University of Pennsylvania Carbon Footprint

Transcription

1 University of Pennsylvania Carbon Footprint October 5, 2007 T C Chan Center for Building Simulation & Energy Studies

2 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 Team Members... 3 Acknowledgements... 4 Executive Summary... 5 I Introduction What is a carbon footprint? What is Carbon? Emission Factors Site and Source Emissions What is the Main Campus?...10 II. Carbon Footprint Energy consumption through steam, chilled water, electricity, and natural gas Transportation through University fleets of cars, vans, buses, and trucks Agriculture including fertilizer and agricultural waste Solid Waste disposal Refrigerant replacement Commuter Traffic by car, train, bus, bike, and walking Air Travel by faculty and staff Carbon Offsets Total Carbon Footprint...29 III. Conclusion An Institutional Action Plan...31 APPENDIX A Climate Neutrality Pledge APPENDIX B Campus Buildings APPENDIX C Carbon Calculations Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator...38 Methods and Assumptions...39 Data Sources...41 Input and Output of Carbon Calculator...42

3 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 3 Team Members University of Pennsylvania School of Design Faculty William Braham, Ph.D, FAIA Associate Professor of Architecture Ali Malkawi, Ph.D Professor of Architecture Muscoe Martin, AIA Adjunct Professor of Architecture Students Jaime Lee, MS 07 Sean Williams, MArch-MLarp 10 Emily Bernstein, MAch 09 Aroussiak Gabrielian, MAch-MLarp 10 Facilities and Real Estate Services Administration Anne Pappageorge, Vice President Facilities & Real Estate Services David Hollenberg, AIA, University Architect Dan Garofalo, Senior Facilities Planner Khaled Tarabieh, Project Manager

4 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 4 Acknowledgements Facilities and Real Estate Services Chris Hanson, Data and Documentation Manager Kris Kealey, Urban Park Manager Carole Mercaldo, Accounting Manager Eric Swanson, Operations Engineer Karen DiMaria, Controller Maurice M. Sampson Taylor Berkowitz, Senior Planner Special Projects Bob Lundgren, Landscape Architect Anthony Sorrentino, Director of External Affairs Mike Coleman, Executive Director Operations Gerry McGillian, Director Technology Trades Business Services Division, Executive Vice President s Office Mary Armata Larry Bell Office of Risk Management and Insurance Ellen Solvibile, Claims Administrato Environmental Health and Radiation Safety James Crumley Kyle Rosatto Institutional Research and Analysis Christine Dougherty Tak Puang University Travel Office Susan Storb South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) Bharat Gohel

5 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 5 Executive Summary This report presents the results of the first Greenhouse Gas Inventory, or Carbon Footprint, for the main campus of the University of Pennsylvania. It fulfills the initial terms of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), climate neutrality pledge signed by President Amy Gutman in February of A Carbon Footprint is a measure of the impact of human activities on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in equivalent units of carbon dioxide. As the evidence has Total Campus Emissions by Source grown showing the detrimental impact of green house gas emissions on climate change, so has the desire to reduce our individual and collective emissions. The purpose of this report is to analyze the sources of these emissions at the University. The total carbon footprint for the University of Pennsylvania, including projection to 2020, is shown in Fig. E.1 (see Fig for larger chart). The single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is the purchased utility energies used for the environmental conditioning and electrical supply of campus buildings, which account for 90% of the carbon footprint. A key finding of this study is that from 1998 through last year (2006) the University has actually met and exceeded its Kyoto Protocol target, the emissions performance metric established at the UN meeting in This significant achievement is due to three different factors: 1. Improved efficiencies in the operations of TriGen, the University s steam supplier 2. New energy management techniques implemented by Facilities and Real Estate Services 3. Wind purchase offsets Trigen s 1997 steam production improvements are responsible for the initial decrease in Penn s carbon emissions. The effect of FRES s utility management techniques implemented in 2001 and the wind purchases begun in 2004, have further reduced the impact of campus growth and increasing energy usage. While the achievement of Kyoto targets is significant, it must be noted that the University s carbon footprint continues to grow annually and will exceed 1990 levels within 5 years, unless reductions are implemented. The University s carbon footprint can be reduced in three basic ways, 1. Efficiencies: reducing current and future fossil fuel energy consumption by buildings and systems. Conservation. changes in consumption habits and patterns 2. Renewables: switching to carbon-free and renewable sources of energy 3. Offsets: purchasing or producing carbon offsets either through TRECs or more direct projects. A balance of all three approaches will be required for Penn to achieve climate neutrality. Metric Tonnes eco2 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50, Year Projection Solid Waste Transportation On-campus Stationary Purchased Steam Purchased Electricity Wind Power Electricity Offset Kyoto Protocol Target Fig. E.1 Total Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions, See Appendix A 2 The Protocol was not formally adopted in the United States, but had established a target of 7% below 1990 emission levels.

6 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 6 I Introduction This report presents the first Greenhouse Gas Inventory, or Carbon Footprint, for the main campus of the University of Pennsylvania. The project grows out of the Sustainability Plan and Campus Audit that the TC Chan Center has been developing since 2005, and fulfills the terms of the climate neutrality pledge signed by President Amy Gutman in February of The pledge was organized by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), and among its terms, it required a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions and an update of the inventory every other year thereafter, leading to an action plan for becoming climate neutral. This report concludes with a preliminary action plan. The report was commissioned by the office of Facilities and Real Estate Services (FRES) on behalf of the president, and the data was gathered with the cooperation of many sources across the University. 1.1 What is a carbon footprint? The preparation of Greenhouse Gas Inventories has become an increasingly formalized and recognized procedure for evaluating the impact of institutions and their operations on global warming. The purpose of this kind of inventory is to establish goals and identify strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol established a level 7% below the emissions level of 1990 as an initial target for capping emissions, and many of our peer institutions have established reduction targets in relation to that standard, for example 10% or 30% below Kyoto. More recently such targets have been set as a first step to climate neutrality with initiatives such as the 2030 Challenge, and the President s pledge. 4 Climate Neutrality or Net Zero. The university will continue to need and use energy in a variety of forms, so the goal of climate neutrality is to achieve Net Zero climate impact. In simple terms that means radically reducing the consumption of fossil fuel based energies and/or switching to carbon neutral sources of energy, and producing or purchasing carbon offsets until fossil fuel sources can be completely eliminated. The concept and validity of offsets is discussed later in the report, but the trading of carbon credits can only be a tertiary strategy for achieving climate neutrality. This challenging questions raised by such an ambitious goal are how soon can net zero be accomplished, and at what cost? Scopes of Effect. Institutional sources of greenhouse gas emissions are conventionally divided in three different scopes. These distinctions identify operational boundaries for institutions to scope their sources of emissions and to provide accountability for prevention of double counting or conversely, double credits. There are three basic scopes, numbered in degrees of removal from institutional control. Scope 1 includes all direct sources of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by an institution, including: production of electricity, heat, or steam; transportation of materials, products, waste, and community members; and emissions from unintentional leaks. Scope 2 includes indirect GHG emissions from imports of electricity, heat or steam generally those associated with the generation of imported sources of energy. The indirect nature of these emissions makes carbon accounting slightly more complex, though standardized procedures are rapidly being developed. 3 See Appendix A 4

7 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 7 Scope 3 - includes all other indirect sources of GHG emissions that may result from the activities of the institution but occur from sources owned or controlled by another entity, such as: business travel, the commuting habits of community members, outsourced activities and contracts, and emissions from waste generated by the institution when the GHG emissions occur at a facility controlled by another company, e.g. methane emissions from landfilled waste. Credits included in Scope 3 also include carbon offsets purchased from other institutions or companies, such as wind or green electricity credits. To assess Penn s carbon footprint, data gathering focused on the following eight categories, going back in each case to Where data was not immediately or completely available, conservative estimating procedures were used (and are documented) to complete the inventory. Scope 1 and 2 1. Energy consumption through the use of steam, chilled water, electricity, and natural gas. 2. Transportation through University fleets of cars, vans, buses, and trucks. 3. Agriculture, including fertilizer and agricultural waste 4. Solid Waste disposal 5. Refrigerant replacement Scope 3 6. Commuter Travel by car, train, bus, bike, and walking. 7. Air Travel by faculty and staff 8. Offsets, such as wind or green electricity credits While the current report has gathered data for all three scopes, but scopes 1 and 2 represent the largest sources of emissions and the ones most directly affected by University policy or action. Scope 3 emissions are significantly more difficult to assess precisely or to certify for any kind of reduction. Also, one institution s scope 3 emissions are another organization s scope 1 or 2 emissions, leading to double counting. The WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol considers the Scope 3 emissions to be optional when preparing an overall GHG inventory, as do similar protocols such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Leaders program. A number of our peer institutions have already decided to only target scope 1 & 2 emissions. Nevertheless it remains important to track all sources, keeping in mind that scope 3 emissions like commuting and air travel require a different kind of action planning. 1.2 What is Carbon? Since the Kyoto Protocol of 1990, greenhouse gas emission efforts have focused on the reduction of six atmospheric gases with a recognized greenhouse effect on the global climate: CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFC and PFC, and SF 6. While each of these gases has a different Global Warming Potential (GWP), they are commonly indexed to an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide, called eco 2, ecarbon, or simply carbon, so that simple comparisons and evaluations can be made. In common usage and in this report carbon is referred to as the emission to be reduced, though the reduction applies to the whole range of gases. The carbon equivalencies of the different greenhouse gases are shown in the table below, which also compares the 1996 and 2001 values. As the science has developed, the equivalencies have become more precise, but these are estimates used for the purposes of standardizing the accounting of effects.

