travel Under Various Occupancy Scenarios 25 Figure 5.5 Table 5.6 Estimated Total CO 2 Emissions Savings from GCR Travel vs. Road Travel Under Various Occupancy and Vehicle Fuel Economy Scenarios for a One Way 65 Mile Trip Estimated Annual Emissions Savings from GCR Travel vs Road Travel Under Various Fuel Economy Scenarios 2009 Figure 6.1 Potential GHG Reduction from Replacing R-22 with R-134a

6 Executive Summary The Grand Canyon Railway (GCR), located in Williams, AZ, is owned and operated by Xanterra Parks and Resorts. The main attraction of the GCR is a 130 mile round trip train ride from Williams to the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. The GCR initiated the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Environmental Management System (EMS) in 2008 and earned certification in The ISO EMS is a voluntary, third party verified process adopted to ensure environmental protection, regulatory compliance, continual improvement, and pollution prevention. Implementation of the ISO EMS resulted in significant reductions in waste generation, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions at the GCR. This report assesses GHG emissions reductions in locomotive operations between 2008 and 2010 according to the international standard ISO and the climate registry greenhouse gas reporting protocol. In addition, this report provides an analysis of per capita GHG emissions resulting from locomotive transport into the Grand Canyon National Park compared to personal vehicle transport and concludes with recommendations. Overall GHG emissions from the Grand Canyon Railway locomotive operations decreased from 5,037.2 metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to 2,572.6 metric tons CO 2 e in 2010, a 49% reduction. Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from electricity consumption decreased from metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to metric tons CO 2 e, a 33% reduction. Propane consumption decreased by 68% between 2008 and 2010, from 60.5 metric tons CO 2 e to 19.2 metric tons CO 2 e. Emissions from the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning decreased from 73.9 metric tons CO 2 e to 20.1 metric tons CO 2 e between 2008 and 2010, a 72% reduction. Data for welding gas operations and waste oil consumption in the locomotive shop heaters were only available for 2010 and totaled 0.3 metric tons CO 2 e and metric tons CO 2 e, respectively. The largest reduction in direct greenhouse gas emissions occurred from a change in locomotive operation procedures and resulted in an emission reduction of metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to metric tons CO 2 e in This is a 52% reduction in GHG emissions. In 2009 the GCR switched the steam engine locomotives fuel from diesel fuel to 100% waste vegetable oil. Emissions from WVO are considered carbon neutral due to the biogenic nature of the fuel and, therefore, represent a decrease in fossil fuel derived emissions. Each metric ton of CO 2 e emissions resulting from WVO use eliminates 1.05 metric tons of CO 2 e emissions that would have occurred from diesel fuel consumption. Emissions associated with WVO use increased from 61.3 metric tons CO 2 e in 2009 to 81.2 metric tons CO 2 e in

7 A comparison of the CO 2 emissions resulting from Park visitors traveling to the South Rim via the GCR verses visitors traveling by personal vehicle concluded that train travel is more efficient and results in a net CO 2 emissions savings. Estimated CO 2 emissions savings from train travel range from 244 metric tons CO 2 e annually to 2,483 metric tons CO 2 e annually, depending on the type of vehicle fleet considered in the comparison. We recommend that the Grand Canyon Railway phase out the use of refrigerants containing HCFCs per the Montreal Protocol, increase data collection, and conduct periodic reviews of the data in order to refine calculation of emissions estimations and reductions

8 Introduction The Grand Canyon Railway (GCR), owned and operated by Xanterra Parks and Resorts, is located in Williams, AZ. The GCR operates both diesel and steam engine locomotives to transport passengers from Williams to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park. The 130 mile round trip to the Grand Canyon is made daily by one of 12 diesel locomotives, transporting over 200,000 passengers annually, and several times a year one of the two GCR steam engines are engaged for the trip. The Grand Canyon Railway complex has a number of different operations including a hotel, RV park, kennel, and train depot; however, the facilities directly associated with the locomotive operations consist of locomotives and the locomotive shop, which is used for all locomotive maintenance. In 2008, the GCR initiated the International Standards Organization (ISO) certification process, which required the implementation of an Environmental Management System (EMS), and achieved certification in August The ISO EMS is a voluntary, third party verified process adopted to ensure environmental protection, regulatory compliance, continual improvement, and pollution prevention. Implementation of the EMS at the GCR has resulted in many environmental performance improvements such as a greater than 99% reduction in hazardous waste generation (49+ tons), implementation of a property-wide recycling program, and a 35 % decrease in water consumption 1. To reflect the impact of the ISO EMS, this report quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the GCR locomotive shop and locomotives according to three separate scenarios: Scenario 1: Baseline operations prior to implementation of current operating conditions. Outlining this scenario allows for quantification of the GHG reductions already realized due to changes in operating procedure. Scenario 2: Current operations of GCR. This scenario is based on actual GHG emissions data for the most recent year of operations (2010) and will incorporate all environmentally sustainable practices currently in effect. Scenario 3: Planned operations of GCR. This scenario allows for an estimation of GHG emission reductions that will be realized by operational changes that are planned for the near future. Such changes outlined by GCR include: fuel switching for heating units in the maintenance shop 7 1 For more information on The Grand Canyon Railway ISO Environmental Management System, please visit:

