College of Charleston 2012 Campus Emissions Report Analysis of FY2011 Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Transcription

1 College of Charleston 2012 Campus Emissions Report Analysis of FY2011 Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions P. Brian Fisher, Ph.D., Jennifer Jones, cm.s., and Brett Taysom, M.S. College of Charleston, Office of Sustainability Spring 2012

2 This report was prepared by the Office of Sustainability, College of Charleston P. Brian Fisher: Dr. Fisher is the Director of the Office of Sustainability at the College of Charleston. He also teaches courses on sustainability and environmental policy to undergraduates and in the Master of Environmental Studies (MES) program. He can be reached at: Jennifer Jones: Jennifer is a MES candidate and Graduate Assistant to the Office of Sustainability at the College of Charleston. Her thesis research focuses on perceptions of sustainability in the higher educational institution. She can be reached at: Jennifer.jones7@gmail.com. Brett Taysom: Brett is an assistant to the Office and a MES alum. His experience focuses on sustainability in higher education and natural resource conservation. He can be reached at: brett.taysom@gmail.com.

3 Table of Contents FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION IMPORTANT TERMS WHAT IS A GREENHOUSE GAS? GHGS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE V PART 1: INVENTORY SCOPE AND METHODS 1.1 CALCULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CLEAN AIR COOL PLANET CAMPUS CARBON CALCULATOR INVENTORY METHODS SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 12 SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS 12 SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS 12 SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS 12 PART 2: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 2.1 EMISSIONS BY SCOPE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY INSTITUTIONAL DATA ENERGY AND UTILITY USAGE TRANSPORTATION OTHER SOURCES OF EMISSIONS INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON PURCHASED ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY COMMUTING 34 PART 3: RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 PROCEDURAL OPERATIONAL 37 FOCUS ON ENERGY BEHAVIORAL CHANGES REFERENCES 43

4 Acknowledgements The Office of Sustainability would like to thank Steve Osborne for his continuous support while we collected these data. Without him none of this would be possible. We would also like to send a personal thanks to Dr. Arthur Felts for all of his consultation throughout this process, to Alyson Goff for answering innumerable questions and for her insightful editing suggestions, and to Ashlyn Spilis- Hochschild for her unending support and logistical coordination. A number of additional people around campus helped to make this report possible. They helped us with a part of the report, combed through old bills to find data for us, met with us, and/or tolerated our numerous s. We would like to specially thank the following for their support and assistance in gathering data: Susan Anderson Lowell Atkinson Randy Beaver Priscilla Burbage Brenda Burbage Burton Callicott John Cordray Paty Cowden Herbert Fraiser Lindsey Graham Alyson Goff Grice Marine Lab Staff Ruby Flateau Tom Fresselli Debbie Shumate Michelle Smith Julie Swigert Fritz Stine Kevin Taylor Wendy Williams Jay Wurscher Dr. Fisher s Fall 2010 Case Studies Course The 2003 GHG Audit Team IV

5 Foreword This is a report on the College of Charleston s emission footprint. It represents far more than an emissions accounting, however. In its simplest terms, we are evaluating, albeit crudely and one- dimensionally, our impact on the world around us. It is important to recognize that this represents an essential first step that we are aware and making others aware of our contribution to biospheric pollution. That is, we are harming the planet, and we are making public our contributions to that harm. This recognition is probably far more important and salient than the numbers that follow at least for now. Wendell Berry said that life is a miracle, in calling for an Emancipation Proclamation for life itself (Berry, 2000). Without getting overly philosophical, this report and our close scrutiny of our footprint is recognition of our high regard for life of all forms and how we are connected to that diverse web of life. In this light, we cannot simply adjust our emissions to satisfactory levels; rather we have to view this as a process, one of recovery, restoration and rejuvenation of life. I would add to that list of three R s a very important fourth: responsibility. We are accepting responsibility for life, for which not only sustains us but sustains all life forms. At its most base level, an institution of learning should be built upon that foundation. We must also be mindful that because of these emission outputs and corresponding effects, we now confront a constellation of ecological challenges at all scales. This is not independent of the challenges we face politically, economically and culturally. I would add to this, educationally, and we face our own series of crises in this realm. Yet, as an institution of higher education we not only sit at a critical intersection for understanding the interconnected trajectories of these challenges, we also possess a unique opportunity to contribute to solutions. In thinking about solutions at larger scales, it means that we must be actively engaged in both conceptual development and practice in creating a sustainable community. This means that we are not just concerned with institutional sustainability i.e., cutting emissions, generating greater efficiency, cost savings or limiting our environmental impact. Rather, we are concerned also with generating a holistic process that enhances our quality of life in ways that can be sustained within larger biotic and societal communities. This is a complex process that requires deeply embedded institutional learning and commitment. I view our footprint and this report as a way to engage in this deep institutional learning, and as a strong signal of our commitment to the impact we have on other people, other biotic life, and the planet. However, to operationalize this vision and philosophy will require changing our approach to institutional problems. We must begin to think across the spectrum of the C.O.R.E. functions (Curriculum, Operations, Research and Engagement) of the institution as part of a holistic, systems V