8 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 8 Carbon Equivalents Gas 2001 IPCC GWP 5 Carbon Dioxide 1 Methane, CH 4 23 Nitrous Oxide, N 2 O 296 HFC-23 12,000 HFC-125 3,400 HFC-134a 1,300 HFC-143a 4,300 HFC-152a 120 HFC-227ea 3,500 HFC-236fa 9,400 Perfluoromethane (CF4) 5,700 Perfluoroethane (C2F6) 11,900 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 22, Emission Factors An emission factor is a normalized measure of the amount of carbon that can be attributed to the consumption of a single unit of energy in a particular process. This can actually vary quite a bit for different fuels and processes, reflecting both the efficiencies of conversion and transmission, and the inherent dirtiness of different fuels. Because of the international nature of the climate agreements, carbon is typically reported in metric tons (MT) of carbon equivalent, which is 1,000 kg or 2,205 lbs. For calculations and analysis, emission factors are normalized to the appropriate units of energy, kwh or mwh for electricity, and MBtu for thermal sources, for example in tons eco2/mbtu or MT eco2/kwh. For comparisons and summaries, this report will convert emission factors to MT eco2/mbtu to make immediate evaluations possible. In some cases, the amount of eco2 per MBTU is sufficiently small, that it will be reported in kilograms, kg eco2/mbtu, which is simply 1/1000 of a ton. The basic emissions factors used in this report are normalized to MBTU and listed in the following table for comparison purposes. 5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

9 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 9 Energy Source MT eco2/mbtu site energy kg eco2/mbtu site energy Utilities Electricity PECO Electric Steam (heat) Tri-Gen Gray's Ferry Natural Gas Site Boiler Diesel (Distillate) Oil Generator Transportation Gasoline Car and light Truck Diesel Truck and Bus Jet Fuel Air Travel As mentioned previously, the ecarbon emission factors for direct scope 1 sources are relatively precise, and largely derive from the physics of combustion of different fuels. Indirect, scope 2 emission factors, however involve estimates of the mix of fuels or processes involved in the energy imported through centralized utilities. This is especially complex with purchased electricity that draws from a regional grid that includes multiple power plants, each with unique emissions patterns, and is itself interconnected with other regions. Similar questions occur even with the steam that the University purchases from a single provider, who produces steam in a multi-step process with standby equipment that can substituted or added as needed. This report has used the Clean Air / Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator to organize and calculate the emission factors. 6 This tool has been used at many campuses across the country, and largely automates the carbon accounting standards jointly established by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resource Institute (WBCSD/WRI). Nevertheless, choices have to be made in the identification of local fuel mixes or efficiencies, and for each emission calculation, the sources of information and assumptions have been noted. 1.4 Site and Source Emissions An important distinction in the tracking of energy usage and emissions is the difference between the energy consumed on-site, delivered to building or end-use itself, and that consumed at the source. The utility reports and charges for energy delivered on-site, but emissions are a product of the fuels burned at the plant, or source, to provide the delivered energy. Although greenhouse gas emissions occur at the source, energy use is reported and understood in terms of site or delivered energy, so emissions factors convert site energy to source emissions. The difference between site and source energy can be considerable and is caused by both the inefficiencies of conveying power, whether it is through wires or pipes or conveyed in vehicles, and the inherent inefficiencies of combustion and conversion. Electricity, in particular, involves an inefficient conversion process, loosing 60-75% of the initial fuel value to waste heat. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, this means that for every unit of electricity used, roughly three units of emissions are produced. There are similar conversion and transmission inefficiencies for each of the centrally distributed fuels. 6 A non-profit action group located in New Hampshire and that largely helps organize schools and institutions in the Northeast.

10 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint What is the Main Campus? The University of Pennsylvania and its various institutional entities own or control a great deal of real estate. By one count, the University owns, manages, or leases over 900 buildings around the world. For this first carbon footprint, it was decided to focus on the main campus in West Philadelphia, specifically the educational complex of buildings operated by Facilities and Real Estate Services. That represents both the heart of the University and the largest concentration of its buildings approximately 250 though in principle the carbon footprint should ultimately be extended to include all the real estate controlled by the University. Fig Campus Map showing buildings included in the carbon footprint Even with that tight focus, it is something of a challenge to identify the precise limits of the main campus. Our operational definition includes all buildings and facilities located in West Philadelphia that serve direct academic and residential functions for the faculty, staff, and student body, and that are owned and operated by the University of Pennsylvania, a final total of 141 buildings. The largest exclusions resulting from that definition are the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) and various remote holdings. HUP is a large network of hospitals and buildings that has its own facilities staff, and a carbon footprint of this operation will have to be prepared independently of this report. However, the portions used for teaching and education in the School of Medicine are included. Among the

11 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 11 discontinuous holdings that were excluded are the New Bolton Center of the Veterinary School, the Morris Arboretum, the Boat House, and the Penn Club in Manhattan. According to our operational definition (and common understanding) the main campus does not include commercial or franchised retail ventures, even if the buildings themselves are owned and operated by the university. The footprint does include housing and activity centers for students, but not the student housing owned by other entities, such as fraternities or independent operators. It also does not include Penn owned buildings operated by outside entities such as the Wistar Institute or the Steinberg Dietrich Conference Center. A complete list of buildings included from the carbon footprint is in Appendix B, while the map illustrates the basic extent of the main campus Campus Overview 7 During the school year, there were 19,492 students and 6,525 faculty at the university. The University is the largest private employer in Philadelphia with over 14,000 staff employees, and the second largest in Pennsylvania. Full-time equivalent campus population has increased fairly steadily during the past decade at an annual rate of about 2%. The University of Pennsylvania s campus consists of 269 acres in West Philadelphia, with about 150 buildings housing the 12 schools of the University as well as a variety of residential halls, libraries, offices, performance centers, athletic facilities, and retail spaces. Penn s buildings total nearly 12 million gross square feet, 25% of which is office space, 20% residence, 17% labs, and the remaining 38% divided between instructional and study spaces, athletics, assembly, food services, healthcare and support. Campus buildings range in size from 875 SF in area to 384,000 SF. The smallest buildings, those with an area less than 10,000 SF, make up 11% of Penn s campus. Those with areas from 50,000 SF to 100,000 SF comprise the largest percentage of total buildings, constituting one quarter of the campus. Only 5% of campus buildings are over 250,000 SF in area. The largest buildings include four residential high-rises, two laboratory and research facilities, and the recently constructed Huntsman Hall. 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Food Services 105, % Assembly 268, % Athletics 323, % Study 466, % Office 1,607, % Students Faculty Staff Figure Full-time equivalent campus population Re side nce 1,332, % Healthcare 86, % Lab 1,121, % Support 358, % Figure 1.5.3: Campus usage distribution by square footage, 2005 Other 511, % Instruction 412, % 7 With some modest updates, the campus overview was reproduced from the Sustainability Plan, Phase I Report, 2005.