9 (petroleum oil to waste vegetable oil), installation of a photovoltaic system on the maintenance shop, and fuel switching the diesel locomotives to a waste vegetable oil blend. In addition to a standard inventory of GHG emissions, this report provides a comparison of per capita GHG emissions resulting from locomotive transport and personal vehicle transport for a trip to the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. Methodology Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using the following: The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program Version 1.1 (TCR-GRP). International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14064:2006 Scope Each of the greenhouse gases regulated under the Kyoto Protocol are quantified individually and then converted to carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO 2 e). These GHG s are as follows: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). The Grand Canyon Railway s GHG emissions were evaluated according to direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) and indirect GHG emissions (Scope 2). A general breakdown of emission sources is as follows: Scope 1 evaluation includes the following direct emission source types located within the GCRs operational boundaries (locomotives and locomotive shop): stationary combustion, mobile combustion, physical and chemical processes, and fugitive sources. Scope 2 evaluation includes indirect emissions that are not released within the operational boundaries of the GCR but are attributable to consumption within the GCR boundaries (i.e. 8

10 electricity use). The locomotive shop and the locomotives were evaluated separately for a more comprehensive understanding of GHG sources. GHG emissions resulting from WVO are considered separately to account for net emissions adjustment due to their biogenic origins

11 Metric ton CO 2 e Inventory Results Results are first presented by operations group (Section 1: Locomotive Shop Emissions and Section 2: Locomotive Direct Emissions) with a breakdown of individual emissions sources. Total operation emissions for years (Section 3) and emissions for Scenarios 1 through 3 follow (Section 4). Section 1: Locomotive Shop Emissions GHG emissions from operations contained within the locomotive shop are attributable to five categories: electricity consumption for general operations and water heating; welding gas consumption for welding operations; propane consumption for overhead space heaters; waste oil consumption for shop heaters; and losses of refrigerant in heating, cooling and ventilation maintenance (HVAC) operations. Inventory results and calculation details for each category are found below. 1.1 Electricity Related Emissions GHG emissions related to electricity consumption result from combustion of 300 fossil fuels at power generation facilities. Consumption of electricity for the GCR operations consists of all electricity consumed at the locomotive shop. Consumption data, provided by Xanterra, was taken from historic meter billing information and regional emissions factors for the Southwest were employed in FIGURE 1.1 TOTAL ELECTRICITY RELATED GHG EMISSIONS FOR LOCOMOTIVE SHOP OPERATIONS emissions calculations (Appendix A, Box 1.1). Electricity related GHG emissions for the GCR locomotive shop decreased from metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to metric tons CO 2 e in 2009 followed by a slight increase in 2010 to metric tons CO 2 e (Figure 1.1). Contributions to total GHG emissions for each combustion gas are detailed in Table

12 Metric tons CO 2 e Metric Ton CO 2 e Table 1.1) Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Electricity Consumption Year Individual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 e) CO2 CH4 N2O Total Welding Gas Consumption Emissions Welding gas consumption data for the locomotive shop, provided by Xanterra, was taken from annual purchase receipts and annual purchases were assumed to be equal to annual consumption (i.e. all gas purchased was consumed during the year). Two welding gases utilized in shop operations result in GHG emissions: direct CO 2 emissions from Praxair StarGold TM CO 2 /Ar shielding gas mix, and CO 2 emissions from acetylene combustion. Calculations for welding gas emissions are shown in Appendix A, Box 1.2. Welding gas emissions were available for 2010 only and totaled 0.32 metric tons CO 2 e (Figure 1.2) Acetylene 0.02 StarGold C-25 FIGURE 1.2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM WELDING GAS CONSUMPTION IN 2010 Table 1.2) Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Welding Gas Consumption in Year Individual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 e) CO2 CH4 N2O Total Propane Consumption Emissions GHG emissions from propane consumption for the locomotive shop result from onsite combustion. Propane consumption data, provided by Xanterra, was taken from historic meter billing information. Calculations for propane consumption emissions are FIGURE 1.3 TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS FROM PROPANE COMBUSTION