6 approach to building a sustainable community (Kelly, 2009). I believe that this report can contribute to these core functions of our community in ways that enhance our understanding of our contributions to environmental degradation. More importantly, it will enhance our understanding of our community and ourselves. As Wendell Berry also says, in interpreting Shakespeare s King Lear, our attempts to renew or correct ourselves, to shake off despair and have hope, our starting place is always and only our experience. We can begin (and we must always be beginning) only where our history has so far brought us, with what we have done (Berry, 2000). This report demonstrates that history and what we have done. It is a reflection of our structure, behavior and the decisions made, and yet it is also our beginning. With awareness and strategic development, we can now begin the process of learning and understanding, from which we accept responsibility for recovery, restoration, and rejuvenation of life. - - P. Brian Fisher VI

7 Executive Summary In FY2011, the College of Charleston emitted a combined total of 67,812 Metric tons CO 2 e (carbon dioxide equivalent). This represents a footprint in the higher range for similarly sized liberal arts & sciences institutions (See Table 1). The College s footprint is also about equal to the emissions of the Cook Islands, and represents more emissions than 8 other countries (United Nations, MDG Indicators, 2008). 1 Relative to other schools of higher education, the College has Scope 1 emissions (those directly owned by the College) comprise 9.7% of our footprint, while Scope 2 emissions (indirectly controlled by the College such as energy production) comprise 52.2%, and Scope 3 emissions (those affiliated with the College s operations such as travel and commuting) represent 38.1% of the footprint. CofC Emissions by Source Fiscal Year 2011 Other Emissions ** 6.56% Energy * 61.00% Other TransportaUon *** 0.64% Air Travel 11.49% CommuUng 16.67% Wastewater & Solid Waste 3.60% Figure 1. Breakdown of all emissions produced by the College of Charleston in FY2011. *Energy includes electricity (52.2%), natural gas 2, propane and fuel oil (collectively 8.8%). **Other Emissions Sources include Scope 2 T&D loses (5.2%), paper purchasing (0.7%), fertilizers & refrigerants (0.7%), and livestock (0.04%). ***Other transportation includes directly financed ground transportation, and any on- campus travel by means of the College vehicle fleet. Energy represents the largest component of the College s footprint, comprising 61% of total emissions (See Figure 1). Transportation comprises 28% of total emissions, with almost 17% of total emissions from commuting and 11.5% from College- supported air travel. The remaining 3.6% consists of various wastes generated by the College. 1 Niue, St. Helena, Wallis and Futuna, Kiribati, Falkland Islands, Anguilla, Federated States of Micronesia, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. 2 Natural Gas/Propane is burned on campus to produce energy, so they are considered with Scope 1 emissions, while purchased electricity is within Scope 2 because the energy is produced off site. 1

8 School Total MT CO 2 e MT CO 2 e / student Student FTE (FY2011) College of Charleston 67, ,205 USC- Columbia 197, ,114 Clemson University 142, ,000 Towson University 109, ,860 James Madison 85, ,339 Georgia Southern 75, ,086 Appalachian State 74, ,749 Furman University 28, ,674 Coastal Carolina University 24, ,706 Wofford College 13, ,312 Table 1. Comparison of total footprint and footprint per student. Our current footprint suggests focus on energy and transportation, but future projections of CofC s footprint suggest that total emissions will more than double by the year 2050 (See Figure 2), with the majority of those emissions coming from energy usage. This suggests that reducing our footprint should focus on building efficiency, energy infrastructure and use, and finding ways to create more cost effectiveness for our energy trajectory. Total Emissions (Metric Tonnes eco2) 180, , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Projected CO2e Emissions Year 2034 Figure 2. Projected CO2e Emissions from the College of Charleston through the year Scope 2 T&D Losses Paper Wastewater Solid Waste Study Abroad Air Travel Directly Financed Outsourced Travel Commulng Purchased Electricity Agriculture Refrigerants & Chemicals Direct Transportalon On- Campus Stalonary 2

9 In comparison with other higher education institutions, the College is in the higher range for most footprint categories analyzed in this report. Specifically, when compared to other South Carolina schools, emissions per capita (FTE) (6.7 MT CO2e/FTE) were in the mid- range (range MT CO2/capita) while in the high end of the range for emissions per square foot (College: 19.1 MT CO2e/1000 sq. ft.; range MT CO2e/1000 sq. ft.) (See Table 2, page 30). Similarly, when compared to institutions of similar size, setting, and educational offerings across the nation 3 (See Table 3, page 31), the College s per capita FTE emissions are at high end of the range nationally (range MT CO2/capita) as well are emissions per square foot (College: 19.1 MT CO2e/1000 sq. ft.; range MT CO2e/1000 sq. ft.). 4 It is important to be mindful when comparing the College with research- intensive Universities like Clemson and USC that their footprints are expected to be higher because high- emission activities inherent to laboratory research. We conclude that the College is at the very high end of the ranges for South Carolina liberal arts and sciences institutions on gross emissions, emissions per square foot (of building space), and emissions per student (FTE). The percent of emissions accounted for by electricity at the College (52.2%) is toward the lower end of the range (from %) compared to institutions in South Carolina including Clemson, Coastal Carolina, Furman, USC- Columbia, and Wofford. Yet it is important to note that upon examination of other GHG inventories, our audit is far more comprehensive. Some institutions did not account for as many disparate sources of emissions, which would lead to an artificial inflation of energy emissions. Energy emissions, therefore, should represent the initial target for achieving both short and long- term emission reductions and cost savings in the present and future. This will require emphasizing three target areas: building efficiency (both energy and built infrastructure), behavioral modifications, and structural improvements to how energy is delivered and consumed. A second target area should be transportation. The College is in the mid- range of emissions per commuter (0.79; range ) for South Carolina schools, as well as nationally 5 (range ). Moreover, safety issues detailed in the 2011 CofC Transportation Report (Fisher and McAdams, 2011) strongly indicate the need for increased transportation initiatives on campus. Due to the urban nature of the College, reductions in single motor transportation can not only lower emissions, but also offer both direct and indirect benefits to the campus sustainability. Additionally, as air travel constitutes 11.5% of total campus emissions, this should represent a discussion point for the campus community. This is a sensitive issue, however, as international travel, study abroad, professional development are all essential components to our education and institutional missions. Promoting discussion on ways to balance these interests should be encouraged. 3 Measured by dividing by full time students. 4 When compared with Appalachian State, Middlebury College, University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, and West Washington University. 5 Schools compared nationally for computers include Appalachian State, Kent State, Middlebury College, University of Arkansas, and University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire. 3