12 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 12 The age of campus buildings range from the newly constructed to those with significant historical status, including several buildings over 150 years old. 19% of the campus was constructed prior to the 20 th century, many of which have been included on the National Register of Historic Places or designated as historic by the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Of the remaining buildings, 55% were completed after the end of World War II, including a large amount of construction that occurred during the 1960 s and 1970 s. Recently constructed buildings include Huntsman Hall (2000), the Pottruck Center (2001), Levine Hall (2003), the McNeil Center (2005), Skirkanich Hall (2006), and the School of Veterinary Medicine Training and Research Building (2006). Overall, the campus growth has averaged 1.1% per year over the last 15 years, and will be entering another period expansion with the development of the postal lands along the Schuylkill, east of the main campus.

13 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 13 II. Carbon Footprint 2.1. Energy consumption through steam, chilled water, electricity, and natural gas In the scope 1 and scope 2 categories of emissions the University of Pennsylvania consumes energy for three purposes, heating, cooling, and direct electrical usage. In meeting these demands the University maintains three central utility systems, an electrical grid to supply power, a steam system for heat, and a chilled water loop for cooling that is powered by purchased electricity. In addition, it purchases small amounts of natural gas to heat many of the smaller buildings and small amounts of diesel fuel to run emergency and peak-shaving generators. As the Figure indicates, the University uses similar amounts of electricity and steam in energy terms, and the total amount of usage has increased nearly steadily since 1990 with a notable leveling trend after Total Utility Energy Use 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 MMBTU 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, Electricty Steam Fig Total Utility Energy Consumption by Utility Type, MBTU

14 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Sources and eco2 Emissions Steam. The centralized steam heating system at Penn connects to about 70% of the buildings and provides approximately 90% of the total heat for the campus. The steam is purchased from Tri-Gen s Gray s Ferry combined heat and power (CHP) plant across the Schuykill River in South Philadelphia. The annual energy imported as steam used for heating typically represents about 46% of the total imported utility energy. In 1997 the Gray s Ferry plant was upgraded with more efficient equipment and its fuel switched from distillate oil to natural gas, which is the cleanest of the fossil fuels in carbon emissions. Equally importantly, it became a combined heat and power facility at that time, which is inherently cleaner since it produces both electricity and steam. 8 The normalized Carbon emissions for steam production are 43 kg eco2/mbtu, or.043 MT eco2/mbtu. 2,000, Energy Consumption (MBtu) 1,500, ,000, , Degree Days Fiscal Year 0 Steam Cooling Electricity Heating Degree Days Cooling Degree Days Fig Total campus energy consumption by utility source, What is notable about steam consumption is the degree to which it is climate driven, rising in cold winters and dropping in warm ones. Figure shows the University s total energy consumption of steam, electricity for chillers, and direct electrical power plotted with annual heating and cooling degree days, which are a common measure of seasonal temperatures. When the winter is warm, steam consumption drops visibly, and vice versa. Cooling also shows some temperature effects, but it somewhat less climate driven. What is notable is the steady increase in direct electric power consumption. 8 It burns natural gas to generate electricity at an efficiency of about 35% and then uses the waste heat from that process to provide steam for distribution for heating purposes, for a total plant efficiency of about 70%. See Appendix C for efficiency emission assumptions.

15 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 15 Natural Gas. For those buildings not connected to the central steam system, mostly smaller buildings acquired incrementally over the years, heating is provided by individual natural gas heating systems. The annual energy imported as natural gas for heating typically represents about 0.1% of the total imported utility energy. The normalized Carbon emissions were 27 kg eco2/mbtu, or.027 MT eco2/mbtu. Electricity for cooling and direct power usage is purchased from PECO, a subsidiary of Exelon Corp. This electricity is delivered to the campus in bulk supply through 6 Penn owned and operated substations spread throughout the campus. The internal electrical grid is operated and maintained by the University. In addition, several buildings are connected independently to PECO s grid and billed for that usage directly. The annual energy imported as electricity is about 54% of the total imported utility energy. Of that amount, the chiller plants typically represents about 12%, while direct electrical power usage represents about 42%. 9 Electricity comes from power plants within the Mid-Atlantic Area Council (MAAC) region of the country, which includes most of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Power plants in this region use multiple fuel sources including nuclear, coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, wind, biomass, and waste material Total eco2 Emissions by Utility 500, , , ,000 Tons eco2 300, , , , ,000 50, Year Purchased Electricity Purchased Steam On-Campus Generation Fig Total eco2 emissions by utility source, It is not yet possible to identify the total energy consumed for air conditioning on the campus, which in addition to the electricity required to run the chillers includes the considerable power required to operate the air handlers and pumps within each building. Those distinctions will be part of the Phase III campus Audit results.

16 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 16 generation. The precise mix of sources changes from year to year, depending on many factors and introducing even more variability into the emission estimates. In 2006 the regional mixture of sources was 45.1% coal, 40% nuclear, 8.8% natural gas, 2.8% distillate oil, 1.4% biomass, 1.2% hydroelectric, 0.7% other sources. Of these sources biomass, hydro, and nuclear power are carbon free generation sources, while natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel and coal is the dirtiest. With the large nuclear mix in the MAAC, PECO s electricity is a bit lower in carbon emissions compared to other regions. The normalized Carbon emissions for electricity from this region were 160 kg eco2/mbtu, or.160 MT eco2/mbtu. Figure illustrates both the difference in emissions between steam and electric usage and the steady and projected growth in electric power consumption. In 1990, the two sources produced equal amounts of emissions, but after the 1997 improvements at the Gray s Ferry plant and the steady increases in electric consumption have made it the dominant source. Wind Power. In 2004 the University decided to begin purchasing 40,000 Mwh of dedicated wind power from Community Wind, about 10% of total electric purchases at the time, which allowed the company to expand its Pennsylvania facility. In 2006, PECO brought new wind capacity online and the University increased its wind purchases to 112,000 mwh. This comprised about 26% of Penn s electrical consumption in FY2006. Technically the wind purchase is a scope 3 carbon offset, achieved remotely and indirectly, and is discussed and accounted for in the offset section of the report. Diesel Generators. In addition to the energy purchased from PECO, Penn maintains the capacity to generate electricity for peak energy and emergencies with diesel (distillate oil) generators. The peak shave generator is scheduled to operate 182 hours a year. In 2006 it burned 37,620 gallons of diesel fuel, generating 445,539 kwh electricity. The annual energy imported as diesel fuel for generators typically represents about 0.1% of the total imported utility energy. The normalized Carbon emissions were 73 kg eco2/mbtu, or.073 MT eco2/mbtu Projections and Growth Rates The projections visible in the years on charts beyond 2006 are based on some very simple assumptions, and are only intended to describe the future trajectory of emissions if nothing is changed. They are based on steady state rates of growth extrapolated from the 10 to 16 years of data that was gathered. None of the expected variability in populations, budgets, markets, weather, and so on, have been included. Nor have any of the more precise plans for growth in the campus or its systems been incorporated in these projections, though such refinements would be part of any more detailed action planning. The specific growth rates used in these projections are as follows: operating budget, 6.03 %/yr; full-time students 0.50 %/yr; faculty, 0.22 %/yr; staff, 2.8 %/yr; building space, 1.11 %/yr; building energy consumption, 1.11 %/yr; direct electrical usage, 1.87 %/yr. What the projections do tell us is that there are two related kinds of growth in the consumption of utility energies occurring on the campus: the growth in heating, cooling, and lighting associated with construction of new buildings, and the growth in direct electrical consumption within those buildings. The first is largely a function of the building design and operation, while the second is a function of technology, along with the everyday practices, purchases, and choices of the faculty, staff, and students that occupy them.

17 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Observations and Strategies Immediately apparent in the charts of energy consumption and utility emissions are a number of effects: first the variability of emissions due to annual differences in weather, then the drop in steam emissions beginning in 1997, followed by the dip in electric emissions after 2001 as a result of new management strategies. The effect of the wind purchases is illustrated in the offsets section, but equally visible is the effect of unchecked growth. At present, Penn consumes roughly equivalents amounts of energy for steam and electrical power every year, however electricity accounts for over 68% of total emissions, with steam only contributing about 19%. These two utilities are quite different in their patterns of usage, their tendency for growth, and their amenability to management. The steam required for heating is very much a function of yearly weather and the efficiencies of individual building skins and systems, which can be significantly improved over time. Electricity used for chiller plants also responds to the yearly weather, though much less dramatically and is somewhat more connected to internal power consumption and the operation of building systems than the efficiency of the building skin. However as Figure illustrates direct electrical consumption for HVAC systems, lighting and plug-loads has increased steadily in recent years, rising nearly 2% a year above the increases in building area. Current projections even show electricity consumption exceeding heating between 2010 and There are also some quite significant differences in strategy suggested by these observations. Heating, cooling, and lighting can all be reduced by a concerted program of improvement in the efficiencies of building skins and HVAC systems. This can be done from the top and from the bottom, as a part of the regular cycle of maintenance and renovation across the campus, and as part of a distributed, projectspecific program of improvements. Harvard s sustainability fund has shown just how much innovation can be unleashed with the bottom-up method, but the regular program of deferred maintenance should also target energy efficiencies and develop accounting techniques to repay them. Conversely, the ever increasing plug loads directly reflect the growth in research and educational technology, equipment purchases and usage habits of all the many individuals across the campus. It does not respond much to management directives and will require new strategies and real changes in behavior and practice. Laboratories. Perhaps the largest single source of direct power consumption is the HVAC and plug-load of research labs, though this too is distributed widely across schools, programs, and individuals. Although laboratories constitute about 17% of campus facilities, they consume nearly 55% of the annual electric purchase. This situation is not unique to Penn, and is a well recognized aspect of contemporary research. The electrified tools of modern science, from fume hoods to refrigerators, are integral to research, so simple appeals for conservation do not address the complex nature of their usage.