13 Metric tons CO 2 e Grand Canyon Railway 4/11/2011 shown in Appendix A, Box 1.3. GHG emissions from propane use decreased from 60.5 metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to 12.5 metric tons CO 2 e with a slight increase to 18.7 metric tons CO 2 e in 2010 (Figure 1.3). Contributions to total GHG emissions for each combustion gas are detailed in Table 1.3. Table 1.3) Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Propane Combustion Year Individual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 e) CO2 CH4 N2O Total Locomotive Shop Heater Emissions GHG emissions from operation of locomotive shop heaters result from onsite combustion of waste oil collected from the locomotives. Data was provided by Xanterra and taken from heater fuel usage logs. Emissions calculations for the heaters are shown in Appendix A, Box 1.4. Data on fuel use was available for 2010 only with associated GHG emissions totaling metric tons CO 2 e. Contributions to total GHG emissions for each combustion gas are detailed in Table 1.4. Table 1.4) Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Locomotive Shop Heaters 2010 Year Individual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 e) CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Total HVAC Maintenance Emissions GHG emissions from HVAC maintenance operations in the locomotive shop result from leakage of refrigerant equipment associated with the locomotives. Data for refrigerant leakage was calculated from HVAC maintenance logs. All refrigerant added to equipment in an annual period FIGURE GHG EMISSIONS FROM HVAC OPERATIONS

14 Metric Tons CO 2 e FIGURE CONTRIBUTION OF CFCS AND HCFCS TO TOTAL HVAC EMISSIONS was assumed to be equal to the amount of refrigerant lost in that period. In 2008 through 2010, three separate refrigerants were used in HVAC maintenance operations: R-22, R-134A, and MP-39. R- 22 and MP-39 are HCFCs and are not required to be reported by the TCR-GRP; however, they were included in this report because they are a significant source of GHG emissions. R-134A is an HFC, and represents the only HFC emissions for the covered time period. Emissions calculations for HVAC maintenance operations are shown in Appendix A, Box 1.5. HVAC GHG emissions totaled 73.9 metric tons CO 2 e in 2008, dropped sharply to 23.1 metric tons CO 2 e in 2009 and decreased slightly to 20.1 metric tons CO 2 e in 2010 (Figure 1.5.1). The contribution to total HVAC emissions from HCFCs is greater than HFCs (Figure 1.5.2) HFC HCFC

15 Metric tons CO 2 e Grand Canyon Railway 4/11/2011 Metric tons CO 2 e Section 2: Locomotive Emissions GHG emissions from locomotive operations result from combustion of both diesel fuel and waste vegetable oil in the locomotive engines. Inventory results and calculation details for each fuel are found below. 2.1 Diesel Consumption Emissions GHG emissions from diesel consumption in the locomotive operations result from combustion of diesel fuel in both passenger and supporting locomotive engines. Data for diesel consumption were provided by Xanterra and taken from total fuel consumption logs. Calculations for diesel combustion emissions are shown in Appendix A, Box 2.1. GHG emissions for diesel combustion totaled 4,464.1 metric tons CO 2 e in 2008, dropped by roughly half to 2,238.4 metric tons CO 2 e in 2009 and dipped slightly to 2,122.1 metric tons CO 2 e in 2010 (Figure 2.1). Contributions to total GHG emissions for each combustion gas are detailed in Table FIGURE 2.1 TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS FROM LOCOMOTIVE DIESEL FUEL COMBUSTION Table 2.1) Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Locomotive Diesel Fuel Combustion Year Individual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 e) CO2 CH4 N2O Total FIGURE 2.2 TOTAL GHG EMISSION FROM LOCOMOTIVE WASTE VEGETABLE OIL COMBUSTION Waste Vegetable Oil Consumption Emissions GHG emissions from waste vegetable oil (WVO) consumption in the locomotive operations result from combustion of the oil in the steam locomotive engines. The CO 2 emissions are biogenic in nature due to the biological origins of WVO and are considered separately from the fossil fuel derived CO 2 e emissions. Data for 14

16 WVO consumption was provided by Xanterra and taken from total fuel consumption logs. Calculations for WVO emissions are shown in Appendix A, Box 2.2. GHG emissions for WVO combustion totaled 61.3 metric tons CO 2 e in 2009 and rose modestly to 81.2 metric tons CO 2 e in 2010 (Figure 2.2). Contributions to total GHG emissions for each combustion gas are detailed in Table 2.2. Table 2.2) Contributions to Total GHG Emissions from Each GHG for Locomotive Waste Vegetable Oil Combustion Year Individual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 e) CO2 CH4 N2O Total