10 As signatories of the ACUPCC (President s Climate Commitment), we are required to submit a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that will address how we will focus our efforts to reduce emissions. We strongly suggest developing a more holistic and comprehensive action plan (a Sustainability Action Plan ) for campus goals and essential strategies that address these target areas (energy and transportation) and other important sustainability initiatives (such as food, historic preservation, and justice issues). Climate and emission goals should be included within this Action Plan, not as directives but rather as outcome goals driven by addressing system inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. This requires highlighting areas for strategic investment to achieve both low- hanging opportunities in combination with higher hanging investment. This will create a sustainable pathway for greater efficiency and effectiveness while taking responsibility for our impact on the world around us. Careful consideration is necessary to coordinate investment in short and long runs to maximize productivity while minimizing costs. It is suggested that a comprehensive systems analysis of major energy, waste, food, and transportation streams (with future projections) be undertaken to identify strategies and tactics for addressing these systems at both the macro and micro levels. This analysis should focus on efficiency and organizational optimization to reach low hanging fruit, but it should also assess and identify strategies in line with the fuller spectrum of sustainability to generate more institutional and community effectiveness. This requires tremendous coordination across the campus, across departments and divisions. The Office of Sustainability is sufficiently positioned to guide the College through this process and coordinate this comprehensive evaluation. Finally, we must streamline data collection not only for GHG emissions but for all areas of campus life and its support and value streams. To do this, the campus must invest in social capital building by increasing cooperation that can lead to collective action on a variety of sustainability- related activities. This, in turn, will yield not only greater efficiency and effectiveness, but also an enhanced sense of community that will provide direct benefits to all venues of campus life. 4

11 Introduction In May 2008, President P. George Benson signed the American College and University President s Climate Initiative (ACUPCC), committing the College to systematic reductions in our GHG emissions (See Commitment for full text). The first step in this process was to create an organizational shift within the College to meet these obligations. This was, in part, the stimulus for creating a sustainability director position, which has come to fruition through the newly formed Office of Sustainability. The second step in this process was to conduct a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory designed to calculate the campus footprint. This report is the outcome from this inventory. In May 2008, President P. George Benson signed the ACUPCC, committing the College to systematic reductions in our GHG emissions. Data reflect emissions from the College for the 2011 Fiscal year (July 1, 2010 June 30, 2011). There were a few occasions where data for FY2011 were unobtainable and figures from the previous FY were used in its place. For all instances, an entire year s worth of data were used, and differences between years would be more negligible than not including the data at all. This report marks the first of a biennial monitoring period that will be completed under the Office of Sustainability as part of the College s commitment to the ACUPCC. 6 The next period of data acquisition will begin July 1 of fiscal year While we took great care to make this accounting of emissions as accurate and comprehensive as possible, there are, however, a number of emissions categories that are not accounted for. First, our satellite graduate campus ( Lowcountry Graduate Center ) and 800 acre plantation ( Dixie Plantation ) are not included as part of this inventory. We plan to include them for the FY2013 report. Additionally, current best practices within this field do not yet account for supply chain analyses and emissions, or waste streams. This includes emissions generated from the extraction and distribution of fossil fuels, transporting waste to its desired repository, emissions generated to extract, transport and process many of the products the College uses on a daily basis such as paper, cleaning products, or office supplies and emission created with the growth, processing, packaging and transporting food used at the College. While it is nearly impossible to track some of these emissions, it is important to acknowledge that they are a part of the College s footprint. Because this is our first systematic evaluation of our footprint, this report covers some of the climate change basics and tries to provide more explanative depth. After this background information, the report is set up in three parts. Part I explains the inventory methods and procedures, while Part II analyzes the data collected in the inventory, and Part III provides some recommendations based on the data and analysis in Part II. We hope that this becomes a baseline for not only measuring future emissions but also as a foundation for campus- wide discussion. 6 This report represents the second audit of campus emissions as the first was in 2001 (Lindstroth and Neff, 2003), where CofC emitted 38,712 MT CO2e, which equaled 3.48 MT CO2e per student and MT CO2e/1000 sq ft. We are unsure of the methods behind this data collection and thus it should only be used as a rough estimate of emissions for comparison. 5