18 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 18 Unlike offices or residences there is little comparative national data available for laboratories. The EPA and DOE have an EnergyStar type program called Labs21, which has developed a modest database of performance data that shows overall energy intensities ranging from 200 to 400 kbtu/sf and above. 10 These average intensities further indicate the necessity of understanding laboratory energy-use patterns. This data also suggests that Penn s labs are likely within normal operating parameters for contemporary labs. So while the lab buildings rank high in energy use per square foot, they are representative of the special challenges of this whole class Building Electric Usage by Space Type, kwh kwh, kwh, Special kwh, kwh, Recreation Residential Assembly kwh, Off/Class The Federal LABS21 program has studied the Fig Electricity Usage by Space Type, kwh, best practices in this area, and the lab facility managers should be organized to pursue efficiencies across the spectrum. kwh, Lab kwh, Library 10

19 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Transportation through University fleets of cars, vans, buses, and trucks. Accounting for the miles driven by University owned vehicles is a difficult task. Given the decentralized nature of the University there is no common motor-pool, gasoline station, or vehicle department. Even the Transit Operations department does not have its own fuel facilities or maintenance crew. All fuel is purchased from local gas stations individually by the various schools and departments. All vehicles are also purchased independently by school or department. There is no centralized accounting of maintenance or fuel costs. Additionally, most vehicles on campus drive so few miles in a fiscal year that the budgets for fuel and maintenance often come from petty cash, discretionary funds, or are rolled into other budget items. While there is a highway tax rebate available to the school, due to its status as a University, for many departments this savings is too small to be worth applying for. Several vehicles on campus burn little more than one or two tanks of gas in a year. In order to target the total fuel consumption for the campus we obtained data from the Office of Risk Management which tracks car registrations for insurance purposes. This provided the best estimate for the total number of vehicles and a yearly mileage estimate for each vehicle. Unfortunately the registrations did not specify the model of the car or whether it was powered by a diesel or gasoline engine. The University of Pennsylvania currently has 151 vehicles registered with the state. These include 15 buses, 50 trucks, 66 SUV s, 15 sedans, 2 motorhomes, 1 motorcycle, and 2 unlabeled vehicles. In the past 10 years a total of 365 different vehicles have been owned and operated by the University. These include 22 buses, 125 trucks, 147 SUV s, 47 sedans, 4 motorhomes, 4 motorcycles, and 16 unlisted vehicles. University Owned Fleet by Vehicle type, 2006 CO2 Emmisions by Vehicle type, 2006 Bus Unknown Sedan Unknown Sedan Winnebago Motorcycle Bus Winnebago SUV Truck SUV Motorcycle Truck Fig University fleet by Vehicle Type. Fig eco2 Emissions by Vehicle Type Sources and Emissions Of these vehicles it has been assumed that the buses are all diesel powered. According to a 2005 survey 54% of the trucks owned by the facilities division of Penn were diesel powered. Facilities has owned nearly half of the trucks on campus (54 of 125) thus this percentage of diesel powered vehicles is applied to the remaining trucks on campus. It is assumed that all other vehicles, sedans, suv s, motorcycles, and motorhomes are gasoline powered. Applying these assumptions to the campus fleet we come up with 19%

20 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 20 Diesel powered and 81% gasoline, with only the truck category being mixed. Since the Gasoline powered vehicles represent a cross section of makes and models, but are not specifically known, the general CAFÉ standards for fuel economy are applied to the total miles driven to obtain an estimate of gallons of gasoline consumed. Diesel vehicles are a little more difficult to estimate as they are not as strictly regulated by the government. A generally agreed upon average mileage for buses is 6-8 mpg. Diesel powered trucks get slightly higher mileage between mpg depending upon the size of the truck. Factoring in the miles driven and the type of vehicle we come up with an average mileage of 12 mpg for the diesel fleet. The mileage data obtained through this strategy demonstrates a fairly stable driving environment on the campus. Apart from the first 2 years of record availability there has been no increase in the amount of fuel consumption from University Fleet vehicles. Miles Driven by Fuel Type 2006 CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type 2006 Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Fig Miles driven by Fuel Type, Fig eco2 Emissions by Fuel Type, The University has said that it is not in the transportation business and as such runs only what it needs to provide a safe, and functional campus community. The contributions to the overall carbon footprint from the fleet are minimal, constituting only 0.2% of the total footprint Observations and Strategies Penn benefits from being a dense urban campus, allowing significantly lower emissions from fleet vehicles than other institutions. Despite the relatively small portion of emissions from this source there is still room for improvement. The possibility of centralizing the motorpool facilities creates enough volume to open up the opportunity for alternative fuels that would be cleaner and more eco-friendly for the environment. Though a relatively small contributor to the overall carbon footprint, this is a high profile one which could both save the University money and generate publicity.

21 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Agriculture including fertilizer and agricultural waste Agricultural emissions can come from a variety of sources, but as an urban campus, the only emission in this category are the fertilizer s applied to the grounds. After the application of any nitrogen-containing fertilizer, some percentage is released as nitrous oxide. No historical information was found concerning fertilizer use, but it was determined that in 2006, 600 pounds of 20% nitrogen fertilizer was applied by landscaping sub-contractors. These numbers were simply extended to other years. In 2006, fertilizer constituted % of the total emissions. The more common source of agriculatural emissions is livestock, which will be an item for documentation when the carbon footprint is extended to the New Bolton Center. eco2 Emissions from Fertilizer Kg eco Year Fig eco2 Emissions from Nitrogen Fertilizer.

22 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Solid Waste disposal Institutions have several methods for managing solid waste. The two most common are incineration and landfilling. Waste that is incinerated releases greenhouse gases when combusted and waste sent to landfills releases methane as it decomposes. And within those two processes, there can be varying degrees of greenhouse gas impacts: (1) a mass burn incinerator, (2) a refuse-derived fuel incinerator, (3) a landfill with no methane collection, (4) a landfill that collects methane emissions for flaring, (5) a landfill that collects methane emissions for electric generation, or (6) the waste can be recycled. As reported in the Phase I Sustainability Report, rates of recycling have fallen in recent years, though efforts are being made to enhance them. At Penn, non-recycled waste disposal is handled by Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI)32 and Waste Management, Inc. BFI manages trash dumpsters, and Waste Management disposes trash packed in the 20 compactors around campus. Recycled waste is also handled by BFI, with a new program being added by Precision Fig Solid Waste Disposal, Hydraulic. Overall, Waste Management handles slightly more waste than BFI Emissions The solid waste at Penn is sent to different kinds of landfills, with varying degrees of methane recovery, but it has not been possible to identify the precise distribution. Estimates were based on the landfill numbers on their respective websites. BFI gave no landfill descriptions, so basic landfill is assumed. Waste Management uses 283 landfills, of which 10 were Biogenerative, 95 were Methane collecting, and 17 were Power generating Waste Incinerators. The trash is then divided proportionally according to those types and the corresponding emissions were determined. As Figures & 3 indicate, the methane regulated landfills have very little greenhouse gas effect. The total solid waste emissions in 2006 totaled 5,836 metric tons eco2, or about 1.8% of the total emissions. Though the total contribution is small, a simple strategy for reducing this source of emissions is to have the University s solid waste directed to regulated landfills.