17 Section 3: Summary of GCR Operations Total Emissions GHG emissions from individual operations were aggregated to acquire total values for all GCR operations. Below, these totals are first aggregated into locomotive shop (3.1) and locomotive direct emissions totals (3.2), and then combined for all GCR operations (3.3). Contributions to total emissions are given both by individual GHG s and individual operations to allow for comparison. Data for welding gas emissions and shop heater emissions were available for 2010 only; therefore, 2010 data was used to estimate emissions for the 2008 and It is assumed that consumption of fuel for shop heaters and welding gas did not vary substantially from 2008 to Data used for all totals and contributions are presented in tabular form in Appendix C. 3.1 Locomotive Shop Total Emissions Table 3.1 shows the trend in shop emissions from 2008 to Contributions of each GHG to total emissions for 2010 are detailed in Figure As can be seen, emissions were dominated by CO 2 (94%). Total CO 2 e emissions decreased from metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to in This decline is due mainly to reduced electricity consumption at the locomotive shop, although propane and HVAC emissions also decreased slightly. Emissions increased slightly in 2010 to metric tons CO 2 e due to an increase in propane consumption (electricity consumption was essentially the same). Contributions to total locomotive shop GHG emissions from the individual operations in the shop are detailed for 2010 in Figure Welding Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene StarGold C-25 60% 30% 5% 5% FIGURE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE SHOP GHG EMISSIONS BY GAS, % 0.005% 94% 6% 4.01% gas emissions constitute a very small portion of shop GHG emissions (0.088%), with electricity dominating the emissions profile (60%). 0.61% 1.44% CO2 CH4 N2O HCFC HFC 0.08% FIGURE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE SHOP GHG EMISSIONS 16

18 Table 3.1) Total Locomotive Shop GHG Emissions by Operation Operation Year StarGold Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene C-25 Total Locomotive Total Direct Emissions Table 3.2 shows the trend in locomotive direct emissions from 2008 to Contributions of each GHG to total emissions for 2010 are detailed in Figure , the majority of which are from CO 2 (99%). Total CO 2 e emissions decreased from metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to in Emissions decreased slightly in 2010 to metric tons CO 2 e due to a decrease in diesel consumption. Contributions to total locomotive direct GHG emissions from both diesel and WVO are detailed for 2010 in Figure WVO emissions constituted a small portion of locomotive GHG emissions (4%), with diesel dominating the emissions profile (96%). 99% 1% 0.78% 0.16% FIGURE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE DIRECT GHG EMISSIONS BY GAS, % 4% FIGURE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL DIRECT LOCOMOTIVE GHG EMISSIONS BY FUEL 2010 CO2 CH4 N2O Diesel WVO Table 3.2) Total Direct Locomotive GHG Emissions by Fuel Fuel Year Diesel WVO Total , , , , , ,

19 98% 2% 0.58% 0.76% FIGURE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL GCR OPERATIONS GHG EMISSIONS BY GAS, GCR All Operations Total Emissions: Table 3.3. shows the trend in total GHG emissions for all GCR operations from 2008 to Contributions of each GHG to total emissions for 2010 are detailed in Figure Total emissions were dominated by CO 2 (98%). Total CO 2 e emissions decreased from 5,037.2 metric tons CO 2 e in 2008 to 2,665.9 in Emissions decreased slightly in 2010 to metric tons CO 2 e due to the decrease in locomotive diesel consumption. Contributions to total GHG emissions from GCR for each operation are detailed for 2010 in Figure Locomotive shop operations as a whole constituted 14% of all GCR emissions, with locomotive direct emissions representing 86% of the emissions profile. Diesel fuel consumed by the locomotives themselves represents 84% of all GCR GHG emissions. The next largest contributor to GHG emissions was electricity consumption at the locomotive shop (8.5%). All other shop operations represented small portions of the emissions profile. These results demonstrate that the locomotives themselves are the primary source of GHG emissions at GCR. 0.15% 0.21% CO2 CH4 N2O HCFC HFC 82.5% 14.4% 3.2% 8.5% 4.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.012% 0.001% Diesel WVO Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene FIGURE CONTRIBUTION TO GCR TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS BY OPERATION 2010 StarGold C-25 Table 3.3) Total Locomotive Shop GHG Emissions by Operation Year Operation Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene StarGold Diesel WVO Total C , , , , , ,

20 Section 4: Emissions Scenarios Xanterra has implemented environmental improvement programs for all operations at the GCR in an effort to reduce GHG emissions for the entire complex. In order to assist Xanterra in quantifying achieved and potential emissions reductions, three emissions scenarios have been developed and are presented here. 4.1 Scenario 1 Baseline Emissions: In order to quantify the emissions reductions achieved by Xanterra, 2010 emissions must be compared to a baseline scenario. Given that 2008 was the year preceding implementation of the EMS, quantifying reductions between then and 2010 allowed for Diesel Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene 0.02 StarGold C-25 FIGURE GHG EMISSIONS BY OPERATION (METRIC TONS CO 2 e) - BASELINE SCENARIO quantification of the improvements made by implementation of the EMS. As discussed previously, data for welding gases and shop heater fuel consumption were not available for 2008; therefore, 2010 data are assumed to be representative of consumption for these operations and are substituted for 2008 data in this scenario. All 2008 data are presented earlier in the report and are summarized in Figure Scenario 2 Current Emissions & Realized Emissions Reductions: 2010 emissions represent the current emissions scenario emissions data are presented earlier in the report, and are summarized in Figure 4.2. Table 4.2 displays the reductions achieved between 2008 and 2010 and a discussion follows Diesel WVO Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene StarGold C-25 FIGURE GHG EMISSIONS BY OPERATION (METRIC TONS CO 2 e) - CURRENT SCENARIO 19