12 Important terms In this report there are a number of terms and abbreviations that are used to help describe different aspects of a GHG inventory. Here is list and explanation of the post pertinent terms. TERM GHG CO 2 e GWP MT MMBtu FY CO2e/ft 2 CO2e/student CO2e/student commuter ACUPCC SIGNIFICANCE Greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide equivalent. See footnote 2. Global warming potential. See footnote 3. Metric ton. A unit of volume that is equal to 2,000lbs. One million Btus. A Btu, or British thermal unit, is a measure of how much energy is required to heat one pound of water. Fiscal Year. As the College is a state institution, it runs on fiscal years determined by the State of South Carolina. The year runs from July 1 st through June 30 th. A metric of emissions intensity that measures amount of CO 2 e emitted per unit of area, in this case per square foot. A metric of emissions intensity that measures amount of CO 2 e emitted per student. Can be thought of as the average student s carbon footprint. A metric of emissions intensity that measures the amount of CO 2 e emitted via commuting for each student. Metric in this paper considers all students to be commuters. American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. A formal body designed to organize higher education s approach to understanding and ultimately addressing global climate change. 6

13 What is a Greenhouse Gas? Greenhouse gases are gaseous chemical compounds found in the atmosphere that, because of their chemical structure, absorb infrared light that bounces off the Earth's surface. By absorbing infrared light, GHGs trap heat, causing what is known as the greenhouse effect (See Figure 3). Many GHGs occur naturally, the most abundant of which include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and fluorinated gases (EPA, 2011). GHGs are also introduced into the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities and can include chlorofluorocarbons from refrigerant usage (IPCC/TEAP, 2005), and CO 2 from burning fossil fuels (Andres, 2000). Greenhouse gases are gaseous chemical compounds found in the atmosphere that, because of their chemical structure, absorb infrared light that bounces off the Due to their heat absorbing properties, GHGs have been identified as a main contributor to climate change (EPA, 2011; IPCC, 2007b). However not all GHGs have the same effect on Earth s climate, as gasses not only enter and leave our atmosphere at different rates but also absorb and emit radiation at various frequencies. For instance, water vapor has an atmospheric lifetime of about nine days while some fluorinated gases can last tens of thousands of years; methane absorbs radiation at a frequency which warms the atmosphere much faster than most GHGs (IPCC, 2007a). Earth s surface. When considered in equal volumes some gases will have a greater effect than others once they mix into our atmosphere. For example, given an equal amount of methane and CO 2, methane will trap about 20 times more heat in the atmosphere over a 100- year period (EPA, 2011). Global warming potential (GWP) 7 is a measurable unit that enumerates these differences in properties. GWP is also used to determine a GHG s carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) 8, which normalizes all emissions to their equivalent of carbon dioxide emissions. CO 2 e allows easy comparison of the effects of different GHGs and will be used throughout this report. 7 Global Warming Potential (GWP) measures how much heat a specific gas traps in the atmosphere relative to that of CO 2. It is determined by comparing a known mass of a GHG with the same mass of carbon dioxide over the same period of time. The 10 year GWP of CO 2 is 1. For example, if a gas has a 10 year GWP of 120 then that gas will trap 120 times the heat to the atmosphere than CO 2 over the same time period. GWP provides a relative way to compare the effect different GHGs will have on the Earth s atmosphere. 8 CO 2 e provides a relative way to compare GHGs by determining how much carbon dioxide it would take to have the same effect on the Earth s atmosphere as a GHG over the same period of time by using that gas s GWP. For example, over a period of 100 years 1 million metric tons of methane emissions, with a GWP of 25, will be the equivalent of 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The unit for CO 2 e is metric tons. 7

14 Figure 3. A visual depiction of the greenhouse effect (Rekacewicz, 2005). GHGs and Global Climate Change Human activities, primarily through burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary drivers of global climate change (IPCC, 2007a). These modes of industrialization have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) markedly since 1750 and far exceed pre- industrial values (IPCC, 2007b). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now has a very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming (IPCC, 2007b). Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Global mean surface temperature has increased 2.4 F over the last 100 years (IPCC, 2007a). This warming is accelerating, with an average increase of ~0.34 F per decade over the last 30 years (Hansen, 2006). Scenarios for future climate warming have been generated based on projected trajectories of GHG emissions. The lower emission scenario (i.e. we take aggressive action to reduce emissions globally) projects that by mid- century we will experience a 3-5 F increase in temperature for the U.S. (slightly less for South Carolina), while the higher emission scenario (we take little action to reduce emissions globally) projects 4-7 F (Karl, et al., 2009). Human industrial activities over the next years, if unchanged, virtually guarantee a temperature increase in the US of 4-7 F. By the end of the century, the lower- emission scenario projects an increase of 4-7 F, while the high scenario 8