23 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 23 Solid Waste Disposal by Landfill Type by Year 7,000 6,000 5,000 Short Tons 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Incinerator Landfilled Waste with CH4 Recovery and Flaring Year Landfilled Waste with no CH4 Recovery Landfilled Waste with CH4 Recovery and Electric Generation Fig Solid Waste Disposal by Landfill Type. Metric Tonnes eco2 Emissions by Landfill Type 7,000 6,000 5,000 Metric Tonnes eco2 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - (1,000) Year Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Incinerator Landfilled Waste with CH4 Recovery and Flaring Landfilled Waste with no CH4 Recovery Landfilled Waste with CH4 Recovery and Electric Generation Fig Emissions by Landfill Type.

24 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Refrigerant replacement The purchase and disposal of HCFCs and PFC refrigerants are tracked and reported by the University. However, it was not possible to determine how much refrigerant is actually released at Penn. Accidental release of amounts below 50 kg do not need to be reported, and so are not tracked centrally. Amounts in this range do not represent a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

25 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Commuter Traffic by car, train, bus, bike, and walking. Without an explicit survey of commuting habits, indirect forms of evidence were gathered to provide estimates of the numbers of commuters pursuing different modes of travel to and from the University. The most concrete information available are lists of parking passes going back to 2001 that identified a home zip code for each pass. These were used as a basic measure of the number of automobile commuters, and distances were calculated based on the zip codes. While there are other parking opportunities around the campus, and the number of regular car drivers likely exceeds this number, this estimate provides a simple measure of the automobile commuting directly enabled by the University. The number of passes represent about 18% of the faculty and staff, and about 10% of students. The only other piece of evidence are results reported in a 1995 student project that cited two ridership surveys, one from 1989 and the other from 1995, both of which suggested automobile faculty and staff commuting rates of 40% or higher. Given the changed nature of the campus, of West Philadelphia, and of traffic in the area, it seems possible that auto commuting has decreased, but a much more thorough study would be required to confirm that result. The numbers of commuters using public transportation is even more difficult to assess, and really highlights the challenge of precisely documenting these kinds of scope 3 emissions. The University does provide discounted rail and transit passes, and tracks both the total numbers of transit passes and the numbers of rail passes by travel zone. In addition, partial ridership data was obtained from Septa for the main rail stop and some bus stops, and this was used to gauge the adequacy of the University pass numbers. In both cases, the actual ridership appears to exceed the pass numbers, and anecdotally it is likely the ridership on Commuting Modes Number of Commuters Public Transit Drivers Walk, Bike, or Other Fig Commuting Modes

26 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 26 other bus lines, the trolley, and the subway surface lines greatly exceed these modest estimates. However, in the absence of a proper survey of more concrete information, these modest numbers were used. In the period for which data was available a steady patter of decline in the rates of automobile commuting was evident and so that basic pattern was extended back to 1990 and forward to The decline of student commuting emissions and increase in those of the faculty staff which are visible in Fig are a result of the increasing staff population. eco2 Commuting 6,000 5,000 4,000 MT eco2 3,000 2,000 1, Student Commuting Faculty/Staff Commuting Fig eco2 Emissions from Commuting Commuting Emissions The total emissions from the automobile, bus, and train commuting captured by the parking and rail passes constitutes just less than 2% of the total campus emissions. Of that automobile emissions constitute that overwhelming majority, so the effect of further increasing the use of public transportation or the carbon-free modes like walking and biking can be substantial. Despite the uncertainties, commuting is a highly visible aspect of life at the campus and the University if fortunate to be connected to an extensive travel network.

27 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Air Travel by faculty and staff Air travel is a scope 3, indirect source of emissions produced by the many different kinds of travel engaged in by faculty, staff, and students. It is the largest source of emissions after utilities, but air travel is arranged and paid for in many different ways, and has not been tracked centrally at the University with the exception of those flights arranged through the University s travel office. That travel office reported 13,000 miles for the last 6 months of 2006, so for its contribution to the carbon footprint that number has been used for all years. The chart shows a greater emission contribution from 1990 to 2000, reflecting the changing efficiencies of the jet fleet, but the amount of miles is the same for all years. At this level air travel constitutes about 8% of the total annual emissions. From anecdotal evidence, it is likely the total air travel is many times this amount, but it will take concerted research to establish a firmer estimate. Emissions from Air Travel (based on 2006) 30,000 25,000 metric tonnes eco2 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Year Fig Emissions from Air Travel. Based on incomplete 2006 data. Emissions from air travel do present a different situation than many of the other sources of emissions. One measure of the success of a research university is the connections, and travels, of its faculty, and by the international origins of its students. While some efficiencies might be found, the reduction of unnecessary trips, it would seem that the only option for air travel is to offsets.

28 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Carbon Offsets Carbon offsetting is the act of reducing an equal amount of carbon somewhere else to counterbalance the carbon emissions from your energy-using activities. Reducing or eliminating campus energy consumption and limiting other greenhouse gas producing activities are the direct and ultimate methods of reducing Penn s carbon footprint. However, the campus cannot stop using energy altogether, nor reduce its emissions immediately, so carbon offsets provide a technique to balance the books, and achieve net zero or climate neutrality in the meantime Sources and Effects One of the most common offsets is the purchase of Tradeable Renewable Energy Certificates (TRECs), also known as green electricity credits or green tags. These represent the fact that electricity was produced using one or several renewable, zero carbon technologies, such as wind, solar or small-scale hydroelectric. The actual electricity associated with the credits is not necessarily being produced near the university or even on the same electric grid. Another common offset is the purchase or protection of forest lands that function as a carbon sink. These lands could be near campus or in another country. Many universities are also engaged in composting, which can serve as a legitimate offset. Composting, when managed properly, does not generate CH 4 emissions, but does result in some carbon storage (associated with application of compost to soils) 11. The University s purchase of locally generated wind power is a TREC or indirect offset. The fact that the wind purchases encourage and enable the construction of additional wind capacity clearly makes it a more meaningful carbon offset, but it is a reduction at a distance. The effect on the carbon footprint, however, has been substantial. As Fig indicates, it has effectively offset the growth in emissions associate with the growth in electric consumption, and even at the current rate, will continue to do so for about the next 5 years. Total Emissions (Metric Tonnes eco2) 400, , , , , , ,000 50, Net Emissions Total Offsets Fig Total, Main Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Solid Waste Management And Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 2nd EDITION, EPA530-R , May

29 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Total Carbon Footprint The total carbon footprint for the university of Pennsylvania is shown in Fig As expected, the major contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are the purchased utility energies used for the heating, cooling, and electrical supply of campus buildings. Together they account for 90% of the carbon footprint. Among the principle points to note is that the University has actually kept its emissions below 1990 levels since 1998, meaning that it has met and exceeded the basic Kyoto Protocol targets. That achievement stems from three different sources, the first from the improvements in the operations of the steam supplier, while the other two resulted from new University management techniques and the wind purchase offsets. The 1997 improvement in the production of steam is responsible for the first visible decrease, while the new utility management techniques implemented in 2001 and the wind purchases begun in 2004, have mitigated the further growth of the campus and of its energy intensity. Total Campus Emissions by Source Metric Tonnes eco2 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50,000 - Projection Kyoto Protocol Target Year Solid Waste Transportation On-campus Stationary Purchased Steam Purchased Electricity Wind Power Electricity Offset Fig Total Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The next largest source of emissions are related to transportation. Of the scope 1 & 2 emissions, the University s modest fleet of vehicles only represent about 0.2% of total emissions, while the scope 3 emissions of commuting and the air travel that have been reported, represents over 7% of the total emissions. The uncertainties about the extent of University commuting and related air travel only underlines the importance of addressing this source, which his likely much larger than shown here.

30 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Performance Comparisons Most of the contributing factors to the emissoins have been discussed in the previous sections, but some basic comparisons can helps us evaluate the University s performance. The most common and useful measures are normalizations of the emissions to the population and size of the Univeristy. While this information is not regularly reported by other institutions, nor is the reporting itself very standardized, there is a growing shared database among the socalled Ivy Plus facilities group. 12 The two commonly reported carbon performance measures are emissions per total community member, meaning faculty, staff, and students, and emissions per square foot of campus building. Figures & 3 show charts of both measures for the University over the reporting period. In 2006 the University produced 7.67 tons of eco2 per community member and 27.1 kg eco2 per square foot of building space. This accords with the rough data so far reported by the other institutions. The per capita emissions are lower than the group average, while the per square foot emissions are somewhat higher, though the uncertainty in the terms of those reports exceeds the differences. As the standards for calculating those comparisons are refined, more meaningful comparisons will be developed. Total Emissions per Student (Metric Tons eco2 / Community Metric Tons eco2 / Community members Fig Emissions per total community (faculty, staff, & students Total Emissions per square foot (kg eco2 / ft^2 ) kg eco2 / Square Foot Building Space Fig Emissions per square foot of building space 12 The Ivy Plus Group includes Brown University,Columbia University,Cornell University,Dartmouth College,Harvard University,Johns Hopkins University,MIT,University of Pennsylvania,Princeton University,Stanford University,Yale University. Data reported at Climate Neutrality Meeting, Yale University, April, 2007.