21 Table 4.2) Realized Emissions Reductions from Baseline Scenario (metric tons CO 2 e) 2008 Baseline 2010 Current Reduction % of Baseline Emissions Operation Emissions Emissions Achieved Reduced Diesel WVO n/a n/a Electric Shop Heaters HVAC Propane Acetylene StarGold C Diesel Reductions: the 52% reduction in diesel related emissions is due to reduced diesel consumption for the locomotives. Xanterra enacted two strategies to reduce emissions from the GCR. The first was switching from steam locomotives to modern diesel locomotives which saved 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year (roughly equivalent to 2,050 metric tons CO 2 e per year). The second strategy was the elimination of the historic practice of idling locomotive engines when not in use, which saved 18,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year (roughly equivalent to 185 metric tons CO 2 e per year). Based on the information provided, it was not possible to attribute the observed 2,342 metric ton reduction to these two potential sources. Further refinement of data collection and analysis will shed light on the relative contributions of the two sources. WVO Reductions: phasing in of WVO for locomotive operations has the effect of displacing diesel fuel. Reductions from baseline for WVO cannot be interpreted in the same way as for the other operations. An increase in emission from WVO actually represents a decrease in fossil fuel derived emissions, which is a positive consequence. The biogenic nature of WVO implies these emissions are actually carbon neutral; therefore, when WVO replaces diesel, the equivalent diesel emissions are displaced from the total GHG emissions of GCR. For every gallon of WVO that replaces a gallon of diesel, kg of CO 2 are removed from the GHG emissions profile. The 81.2 metric tons of CO 2 from WVO actually represent a larger reduction in diesel CO 2 emissions as WVO results in 9.76 kg CO 2 per gallon combusted. The ratio of emissions factors for the two fuels can be used to quantify the larger emissions offset of WVO: 20

22 The ratio of 1.05 indicates that for every ton of CO 2 emitted from WVO use, 1.05 tons of CO 2 emissions from diesel fuel are eliminated. Therefore, at a substitution ration of one gallon of WVO for one gallon of diesel, the 81.2 metric tons of CO 2 emitted from WVO represents a reduction in diesel emissions of 85.3 metric tons. Electricity Reductions: Xanterra has audited their electricity consumption for operations in the locomotive shop and taken steps to reduce consumption and related emissions. For example, solvent degreasing tanks have been placed on automatic timers to avoid power consumption from heaters and recirculation pumps during non-business hours. Along with other efficiency efforts, this change in operations led to a 33% reduction in emissions from baseline. Shop Heaters: data was not available for data was substituted leading to a reduction from baseline of 0. HVAC: HVAC emissions were not precisely accounted for. Consumption of refrigerant in a single year was assumed to be equal to the amount of new refrigerant added. Losses of refrigerant occur over time periods that may extend past the year in which refrigerant was added. Addition of refrigerant in a single year, therefore, is not truly indicative of operations in that year. Reductions noted above should be viewed with this uncertainty in mind. If GCR moves to reduce the amount and type of refrigerant used in operations, a more precise inventory would allow for more accurate accounting of true emissions and emissions reductions. Propane: the primary consumption of propane is for space heaters in the locomotive shop. Xanterra has made a concerted effort to reduce this function and related emissions. The 69% reductions from baseline emissions reflect this effort. Welding Gases: data was not available for data was substituted leading to a reduction from baseline of 0. 21

23 Metric tons CO2e Grand Canyon Railway 4/11/2011 Metric tons CO2e 4.3 Scenario 3 Future Emissions & Planned Reductions: planned operational changes at GCR were analyzed for the future emissions scenario. Two major changes are currently in progress for operations at GCR: the installation of a photovoltaic power generating system on the locomotive shop and the potential phase-in of WVO for use in the diesel locomotives and the shop heaters Photovoltaic Power System: the GCR has plans to install FIGURE POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN GHG EMISSIONS RESULTING FROM PV SYSTEM INSTALLATION a 128 kw Photovoltaic (PV) system on the locomotive shop roof in the summer of The expected electricity generation the first year is PV System Electricity Supply Utility Electricity Supply 249,000 kwh which will result in a reduction of approximately 142 metric tons of CO 2 e. If electricity usage in 2011 were the same as 2010 usage, the PV system would result in a reduction of GHG emissions from to 77.7 metric tons CO 2 e, or roughly 65% (Figures and 4.3.2). The GHG emissions savings from the PV installation 35% 65% translate into a 6% reduction in total GHG emissions from all GCR operations (Figure 4.3.3) GHG Emissions Potential reduction due to PV system FIGURE REDUCTION IN GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE GCR DUE TO SOLAR INSTALLATION. FIGURE PERCENT OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BY SOURCE AFTER PV SYSTEM INSTALLATION WVO Substitution: as discussed above, every gallon of WVO used to replace a gallon of diesel results in reductions of CO 2 emissions at a ratio of With locomotive diesel combustion accounting for 82% of total GHG emissions, any reductions that can be made in this area of operations will have substantial effects on the total emissions profile of the GCR. While it may not be feasible to replace 100% of diesel consumption in the locomotives with WVO, 22