15 projects an alarming increase of 7-11 F (Karl, et al., 2009). In South Carolina, it would be slightly less, projecting a 6-10 F increase for the higher emission scenario. These changes in climate affect both biophysical and human systems (IPCC, 2007c). While there has always been a dynamic Human industrial interplay between human systems and environmental change, current climate change is a heightened state of environmental activities over the next change that intensifies and accelerates both biophysical and societal years, if hazards and stresses (Fisher, 2011). In areas where there are already high levels of vulnerability either biophysical or social, this unchanged, virtually heightened state of climate change will bring additional trajectories of stresses than can compound and intensify pre- existing guarantee a vulnerability. Charleston and the College possess high levels of both temperature increase biophysical (e.g. extreme events, natural hazards, etc.) and social (e.g. infrastructure, culture, and historic tourism, etc.) vulnerability. in the US of 4.7 F This means that we have greater risk from climate change more so as an effect multiplier to pre- existing vulnerability than as a stand- alone phenomenon. Climate change is an outcome from imbalanced ecological and human systems, where human systems have dominated ecological systems (i.e. extracting greater natural resources with even greater toxic pollutive outputs). We use those ecological systems for inputs and services (primarily through fossil fuels), while the outputs from industrial systems generate ecologically degrading effects. Climate change is merely another output from this imbalance, just like other ecologically- degrading outputs like air and water pollution. Therefore, while being mindful of our emissions and corresponding contributions to climate change, we should focus on the imbalance between systems. We must think about addressing the root causes of these problems and our vulnerability, not simply the effects (like climate change). That being said, utilizing an environmental or climatic lens to view our impact is the most visible way to examine this imbalance. In this light, the exponential increase in GHGs that have led to planetary warming is a critical visible marker for our impact on the planet and its ecosystems and inhabitants. It therefore serves as an appropriate marker for institutional awareness and guidelines for future action. 9

16 Part 1: Inventory Scope and Methods Key Findings: College of Charleston used the Clean Air- Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator as an accounting tool for its FY2011 GHG Inventory. This tool is designed specifically for calculating CO 2 e emissions for campus- related activities and is based on the fundamental framework outlined in the ACUPCC protocol. 1.1 Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gases are measured by conducting inventories of all GHG emissions created in day- to- day operations for an institution. Inventories track trends in emissions and can be used to help develop strategies and goals towards emissions reduction. The methodologies for collecting and calculating emissions data for a greenhouse gas inventory vary by industry and activity. Most industries have developed universal standards and best practices that are in line with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol 9 and are used by all institutions within that specific industry. This allows for easy comparison across institutions and is vital for tracking changes over time and comparing data. The College conducted its GHG inventory using the Clean Air- Cool Planet Carbon Calculator V6.75 to calculate emissions. This calculator is the standard that is most frequently used by colleges and universities in the United States. The College of Charleston conducted its GHG inventory using the Clear Air- Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator V6.75 to calculate emissions 1.2 Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator Clean Air Cool Planet (CA- CP) 10, an organization that works with colleges and universities to help combat global warming, has developed a standard for tracking and measuring greenhouse gases on campuses. The CA- CP Campus Carbon Calculator, designed particularly for this industry, is used to measure and evaluate greenhouse gas emissions over time. This excel- based tool has three modules (CA- CP 2012): 1) inventory module, which tracks GHG sources attributable to all institutional activities and operations. 9 The GHG Protocol (< is a framework for accounting for greenhouse gas emissions that was developed by the WRI (World Resources Institute) and the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). This framework is the international standard behind greenhouse gas accounting. Nearly all standards for calculating GHG emissions are based on the definitions and methodologies outlined in its framework (World Resources Institute, 2004). 10 More information on Clean Air - Cool Planet and its Carbon Calculator can be accessed here: < coolplanet.org/>. 10

17 2) projections module, which extrapolates data to make future predictions of emissions at the institution. 3) solutions module, which uses life cycle cost analyses to help rank the best emissions reduction actions to take in the future. This report will focus on the 1 st module, while a Climate Action Plan (to be) created by the College will discuss modules 2 and 3 in greater detail. These modules are useful for tracking and displaying trends in carbon emissions, for predicting future emission trends and for helping to cost- effectively evaluate techniques to reduce emissions. Like almost all standards, this tool is based on the fundamental framework outlined in the GHG Protocol. 1.3 Inventory Methods The GHG inventory was conducted by Dr. P Brian Fisher with assistance from graduate and undergraduate students. The process involved three stages, two consisting of data collection and one for data verification and analysis. The first phase of data collection was commenced as a project in Dr. Fisher's Case Studies course in the Master of Environmental Studies (MES) program in Fall, Four teams of students divided the data into categories and began contacting staff members to track down initial data points. They each produced reports from the data they collected during this stage. The second phase of data collection, facilitated by several graduate students and another faculty member at the College, refined the data collection to supply more detailed data (e.g. commuter survey, study abroad and athletics travel data, etc.). In the final stage, data were input into the CA- CP calculator and verified for accuracy by comparing with other institutions. Figure 4. GHG emissions associated with each scope of the GHG Protocol. 11