31 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 31 III. Conclusion The preparation of a greenhouse gas inventory fulfills the first requirement of the president s pledge, but its real purpose is to provide the strategic information needed for the next step: the development of an institutional action plan to achieve climate neutrality. In the formal terms of the Climate Neutrality Pledge, the University has until February of 2009 to finalize an institutional action plan for becoming climate neutral, which must include five items: i. A target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible. ii. Interim targets for goals and actions that will lead to climate neutrality. iii. Actions to make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students. iv. Actions to expand research or other efforts necessary to achieve climate neutrality. v. Mechanisms for tracking progress on goals and actions. This report can only offer a first step toward that plan, identifying the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and general strategies for reduction An Institutional Action Plan As the summary graph of carbon emissions indicates, the principle sources of greenhouse gases are the purchased utilities of electricity and steam, followed by transportation. The University s carbon footprint can be reduced in three basic ways, 1. Efficiencies: increasing the efficiency of current operations that produce greenhouse gases, which largely means reducing current and future fossil fuel energy consumption by buildings. a. Building and system design (new buildings) b. Building & system operation (existing buildings) c. Central system operation (steam, chilled water, electricity) d. Equipment purchasing and operation An immediate review of University s design and operational standards should be initiated for both new and existing buildings. Conservation. New efficiencies can be also achieved through changes in consumption habits and patterns such as the usage of electronic equipment and waste recycling. 2. Renewables: switching to carbon-free and renewable sources of energy, or increasing the recycling of emission causing materials. 3. Offsets: purchasing or producing carbon offsets either through TRECs or through more direct projects. Offsets like the wind purchase are an intermediate technique, and should only be employed after improvements through efficiencies and renewables have been fully exploited. The potential effect of each of these approaches to carbon reduction will need to be examined in relation to the more detailed results from Phase III of the Campus Building Audit, which will enable the development of much more precise strategies and estimates of their impact. Developing real incentives for investment in these strategies will be especially important, both in revising the current scheme of utility cost allocation through individual building metering and in developing new techniques for funding such projects.

32 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 32 APPENDIX A Climate Neutrality Pledge Penn President Endorses Environmental Sustainability Strategy, Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Feb. 5, 2007 PHILADELPHIA - Pledging to significantly reduce emissions that contribute to global warming, Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, announced today her signing of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. Penn will develop a comprehensive plan to achieve climate neutrality by reducing campus greenhouse gas emissions and offsetting unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. This is a defining issue of the 21 st century, and I am proud to sign on and promote higher education as a leader in addressing global climate change through research, education and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Gutmann said. At Penn, we must recognize the impact of a research institution of our size and acknowledge that our management of utilities, our construction transit services and our recycling extends beyond our campus and has global consequences. With Gutmann s signature, Penn is committing to development of a comprehensive sustainability plan by This includes completing a comprehensive inventory of all its greenhouse gas emissions; purchasing at least 15 percent of its electricity from renewable sources; adopting an energy efficient appliance purchasing program; committing to a policy that new construction be built to the U.S. Green Building Council LEED Silver standards, or equivalent; and providing access to public transit for faculty, students and staff. Also, Penn will link climate neutrality and sustainability as part of its curriculum and student life activities, while also reporting on progress being made. In 2003, Penn became the largest nongovernmental purchaser of wind power in the nation and today purchases 30 percent of its energy from wind energy. The University funded its historic wind power purchases through aggressive energy conservation, reducing peak electric demand by 18 percent. Penn s commitment to purchasing wind energy made possible the construction of a new 12-turbine, 20-MW Pennsylvania wind farm. Penn has always been a leader in its commitment to applying academic and administrative resources to meet challenges in environmental sustainability, said Anthony Cortese, president of Second Nature, a research institute dedicated to education and environmental sustainability and co-creator of the Presidents Climate Commitment. We are thrilled to welcome President Gutmann as the first of her Ivy League peers to join this effort. The Presidents Climate Commitment is being coordinated and supported by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, Second Nature and ecoamerica, working closely with the Leadership Circle of presidents and chancellors. Additional information about the Presidents Climate Commitment is available at

33 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 33 We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social, economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible. While we understand that there might be short-term challenges associated with this effort, we believe that there will be great short-, medium-, and long-term economic, health, social and environmental benefits, including achieving energy independence for the U.S. as quickly as possible. We believe colleges and universities must exercise leadership in their communities and throughout society by modeling ways to minimize global warming emissions, and by providing the knowledge and the educated graduates to achieve climate neutrality. Campuses that address the climate challenge by reducing global warming emissions and by integrating sustainability into their curriculum will better serve their students and meet their social mandate to help create a thriving, ethical and civil society. These colleges and universities will be providing students with the knowledge and skills needed to address the critical, systemic challenges faced by the world in this new century and enable them to benefit from the economic opportunities that will arise as a result of solutions they develop. We further believe that colleges and universities that exert leadership in addressing climate change will stabilize and reduce their long-term energy costs, attract excellent students and faculty, attract new sources of funding, and increase the support of alumni and local communities. Accordingly, we commit our institutions to taking the following steps in pursuit of climate neutrality: 1. Initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible. a. Within two months of signing this document, create institutional structures to guide the development and implementation of the plan. b. Within one year of signing this document, complete a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from electricity, heating, commuting, and air travel) and update the inventory every other year thereafter. c. Within two years of signing this document, develop an institutional action plan for becoming climate neutral, which will include: i. A target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible. ii. Interim targets for goals and actions that will lead to climate neutrality. iii. Actions to make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students. iv. Actions to expand research or other efforts necessary to achieve climate neutrality.

34 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 34 v. Mechanisms for tracking progress on goals and actions. 2. Initiate two or more of the following tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gases while the more comprehensive plan is being developed. a. Establish a policy that all new campus construction will be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council s LEED Silver standard or equivalent. b. Adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products in all areas for which such ratings exist. c. Establish a policy of offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions generated by air travel paid for by our institution. d. Encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution e. Within one year of signing this document, begin purchasing or producing at least 15% of our institution s electricity consumption from renewable sources f. Establish a policy or a committee that supports climate and sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where our institution s endowment is invested. 3. Make the action plan, inventory, and periodic progress reports publicly available by providing them to the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) for posting and dissemination. In recognition of the need to build support for this effort among college and university administrations across America, we will encourage other presidents to join this effort and become signatories to this commitment.

35 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 35 APPENDIX B Campus Buildings Building # Building name School/Department Net Sq. Ft 5 Anatomy Chemistry Medicine Annenberg Schl for Communication Annenberg Biomedical Research Building 2 Medicine Fisher-Bennett Hall Arts and Sciences Stellar-Chance Laboratories Medicine Blockley Hall Medicine Caster Building Social Policy Kelly Writers House Chemistry Laboratories- Cret Wng Arts and Sciences Chemistry Laboratories Wng Arts and Sciences Chemistry Laboratories Wng Arts and Sciences Left Bank FRES ARCH, The Class of 1920 Commons Dining Class of 1923 Ice Skating Rink Athletics Class of 1925 House Residence Clinical Research Building Medicine College Hall Arts and Sciences Colonial Penn Center Wharton Cyclotron Medicine Dietrich Graduate Library Library DuBois House Residence Duhring Wing Design Edison Building Engineering Education Building Education English House Residence Evans Building Dental Fels Center of Government Arts and Sciences Hollenback Annex Athletics Franklin Building Franklin Building Annex Design Franklin Field Athletics Rotunda 170 Fisher Fine Arts Library Design Schattner Center Dental Gimbel Gymnasium Athletics Pottruck Health and Fitness Athletics Goddard Laboratories Arts and Sciences, Medicine Grad Rsch Wing Moore School Engineering Sansom West - Graduate Tower B Residence Greenfield Intercultural Center Greenfield Intercultural, Rear Harnwell House Residence Harrison House Residence Hayden Hall Arts and Sciences 45751