24 substituting 20% of total diesel consumption with WVO would result in emissions reductions greater than all locomotive shop operations emissions combined. This perspective can be informative when comparing cost effectiveness of emissions reductions options. Potential reductions in emissions for WVO substitution represent the total emissions from diesel fuel (2,122 metric tons); however, exact reductions realized can only be quantified after substitution has occurred

25 Section 5: Transportation Comparison Analysis At the request of Xanterra, emissions resulting from travel into the Grand Canyon via GCR locomotive were compared to emissions resulting from automobile travel. This comparison was framed in the context of various travel scenarios in an effort to estimate the CO 2 intensity of both travel options. The unit chosen for analysis was kg CO 2 /Passenger Mile, which allows for direct comparison of the per passenger CO 2 emissions resulting from travel for each option. The following is a summary of the Transportation Comparison Analysis (calculation methodology and assumptions are located in Appendix D). 5.1 Automobile Travel: Two pieces of data were necessary for calculation of average CO 2 intensity for road travel. The first was an estimate of US road fleet fuel economy (miles/gallon) and the second was an estimate of the average number of passengers that occupy a single vehicle while traveling to Grand Canyon National Park. To estimate US fleet fuel economy, three scenarios were utilized to represent a high/medium/low fuel economy framework. The low fuel economy scenario was taken from US motor vehicle fleet (including light trucks, buses and motorcycles) fuel economy estimations. Medium fuel economy was taken from US passenger car fleet fuel economy estimations. Actual data for the low and medium scenarios was only available up to 2008; hence, the 2008 values were used. For the high fuel economy scenario, the US new passenger car fleet fuel economy estimations for year 2010 were used. These estimates of fuel economy are 17.4 miles/gallon, 22.6 miles/gallon, and 33.7 miles/gallon, respectively (Table 5.3). Data available through the National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office allowed for estimation of the average number of passengers per vehicle (PPV) that enter the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. The mean of monthly average was 2.8 PPV. 5.2 GCR Travel: An average value of CO 2 intensity per train mile was calculated and used to derive multiple passenger occupancy scenarios. The annual travel distance of 47,450 miles was used to estimate travel for the GCR operation each year (see Appendix D for assumption and explanation). All diesel fuel consumed in GCR operations was attributed to passenger transport train travel and WVO was excluded from the analysis due to its biogenic origins. Calculations for train fuel economy yielded an estimate of gallons/mile (see Appendix D). 24

26 5.3 Break Even Passenger Counts: the first results presented for the comparison analysis present the minimum number of passengers that must ride the GCR in order for the GCR to be equally CO 2 intensive to road travel (Table 5.3). For the low fuel economy estimate, only 251 passengers must occupy the GCR in order for the GCR to be equally CO 2 intensive. For the high fuel economy estimate, 486 passengers would be necessary for the GCR to be equally CO 2 intensive. In 2009, each 65 mile one way trip to the canyon averaged 541 passengers. As can be seen, even under the most conservative scenario, the GCR is less CO 2 intensive than road travel. Table 5.3) Fuel Efficiency Estimates, CO 2 Intensity, and Break Even Passenger Counts for Road Travel Estimated Fuel Per Passenger CO Estimated Vehicle 2 Train Passengers Necessary for Efficiency Intensity of Vehicle Equal Per Passenger CO Fuel Efficiency Group 2 (miles/gallon) Travel Intensity US Motor Vehicle Fleet (2008) US Passenger Vehicle Fleet (2008) US New Passenger Vehicle Fleet (2010) CO 2 Intensity Ratios: as was discussed above, per passenger CO 2 intensity of GCR travel depends on occupancy. Table 2 displays the per passenger CO 2 intensity of GCR travel under various occupancy scenarios. Also shown in Table 5.4 is the ratio of GCR per passenger CO 2 intensity to per passenger CO 2 intensity for road travel under the low and high fuel economy scenarios. Presentation of the data in this form allows for ready comparison of the two modes of travel. For instance, with an occupancy of 750 passengers, GCR travel emits 31%-61% of the emissions from road travel, depending on which fuel economy scenario one chooses to compare to. Table 5.4) CO 2 Intensity Ratios for GCR to Road Travel Under Various Occupancy Scenarios Ratio of Intensity to US Number of Train Per Passenger CO 2 New Passenger Vehicle Passengers Intensity of Train Travel Fleet (2010) Ratio of Intensity to US Motor Vehicle Fleet (2008)