18 1.4 Scope of Analysis Emission sources accounted for in this report include: electricity, natural gas, wastewater, solid waste, various fuels, refrigerants, transportation, fertilizers, paper purchasing, and livestock. Emissions are split into three different scopes (See Figure 4), which is a process compliant with the GHG Protocol. Scope 1 Emissions Direct emissions owned and controlled by the College. Scope 1 emissions at CofC include those from stationary campus energy sources, direct transportation from the schools fleet, refrigerants and chemicals used in facility equipment, and agricultural activities. Scope 2 Emissions These emissions represent indirect discharges that are produced elsewhere but attributable to energy use at the College. Scope 2 emissions are primarily composed of purchased electricity, where energy is not produced on site. Scope 3 Emissions Scope 3 are indirect emissions beyond those covered in Scope 2, which include transportation- related activities by vehicles not owned by the College, T&D (transmission and distribution) losses, and emissions related to waste disposal. At CofC, this includes student, faculty, and staff commuting, travel not involving the school's fleet, solid waste, wastewater, and paper purchasing. Scope 1: emissions from sources owned and controlled by CofC Scope 2: indirect GHG emissions from consumption of energy by CofC Scope 3: not owned by CofC, but attributable to daily operations. 12

19 Part 2: Data Collection and Analysis Key Findings: In FY2011, the College of Charleston emitted a total of 67,811.6 MT CO2e. Purchased electricity, the greatest source of emissions, accounted for 35,408.4 MT or 52.2% of total emissions. Student, faculty and staff commuting to and from campus was the second largest contributor at 11,301.5 MT (16.7%). Air travel, 8,146 MT or 11.49%, natural gas usage, 5,992 MT or 8.8% of total emissions, and Scope 2 Transportation and Distribution (T&D) losses, 3,501.9 MT or 5.2%, were also significant contributors to the College s emissions profile. Less significant contributors include paper purchasing, refrigerants and fertilizers, livestock, wastewater, solid waste disposal, other fuels (propane, distillate oil, and gasoline), all totaling approximately 5% of all emissions. For the 2011 fiscal year, the College of Charleston was responsible for 67,811.6 MT CO 2 e. A previous GHG audit completed in 2003 reported emissions of 43,862 MT CO 2 e in 1993, 46,576 MT CO 2 e in 1999, and 38,712 MT CO 2 e in 2001 (Linstroth and Neff, 2003) and they have dramatically increased since. 11 Complete data sets are unavailable for any other years. While emissions are generally trending upward annually, they did decrease from FY1999 to FY2001 and again slightly from FY2010 to FY 2011 (See Figure 5). From this decrease is largely attributed to greater usage of natural gas, which replaced the more carbon intensive forms of energy production. Not enough data were provided in the 2003 report to speculate the reason for the decrease from 1999 to Total Metric Tons of CO 2 e 75,000 68,356 67,812 50,000 43,862 46,576 38,712 25, Figure 5. Total GHG emissions per fiscal year at the College of Charleston. 11 Only years that reported energy data and commuter data are included here. It is likely 1993, 1999 and 2001 figures are underestimates because they do not report study abroad travel. 13

20 Using data from a linear projection built into the calculator, the College s annual emissions are projected to be 163,043 MT CO 2 e by the year 2050 (see Figure 2 in the Executive Summary). This is an increase of over 140% and will more than double the amount of GHGs the College currently emits. The majority of these emissions will come from purchased electricity, and as a result, represent not only an ecological problem but an operational and financial one. We will discuss emissions in further detail in two ways: by scope and by category. Scope will address the three scopes of emissions outlined in the GHG Protocol. Categories, chosen by the authors, are meant to arrange data into a more intuitive classification. 2.1 Emissions by Scope Viewing emissions from a scope perspective not only allows the College to make comparisons with other institutions and reporting agencies, but also aids in targeting areas of focus when developing reduction strategies. Scope 1 emissions accounted for 6,560.9 MT of CO 2 e, or 9.7% of FY2011 total emissions (See Figure 6). Scope 1 emissions are mainly derived from stationary on- campus energy sources such as burned natural gas used to produce steam for heating hot water and HVAC systems. Emissions from burning natural gas accounted for the majority (91%) of Scope 1 emissions. CofC Emissions by Scope Fiscal Year 2011 Scope % Scope % Scope 1 9.7% Figure 6. College of Charleston's emissions by scope for FY2011. Scope 2 related emissions accounted for 35,408.4 MT of CO2e, or 52.2% of total emissions. Purchased electricity used to power buildings was the biggest source of both energy use and of total emissions for College of Charleston in FY2011. Purchased electricity is the only source of Scope 2 emissions. 14

21 Scope 3 related emissions accounted for 25,842.4 MT of CO2e, or 38.1% of total emissions. Campus commuting and study abroad air travel are the main contributors to Scope 3 emissions. 2.2 Emissions by Category In order to provide a more intuitive division of how the College s emissions are generated, we also explain emissions by the categories below. Each section will conclude with the limitations of each piece of data and list any calculations that were used to make the calculations for the campus GHG calculator Institutional Data Key Findings: College of Charleston had a student, faculty, and staff population of 13,515 in FY2011. Campus building space totaled 3,556,696 sq. ft. These are key numbers for metrics used to compare emission s intensity across different campuses. CofC PopulaUon Fiscal Year ,762 Full- lme Students Part- lme Students 1, ,770 Faculty Staff Figure 7. College of Charleston s population during FY2011. Institutional data includes annual expenses, population and total campus building space. These data were obtained from the Office of Institutional Research at the College. In FY2011 the College of Charleston had an operational expenses of $203,593,701, $7,227,150 of which went to research, and $6,714,333 toward energy expenses. These numbers are adjusted for inflation based on 2005 baseline numbers. The combined population of students, faculty and staff in FY2011 totaled 12,668 and included 9,762 full- time students, 1,770 part- time students, 847 faculty members, and 1,136 staff (See Figure 7). This does not include the 4,233 summer school students attending the College 15