36 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Rodin College House Residence Hill House, Robert C. Residence Vagelos Laboratories Arts and Sciences, Engineering, Medicine McNeil Center for Early American Study Arts and Sciences Hollenback Center Athletics Carolyn Hoff Lynch Biology Lab Arts and Sciences Houston Hall Hutchinson Gymnasium Athletics Institute of Contemporary Art Irvine Auditorium Johnson Pavilion, Robert Wood Medicine Kaplan Wing Arts and Sciences Kings Court Residence Laboratory, Structure of Matter Arts and Sciences Lauder-Fischer Hall Wharton Gittis Hall Law Tanenbaum Hall, Nicole E. Law Pepper Hall Law Leidy Laboratories of Biology Arts and Sciences Levine Hall Engineering Levy Ctr for Oral Health Rsch Dental Levy Tennis Pavilions Athletics Silverman Hall Law Logan Hall Arts and Sciences Mayer Residence Hall Residence McNeil Building Arts and Sciences Stemmler Hall, Edward J. Medicine Morgan Building, John Medicine Meyerson Hall Design Moore School Building Engineering Morgan Building, Randall Design Mudd Biology Research Lab Arts and Sciences Music Building Arts and Sciences Music Building Annex Arts and Sciences Hamilton Square Garage Parking 380 Sansom East - Nichols House Residence Claire M. Fagin Hall Nursing Locust Walk, 3537 Wharton Locust Walk, Locust Walk, Civic House Parking Garage, 38th and Spruce Parking 410 Spruce Street, Parking Garage, 3201 Walnut Parking 415 Jaffe History of Art Building Arts and Sciences Walnut Street, 3401 Arts and Sciences, Enginee4ring Walnut Street, Arts and Sciences Parking Garage, University Ave. Parking Walnut Street,

37 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint Parking Garage, 34th and Chestnut Parking 450 Palestra Athletics Skirkanich Hall Engineering Carriage House Presidents House Solomon Laboratories Arts and Sciences Walnut Street, 3815 Social Policy Sansom Street, Quadrangle Residence Richards Medical Research Labs Medicine Ringe Squash Courts Athletics David Rittenhouse Laboratory Arts and Sciences Penn Steinhardt Hall 520 Rosenthal Building, Gladys Hall Veterinary Charles Addams Hall Design Steinberg Hall - Dietrich Hall Wharton Stiteler Hall Arts and Sciences Stouffer Triangle Residence Sweeten Alumni House Chancellor Street, Towne Building Engineering Museum Archaeology/Anthropology University Museum Academic Wing Arts and Sciences Parking Garage, Univ Museum Parking 580 Van Pelt Library Library Van Pelt House Residence Vance Hall Wharton Ryan Veterinary Hospital Veterinary Veterinary Medicine Old Quad Veterinary Weightman Hall Athletics Steinberg Conference Center Wharton Dunning Coaches' Center Athletics Huntsman Hall, Jon M. Wharton Williams Hall Arts and Sciences Vernon and Shirley Hill Pavilion Veterinary Thirty-sixth Street, South Locust Walk, 3619 Arts and Sciences Penn Police Public Safety Walnut Street, 3809 Arts and Sciences Translational Labs Medicine 7052 Penn Transit Ops Center Transportation 7244 Sansom Common (Retail) 9090 Literary Research Center Education 9855 Locust Walk, Locust House Module 7 Utility Plant FRES 9999 Module 6 Parking Garage FRES

38 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 38 APPENDIX C Carbon Calculations Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator The Greenhouse Gas Inventory used a simple data assembly and analysis tool prepared by Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP), a science based, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to implementing solutions to global climate change. 13 The CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator is used by over 200 schools across North America, including many of our peer schools, to collect, analyze, and present data regarding campus greenhouse gas emissions. The Campus Carbon Calculator is an electronic MS Excel workbook that takes the energy use, agriculture, refrigerant, and solid waste data and calculates an estimate of the associated greenhouse gas emissions for the campus. It includes the greenhouse gases specified by the Kyoto Protocol (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFC and PFC, and SF 6 ). It enables the calculation of emissions for the years and will produce charts and graphs illustrating changes and trends in the institution s emissions over time. The spreadsheets are based on the workbooks provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for national-level inventories. 14 They have been adapted for use at an institution like a college or university, but follow virtually all the same protocols. Fig. C.1. Spreadsheet Map from Carbon Calculator

39 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 39 Methods and Assumptions The greenhouse gas inventory largely followed the assumptions and calculations in the Clean Air-Cool Planet calculator. A few items, especially the emissions associated with purchased steam, had to be adjusted. Sources and Emissions Factors The assumptions of the calculator were followed for all sources and emission factors, with the exception of the steam purchases. The breakdown of sources for electricity production was drawn from the EPA s egrid tables of annual electric production by region. Steam As described in the utilities section, the Gray s Ferry Power plant is a combined heat and power plant, which now burns natural gas to produce electricity, and then sells as much of the waste heat as possible for heating purposes. It has proven difficult to obtain precise operating data for the plant, so we have made simple and conservative estimates about its efficiencies and the allocation of its emissions. The plant reports an overall fuel efficiency of 70%. 15 We have assumed that 35% of the fuel consumption is converted to electricity, while another 35% is sold as high-pressure steam for heating, and the remaining 30% is lost as waste heat. We then divided the emissions equally between the electricity and steam, making the steam somewhat less efficient in emissions than if had been produced in a high-efficiency boiler, however the combined heat and power facility can be considered a net benefit to the city because of its overall contributions. In fact, the producers consider the steam to be an emissions-free energy source, since it is recovered from the waste stream of the electric production. Even less information was available for the operations of the Gray s Ferry plant before the conversion, though we do know that it burned distillate oil and has ceased electric production. An overall 70% conversion was also assumed for this process, though it is possible that the plant was even dirtier, since some of the equipment was over 50 years old. A transition period between the two processes was assumed and entered in the data base as shown in Table C.1, as are the resulting emission factors. 15 Steaming Ahead: Gray s Ferry Cogeneration Project, District Energy 88, 2 (2002). Energy Star CHP Award, March,

40 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 40 Production Details Fiscal Year Transmission Loss Generation Mix MT eco2 / MMBtu Steam % % Coal % Natural Gas % Residual Oil % Distillate Oil Table C % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 0% 0% 100% % 0% 78% 0% 22% % 0% 99% 0% 1% % 0% 96% 0% 4% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0% % 0% 100% 0% 0%

41 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 41 Data Sources The figures for the Operating Budget were obtained from the University of Pennsylvania Annual Financial Reports available in the University Archives. The Research Dollars budget was also obtained from these financial reports. Full and Part-time student population numbers were obtained from the Office of the Registrar. Faculty and Staff population numbers were obtained from the Office of University Research and Institutional Analysis. Tak Puang and Christine Dougherty were contacts. Physical Size was taken from the Penn Space Planning Spreadsheets. Totals were compiled by adding available figures from various sources for the few buildings not included in the Space Planning Spreadsheet. The Space Planning Spreadsheet was always used when available. Total Research Building Space was compiled using the research lab classification in the Space Planning Spreadsheet. Purchased Electricity is compiled from FRES billing spreadsheets provided by Eric Swanson and Karen DiMaria. Purchased Steam is taken from Steam Loop data provided by Eric Swanson from FRES. On Campus Generation is taken from FRES billing spreadsheets and from IHRS (Institutional Health and Radiation Safety) campus fuel emissions reports provided by James Crumley. University Fleet was compiled from vehicle registrations on file in Office of Risk Management. The figure for Air Travel was provided by Susan Storb in the University Travel Office. This number is based on the purchasing account through American Express and does not include any other purchases or reimbursements. Commuter Data was compiled from various sources, including Septa, Penn Transit, University Research and Institutional Analysis. Agriculture was provided by Maurice M. Sampson from FRES. Solid Waste data was gathered by Jackie Wong from data provided by Kris Kealey.