27 Emissions Savings per 65mi Trip (Metric Tons CO 2 e) 5.5 CO 2 Emissions Savings: Travel into the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park via a CGR locomotive, instead of a road vehicle, results in a savings of CO 2 emissions. Again, the magnitude of savings is dependent on the occupancy of the GCR and the fuel economy scenario chosen for comparison. These relationships are summarized in Figure 5.5, where savings are expressed in total metric tons CO 2 saved per 65 mile trip depending on locomotive occupancy Motor Fleet 2008 Pass Fleet 2010 New Pass Fleet Passengers Per Trip FIGURE 5.5 ESTIMATED TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS SAVINGS FROM GCR TRAVEL VS. ROAD TRAVEL UNDER VARIOUS OCCUPANCY AND VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY SCENARIOS FOR A ONE WAY 65 MILE TRIP (NEGATIVE VALUES INDICATE GCR EMISSIONS HIGHER THAN ROAD EMISSIONS) 5.6 Estimated Annual CO 2 Emissions Savings: as with the preceding calculations, similar methodology can be employed to estimate total annual CO 2 emissions savings that result from GCR locomotive travel instead of road travel. Estimated savings are displayed in Table 5.6, below (see Appendix D for a description of calculations and assumptions). 26

28 Table 5.6) Estimated Annual Emissions Savings from GCR Travel vs Road Travel Under Various Fuel Economy Scenarios 2009 Estimated Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Group Estimated Annual CO 2 Emissions Savings (metric tons) US Motor Vehicle Fleet (2008) 2483 US Passenger Vehicle Fleet (2008) 1418 US New Passenger Vehicle Fleet (2010)

29 Section 6: Recommended Actions Xanterra s EMS has done an excellent job of identifying areas for environmental improvement. Additional GHG emissions reductions could occur by phasing out the refrigerant R-22. Increased data collection and periodic review could also help refine calculation of emissions estimations and reductions. 6.1 HCFC-22 Refrigerant Phase-out: the Montreal Protocol, in 1987, established requirements for the worldwide phase-out of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In 1992, amendments were added to establish a schedule for the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are less damaging to the ozone layer than CFCs, but still contain ozone-destroying chlorine. HCFC-22 (also known as R-22) is the most used refrigerant for residential heat pump and air-conditioning systems in the U.S. R-22, with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1700, is a greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to global warming. The Montreal Protocol requires the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs to 90% below the U.S. baseline by 2015 (U.S. EPA, 2010). By 2020, the U.S. must reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 99.5% below the U.S. baseline. Refrigerants that have been recovered, recycled, or reclaimed will be allowed beyond 2020 to service existing systems, but chemical manufacturers will no longer be able to produce R-22. Non-ozone-depleting alternative refrigerants are being introduced and the U.S. EPA has compiled a list of acceptable substitutes (Appendix E, Table E-1). Two of the U.S. EPA s HCFC substitutes, HFC- 134A and blend R-404A, are currently being used by Xanterra Railroad as coolant for their train cars and service automobiles. Between , lbs. of R-134A was used (Appendix E, Table E-2). Compared to the lbs of R-22 used during that same time, it is clear that Xanterra relies primarily on this refrigerant. With the impending phase out of R-22, it is recommended that Xanterra look into increasing the usage of alternative refrigerants. R-404A is currently being used by Xanterra, however, a high GWP (~3260) would not be the best choice in refrigerant for lowering annual CO 2 e emissions. The best alternative refrigerant for Xanterra Railroad is R-134A, because of its relatively low GWP (~1300). This refrigerant is already currently being used by the facility that would make for an easier transition. Potential reductions for this transition are displayed in Figure Increased Data Collection and Periodic Review: gaps in available data and low precision have been highlighted throughout the report. If greater accuracy and precision in emissions estimations are desired, these gaps could be filled in preparation for a second review of the emissions profile. For instance, 28

30 per passenger emissions estimations for the GCR could be calculated on a monthly basis using precise data for occupancy and fuel consumption for each trip taken to Grand Canyon National Park. Comparison to road travel could also be conducted on a monthly basis using available data from the National Park Service, as well. Another area for potential improvement would be a refined inventory of refrigerants used in shop HVAC operations; where emissions due to refrigerant leakage could be attributed to individual HVAC units and time periods. For estimation of emissions for WVO, a full life cycle assessment of emissions for WVO production and transport could be conducted to more accurately account for fossil fuel CO 2 emissions embodied in WVO as delivered to GCR. Likewise, the inventory could be expanded to incorporate Scope 3 emissions; which would include emissions associated with employee commuting to GCR and waste disposal from locomotive operations. All emissions estimations would benefit from a periodic review procedure, in which Xanterra could recalculate GHG emissions estimates on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. Such a periodic review would allow for greater refinement in estimations of emissions reductions achieved by the GCR, and allow Xanterra to take full credit for emissions reductions achieved