22 during that fiscal year, as it is likely the majority were also students during the regular academic year. Building space, as of the fall of 2010, totals to 3,556, square feet (ft 2 ), 26,935 ft 2 of which is classified as research space. This is an important aspect of an institution s emissions profile to document because it has been demonstrated that research space has significantly greater emissions than non- research space (EPA, 2008; Hopkinson, 2011). While student population has remained relatively stable since 2005, building space has increased by 49.3% (See Figure 8). This building space increase includes the addition of the New School of Sciences and Math building, which totals 127,576 ft 2, and the Cato Arts Center, a total of 65,856 ft 2, both added to FY2010 figures. Additionally, in 2010 the College altered the manner in which it calculates building space, including adding a number of buildings that were not included prior to fall As such, not all of the change in building space from FY2010 to FY2011 is from the addition of new buildings; the dotted line in Figure 8 reflects this. Building Space and Student PopulaUon Building Space (mil. sq. i.) ,000 10,500 9,000 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500 0 Student PopulaUon Building Space Without 2010 Adjustments Total Student Populalon Figure 8. College of Charleston s total building space and student population from FY2005 to FY2011. Population and building space data were utilized to create measurements of intensity that help to standardize GHG emissions for easy comparison with other colleges and universities. Two important measurements of intensity used to compare emissions between institutions are CO 2 e/ft 2 and CO 2 e/student. These measurements average total CO 2 e emissions per square foot of building space and per student, respectively. With these data, building size and campus population will not influence emissions, facilitating cross- institution comparison. In FY2011, the College emitted MT of CO 2 e for every 1,000 ft 2 of building space and 6.7 MT CO2e for every student (based on FTE) (See Table 3 and Table 4 to compare CofC with State and National schools). 12 The total building space as of FY2011 is 3,866,073 GSF; this figure includes all buildings owned, leased, and used by the College. However, there are a number of buildings which energy usage information is unavailable. For accuracy, the square footage from these buildings was eliminated and the 3,556,696 GSF figure used. 16

23 Because the College closely tracks the data reported in this section, they are highly reliable and considered to be very accurate. However, graduate assistants are included in the figures both for employees and students. As they are already accounted for in the student population, they should be removed from these numbers Energy and Utility Usage Key Findings: Energy consumption across all scopes totaled 787,831.8 MMBtu. All energy and utilities used at the College accounted for 65% of the school s total emissions. Building energy use, which includes purchased electricity and other on- campus stationary energy sources such as natural gas and propane, was the highest contributor of emissions at 61% of total emissions. Wastewater related emissions, solid waste emissions, and other fuels collectively accounted for less than 5% of all emissions. In the context of this report, utilities include: purchased electricity, natural gas, distillate oil, propane, diesel and unleaded fuels, wastewater, and solid waste. Data in this section are mostly derived from purchase invoices. When invoices were not available, extrapolated estimations obtained from data collection or previous year invoices were used. For each category of utility usage, we speculate how these changes might have an effect on the data. The College consumed a total of 787,831.8 MMBtu of energy in FY2011. This includes energy expended for utilities, travel, and losses in energy from transportation and distribution of electricity. To put this figure into perspective, this amount of energy could power over 20,000 American homes for a year. 13 The College consumed 543,708.8 MMBtu of direct energy, or energy expended on campus, the majority of which (73%) was in electricity consumption (See Figure 9). Energy consumption related to wastewater and solid waste processing, and unleaded fuels does not directly occur on campus and were not reported in the calculator. Purchased Electricity Key Findings: Purchased electricity accounts for 35,408.4 MT of CO2e, 52.2%, of the College s total emissions. Emissions from electricity increased 12.2% from FY2009 to FY2011, but decreased 4% from FY2010 to FY2011. The College also increased spending on electricity from FY2009 to FY2011 by 26.4 %. Increases during this time period are most likely attributable to additions in campus infrastructure and increased cooling degree- days. 13 Calculation based on US Energy Information Administration s annual average usage for an American home, 11,496 kwh (EIA 2010a), which converts to approximately 39MMBtu. 17