42 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 42 Input and Output of Carbon Calculator Institutional Data Budget Population Operating Budget Research Dollars Energy Budget Full Time Students Part-Time Students Faculty Staff $ $ $ # # # # $ 811,907, $ 136,061, $ 21,030, ,026 4,040 4,394 10,122 $ 851,283, $ 139,665, $ 22,407, ,117 4,057 4,579 10,382 $ 917,569, $ 157,224, $ 23,874, ,156 4,262 4,699 10,718 $ 1,020,973, $ 165,248, $ 25,438, ,269 4,200 4,824 10,879 $ 996,184, $ 176,573, $ 27,104, ,304 4,380 4,958 11,058 $ 1,218,009, $ 194,432, $ 28,879, ,088 4,060 4,837 10,862 $ 1,088,444, $ 238,247, $ 30,770, ,064 3,805 4,834 10,865 $ 971,480, $ 248,707, $ 30,861, ,595 4,048 5,071 11,221 $ 1,112,798, $ 292,098, $ 31,726, ,743 3,986 5,298 11,371 $ 1,198,570, $ 335,340, $ 35,074, ,854 4,001 5,177 11,718 $ 1,362,118, $ 389,056, $ 40,828, ,718 4,135 5,443 12,034 $ 1,469,507, $ 428,145, $ 47,151, ,050 4,276 5,654 12,107 $ 1,556,771, $ 486,474, $ 41,957, ,612 4,157 5,985 13,015 $ 1,720,704, $ 526,130, $ 49,949, ,049 4,194 6,179 13,522 $ 1,807,693, $ 549,404, $ 51,049, ,265 4,039 6,275 13,710 $ 1,891,491, $ 579,417, $ 52,660, ,771 3,933 6,427 13,883 $ 1,971,948, $ 592,751, $ 56,109, ,492 4,251 6,525 14,003 $ 2,090,953, $ 650,728, $ 59,783, ,590 4,268 6,690 14,293 $ 2,217,141, $ 714,376, $ 63,698, ,688 4,286 6,859 14,588 $ 2,350,944, $ 784,249, $ 67,869, ,786 4,304 7,033 14,890 $ 2,492,821, $ 860,957, $ 72,313, ,885 4,321 7,211 15,198 $ 2,643,261, $ 945,167, $ 77,049, ,985 4,339 7,393 15,512 $ 2,802,780, $ 1,037,615, $ 82,094, ,085 4,357 7,580 15,833 $ 2,971,926, $ 1,139,104, $ 87,470, ,185 4,375 7,772 16,160 $ 3,151,280, $ 1,250,520, $ 93,198, ,287 4,393 7,968 16,494 $ 3,341,457, $ 1,372,834, $ 99,301, ,388 4,411 8,170 16,836 $ 3,543,112, $ 1,507,112, $ 105,804, ,490 4,429 8,377 17,184 $ 3,756,936, $ 1,654,523, $ 112,732, ,593 4,447 8,589 17,539 $ 3,983,664, $ 1,816,353, $ 120,114, ,696 4,465 8,806 17,902 $ 4,224,076, $ 1,994,011, $ 127,980, ,799 4,484 9,029 18,272 $ 4,478,996, $ 2,189,046, $ 136,361, ,904 4,502 9,257 18,650

43 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 43 Purchased Electricity Puchased Steam / Chilled Water Physical Size Electric produced off-campus Steam and Chilled water produced off-campus Total Building Space Total Research Building Space All users: Click to select your electric region or "custom" if you know your electric fuel mix Purchased Steam Purchased Chilled Water MAAC Go to EF_Steam to set steam fuel mix Go to EF_Water to set fuel mix Square feet Square feet kwh MMBtu MMBtu 9,972, , ,802,929 1,239, ,077, , ,882,796 1,253, ,402, , ,202,853 1,267, ,402, , ,770,239 1,281, ,402, , ,592,308 1,295, ,402, , ,676,629 1,309, ,402, , ,031,000 1,324, ,402, , ,753,000 1,278, ,917, , ,378,059 1,393, ,389, , ,404,591 1,519, ,389, , ,986,916 1,467, ,485, , ,054,776 1,577, ,621, , ,182,437 1,385, ,681, , ,385,178 1,693, ,681, , ,998,565 1,662, ,692, , ,023,725 1,661, ,867, , ,155,368 1,253, ,912, , ,912,840 1,661, ,043, , ,049,553 1,680, ,176, , ,576,780 1,698, ,311, , ,506,130 1,717, ,447, , ,849,556 1,736, ,585, , ,619,369 1,755, ,724, , ,828,243 1,775, ,864,908 1,019, ,489,230 1,795, ,007,110 1,047, ,615,771 1,815, ,150,884 1,075, ,221,703 1,835, ,296,247 1,104, ,321,280 1,855, ,443,216 1,134, ,929,174 1,876, ,591,811 1,165, ,060,497 1,896, ,742,047 1,196, ,730,808 1,917,998 0

44 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 44 Residual Oil (#5 - #6) Distillate Oil (#1 - #4) Natural Gas Propane Other C Solar / Wind / Biomass Gallons Gallons MMBtu Gallons MMBtu MMBtu 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 7,547 2,997 6,465 2,997 20,374 2,997 10,565 37,352 4,263 29,925 8,719 45,131 10,353 52,996 12,902 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908 52,996 15,908

45 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 45 Transportation University Fleet Air Travel Gasoline Fleet Diesel Fleet Natural Gas Fleet Electric Fleet Faculty / Staff Business Student Programs Other Fleet Gallons Gallons MMBtu kwh MMBtu Miles Miles 40,821 4,463 26,000,000 40,099 4,619 26,000,000 39,390 4,781 26,000,000 38,693 4,948 26,000,000 38,009 5,121 26,000,000 37,336 5,300 26,000,000 36,676 5,485 26,000,000 36,027 5,677 26,000, ,000,000 12,985 4,279 26,000,000 35,390 5,875 26,000,000 33,427 23,967 26,000,000 37,583 25,331 26,000,000 39,902 20,607 26,000,000 38,440 25,130 26,000,000 31,759 24,637 26,000,000 32,819 31,796 26,000,000 32,239 32,907 26,000,000 31,668 34,058 26,000,000 31,108 35,248 26,000,000 30,558 36,480 26,000,000 30,017 37,756 26,000,000 29,486 39,075 26,000,000 28,965 40,441 26,000,000 28,453 41,855 26,000,000 27,949 43,318 26,000,000 27,455 44,832 26,000,000 26,969 46,399 26,000,000 26,492 48,021 26,000,000 26,024 49,700 26,000,000 25,563 51,437 26,000,000

46 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 46 Commuters Faculty / Staff Gasoline Students Gasoline Faculty / Staff Diesel Students Diesel Faculty / Staff Electric Students Electric DO NOT ENTER DATA IN THESE COLUMNS; USE "INPUT_COMMUTER" WORKSHEET. Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons kwh kwh 400, ,519 15, , , ,279 15, , , ,459 16, , , ,115 16, , , ,061 17, , , ,178 44, , , ,633 17, , , ,952 18, , , ,772 18, , , ,214 19, , , ,453 19, , , ,400 18, , , ,167 19, , , ,315 20, , , ,324 20, , , ,944 21, , , ,262 21, , ,683 99,650 21, , ,773 97,011 22, , ,076 94,343 22, , ,496 92,174 23, , ,834 89,981 23, , ,083 87,764 24, , ,240 85,523 24, , ,298 82,721 25, , ,252 79,889 25, , ,098 77,027 26, , ,827 74,135 27, , ,436 71,213 27, , ,916 68,260 28, , ,263 66,383 28, ,038 -

47 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 47 Agriculture Includes all agriculture and animal husbandry run by the university Fertilizer Application Synthetic % Nitrogen Organic % Nitrogen Pounds % Pounds %

48 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 48 Solid Waste Includes all solid waste produced by campus except waste composted, recycled or burned on campus for power Incinerated Waste (waste to energy plant) not used for school power Landfilled Waste with no CH4 Recovery Landfilled Waste with CH4 Recovery and Flaring Landfilled Waste with CH4 Recovery and Electric Generation Mass Burn Incinerator Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Incinerator Short Tons Short Tons Short Tons Short Tons Short Tons 223 5,182 1, ,212 1, ,243 1, ,273 1, ,304 1, ,334 1, ,334 1, ,334 1, ,175 1, ,565 1, ,214 1, ,393 1, ,466 1, ,466 1, ,619 1, ,543 1, ,575 1, ,608 1, ,640 1, ,673 1, ,706 1, ,739 1, ,772 1, ,806 1, ,839 1, ,873 1, ,907 1, ,941 1, ,976 1, ,010 1, ,045 1,

49 University of Pennsylvania: Carbon Footprint 49 Offsets Actions taken to offset emissions Renewable Energy Credits Composting Forest Preservation kwh Short Tons Compost Metric Tonnes CO