31 Section 1: Locomotive Shop Emissions Appendix A: GHG Emissions Calculations Box 1.1) GHG Emissions Calculations for Locomotive Shop Electricity Consumption (kwh) Box 1.2) Total GHG Emissions Calculations for Welding Gas Consumption (units as reported) Praxair StarGold TM C-25 2 Acetylene Box 1.3) GHG Emissions Calculations for Propane Combustion (gal) Box 1.4) GHG Emissions Calculation for Locomotive Shop Heaters 2 StarGold C-25 is a welding gas composed of 75% Argon and 25% Carbon dioxide, by volume. No emission factor for the welding gas was available through TCR. The emissions factor used was calculated based on the density of CO 2 at 70 F, and 1 atm. The derivation is as follows: 1/0.547m 3 kg -1 CO 2 x 0.25 v/v = kg CO 2 m

32 Box 1.5) GHG Emissions Calculations for HVAC Maintenance Operations R-22 R-134a MP-39 Section 2: Locomotive Emissions Box 2.1) GHG Emissions Calculations for Locomotive Diesel Fuel Combustion Box 2.2) GHG Emissions Calculations for Locomotive Waste Vegetable Oil Combustion 31

33 Appendix B: Total Annual GHG Emissions by Operation, Group and GCR Grand Total Table B.1.1 Year GHG Propane Electric Shop Heaters Welding Gas Diesel WVO HVAC 2008 CO N/A 0 CH N/A 0 N 2 O N/A 0 HCFC HFC Total Table B.1.2 Year GHG Locomotive Shop Locomotive GRC Grand Total 2008 CO CH N 2 O HCFC HFC Total Table B.2.1 Year GHG Propane Electric Shop Heaters Welding Gas Diesel WVO HVAC 2009 CO CH N 2 O HCFC HFC Total

34 Table B.2.2 Year GHG Locomotive Shop Locomotive GRC Grand Total 2009 CO CH N 2 O HCFC HFC Total Table B.3.1 Year GHG Propane Electric Shop Heaters Welding Gas Diesel WVO HVAC 2010 CO CH N 2 O HCFC HFC Total Table B.3.2 Year GHG Locomotive Shop Locomotive GRC Grand Total 2010 CO CH N 2 O HCFC HFC Total

35 Appendix C: Total Annual Consumption Values by Operation Table C.1 Year Propane (gallons) Electricity (kwh) Acetylene (ft 3 ) Praxair StarGold TM C-25 (m 3 ) , ,920 no data no data , ,920 no data no data , , Table C.2 Year Waste Oil (gallons) R-22 (lbs) R-134a (lbs) MP-39 (lbs) Diesel (gallons) WVO (gallons) 2008 no data ,009 N/A 2009 no data , ,

36 Appendix D: Transportation Comparison Analysis Methodology Section 5: Transportation Comparison Analysis The basic data necessary to compare emissions from GCR locomotive travel to road vehicle travel was fuel consumption, passenger occupancy, and fuel-mileage economy of the two travel options. Comparison of the two modes of travel was accomplished through derivation of a standard CO 2 intensity unit: kg CO 2 /passenger mile. Train fuel usage data were not available at high resolution and in recognition of the high variability of both GCR occupancy and US road vehicle fleet composition and data constraints, average values for both travel options were employed at low resolution. Throughout the analysis assumptions were employed to intentionally bias results in favor of road travel. This was done to increase transparency and confidence in findings that show the GCR to be less carbon intensive than road travel. 5.1 Road Travel The low fuel economy scenario values were calculated by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and made available in the collection of National Transportation Statistics (Table 4-9: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption and Travel.) Medium fuel economy was taken from RITA-BTS Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. These economy values present an overestimation of actual fuel economy because it does not include SUV s, light trucks, or buses. The high fuel economy scenario values were taken from RITA-BTS Table 4-29.; however, this estimate of US fleet fuel economy represents a gross overestimation of fuel economy and is included for comparison to a highly road-travel-biased perspective. All vehicles are assumed to combust gasoline in the analysis; which, again, biases the results in favor of road travel (diesel is more CO 2 intensive than gasoline). Data for PPV of vehicles entering the park ranged from 2.4 to 3.3 on a monthly average basis for 2010 (including buses and passenger vehicles.) The mean of monthly averages was 2.8 PPV (median of 2.6). 2.8 PPV was chosen as a conservative estimate of annual mean PPV value, seeing as it was higher than the median and included bus travel. Again, this value was chosen to intentionally bias the results of the analysis in favor of road travel. Calculations for CO 2 intensity of road travel for the three scenarios are displayed in Box 1. 35