24 Percentage of Direct Energy ConsumpUon of CofC UUliUes 7.3% 73.4% 18.6% Electricity Natural Gas Other Fuels Scope 2 T&D Losses 0.7% Figure 9. Breakdown of direct energy consumption. Only utilities with energy consumption occurring directly on campus are included. Other fuels include distillate oil, unleaded and diesel gas burned on- campus, and propane. Electricity consumed by campus buildings, street lighting, parking garages, and any other campus infrastructure is included in this section. Data from purchased electricity were collected from reports generated by School Dude Utility Direct software 14 and data are directly input from utility invoices into Utility Direct. Within this software, reports for electricity consumption can be differentiated by building or structure, however there are a number of buildings that are grouped together on the Central Energy Grid that are reported as one lump sum. GHG emission s calculations from electricity are based on the fuel mix used to create energy in a given area or region. It is important to note these differences in electricity fuel mixes because different means of power generation have different GHG outputs and different GWP. For instance, burning coal releases more CO 2 /MWh than oil, nuclear, or natural gas (World Energy Council, 2004). Purchased electricity used to power building operations at the College comes from a fuel mix that is 43% coal, 29.8% natural gas, 11.4% nuclear, 14.1% The fuel mix in South Carolina has shifted drastically since 2003, marked by a significant decline in the use of coal. However, emissions at the College have increased appreciably over this same period, suggesting that simply reducing carbon intensive energy production is insufficient hydro, and 1.0% biomass (South Carolina Electric and Gas, 2011). Historical data from the 2003 GHG report indicate that this mix in FY2001 was 75% coal, 20% nuclear, 5% natural gas/hydro (See Figure 10). A dramatic decrease in the use of carbon intensive coal is obvious, yet emissions are still 14 School Dude is a software company that provides tracking and reporting programs that are specifically tailored for educational institutions. Utility Direct is a subset of School Dude s software that is designed for tracking data from utility spending < 18

25 Figure 10. FY2011, FY2001, SRVC regional average and national average for electricity fuel mix. *Includes tires, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. ** Includes generation by agricultural waste, landfill gas recovery, municipal solid waste, wood, geothermal, non- wood waste, wind and solar 19

26 much greater in FY2011 suggesting that eliminating carbon intensive energy production methods alone cannot result in a net zero emissions campus. These data compare to a current regional (SRVC region) mix of 45.1% coal, 9.0% natural gas, 41.4% nuclear, 1.7% hydro, and 2.0% biomass (EPA, 2012), and to the most recent national average of 44.9% coal, 23.8% natural gas, 19.6% nuclear, and 6.1% hydro (Edison Electric Institute, 2011). Electricity from imported sources, which falls under Scope 2 emissions, is the College's highest contributor to energy use and to GHG emissions in FY2011. Imported electricity accounted for 430,634 MMBtu of energy usage and 35,408 MT CO 2 e, approximately 54.7% of the school's total energy consumption and 52.2% of the school's total GHG emissions. Imported electricity usage has increased a total of 19.1% from FY2008 to FY2011. Emissions from electricity increased, by 23.6% during the same time period (See Figure 11). As would be expected, the College also experienced an increase (67.8%) in electricity spending during this time period, spending $5,691,989 on electricity in FY2011, up from $3,392,285 during FY2008. Emissions from Purchased Electricity Metric Tonnes CO2e 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,911 35,408 30,602 31,568 28,332 28,212 28, Figure 11. The College s emissions from imported electricity from FY2005 to FY2011 in MT CO 2 e. There is clearly a positive upward trend in electricity consumption, emissions, and spending at the College. Most of the increase since 2009 is attributable to growing infrastructure and campus population (See Figure 12). Specifically, the addition of the new School of Science and Mathematics Building and the Cato Center of the Arts are significant contributors to increased purchased electricity. Additionally, there was an increase in the number of cooling degree days 15 in South Carolina, up by 15 Cooling degree- days (CDD) and heating degree- days (HDD) are ways to measure how much energy is used to cool or heat a home on a given day. These measurements are based on the deviation from the base temperature for that day, and how long the outside temperature was outside of the base range. Base temperatures are determined by deciding the outside 20

27 22.7% from 2009 to 2010 (NCDC/NOAA, 2011), which required greater use of air conditioning units during those fiscal years. As climate change leads to higher global and local temperatures, the number of cooling degree- days will also expected to rise leading to greater demand for electricity. This is a problem not only locally for the College, but also for many regions throughout the world. Change in Building Space and Electricity Usage MMBtu 500, , , , , ,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 0 Square Feet Figure 12. Change in building space and electricity usage at the College of Charleston from FY2005 to FY2011. Because these data were reported from the School Dude Utility Direct software, which is directly inputted from invoices from the College s energy provider (SCE&G), they are among the most reliable data in the inventory. Furthermore, because the majority of the College s footprint is derived from electricity, we are confident in the accuracy of this inventory as a whole. Natural Gas Key Findings: Natural gas use accounted for 5,737 MT of CO2e, or 13.8% of the school's total emissions. Natural gas usage increased 33.8% from FY2009 to FY2011. During this time period, spending on natural gas also increased by 7.8%. Some of these increases are attributable to additions in campus infrastructure. Natural gas used on campus at stationary sources falls under Scope 1 emissions and is mostly used for HVAC operation, specifically to heat buildings. The natural gas supply at the College is interruptible and availability is largely dependent on weather conditions. If there is an unusually cold winter or electricity is in short supply in another area, SCE&G will divert its natural gas availability to these other areas and the College will not have access to this energy source. This represents a serious energy security issue. As with energy usage data, data from natural gas usage was also derived from reports generated by temperature in which a building starts heating or cooling itself. CDDs and HDDs can help explain increases or decreases in the amount of energy used to cool or heat infrastructure over a specific period of time. 21