Scope 1 Direct sources of GHG emissions that originate from equipment and facilities owned or operated by Portland Community College.

SUSTAINABILITY UPDATE FOR PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE (PCC) OPERATIONS: FISCAL YEARS 2005 TO 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is an updated greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, climate action strategy and overall sustainability update for Portland Community College (PCC). The GHG inventory documents the emission sources from fuel and power use by buildings, vehicles and other emissions from mission-critical activities related to PCC s operations but outside of its direct control. It was created following the Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2008, with additional independent analysis completed by Good Company and with internal PCC staff support. PCC s Climate Action Plan recommends various mitigation, offset, renewable power and fuel options for PCC to employ in order to reduce its GHG emissions over time to meet certain targets. PCC s recent submission to the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability (AASHE) s Sustainability Tracking and Assessment Rating System (STARS) is also discussed. GHG INVENTORY BOUNDARY In many GHG inventory protocols, emissions sources and activities are classified as either producing direct or indirect GHG emissions. Direct emissions are those that stem from sources owned or controlled by a particular organization. Indirect emissions occur because of the organization s actions, but the direct source of emissions is controlled by a separate entity. To distinguish direct from indirect emissions sources, three scopes are defined for traditional GHG accounting and reporting purposes (WRI, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, p. 25). Scope 1 Direct sources of GHG emissions that originate from equipment and facilities owned or operated by Portland Community College. Scope 2 Indirect GHG emissions from purchased electricity, heat or steam. Scope 3 All other indirect sources of GHG emissions that may result from the activities of Portland Community College (PCC) but occur from sources owned or controlled by another company or entity, such as: business air travel; embodied emissions in material goods purchased by PCC; emissions from landfilled solid waste; and the commuting habits of PCC employees. Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions must be reported for most protocols and registries. Scope 3 emissions are indirect and usually considered optional when reporting emissions, but serve to clarify an organization s entire carbon footprint and illuminate the potential regulatory and financial risks an institution may face due to its carbon footprint. Figure 1 illustrates the three scopes of emissions. Figure 1-ES: Greenhouse Gases and Accounting and Reporting Scopes 1

Source: WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition), Chapter 4. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS PCC s cumulative Scope I and II emissions (as defined by The World Resources Institute (WRI)) are 171,446 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Scope III emissions (per WRI) account for an additional 452,398 MT CO2e between FY05-FY12. Since FY05, PCC s overall GHG emissions have increased by 4.4%, from 81,013 MT CO2e in FY05 to 84,011 MT CO2e in FY12. It is important to put these numbers in context. Emissions from PCC s internal operations have decreased 15.8% since FY05. This can be attributed to new boilers being installed on the Sylvania campus as well as retrofits being completed throughout the district. With the dramatic increase in enrollment between FY05-FY12, this is truly remarkable. As a comparison, Lane Community College with 14,958 FTE has totaled 92,604 CO2e as of FY10. This breaks down to 6.19 CO2e per FTE, whereas PCC has 2.16 CO2e per FTE. With our most recent comprehensive GHG inventory, PCC is able to compare numbers all the way back to FY05. PCC has been working to achieve a GHG emissions reduction goal of 10% below 2006 emissions by 2012. In order to try to reach this goal, as well as others outlined in PCC s Climate Action Plan, the PCC Sustainability Council (PSC) is editing and updating the Climate Action Plan. The updated Climate Action Plan as well as an updated GHG inventory with FY11 and FY12 data will be presented at the October Board meeting. Below, please find a copy of PCC s GHG inventory through FY12. This GHG inventory is broken down by source. Figure 2-ES: PCC GHG Inventory through FY12 2

1. Policy Context, Methods and Results Summary a. Document Purpose This document is an update to PCC s greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and recommends changes to PCC s Climate Action Plan. The first part of this report serves as the baseline GHG emissions inventory for PCC documenting Scope I, II and III emissions from PCC operations. This inventory will help PCC proactively take steps to reduce PCC s climate impacts and meet its obligations as a signatory to the American Colleges and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). The baseline inventory, completed in 2006, was used to develop the Climate Action Plan by identifying high-leverage areas for long-term GHG reductions. The Climate Action Plan recommends mitigation, offset, renewable power and alternative fuel options for PCC to employ in order to reduce its GHG emissions over time and to meet emissions reduction goals set by the ACUPCC. 3

b. Policy Context Portland Community College has had a longstanding commitment to protect its natural resources and manage its environmental impacts. PCC has also been working to take action against climate change for the last 7 years. The College has accomplished the following: The Sustainable Use of Resources Policy B-707 adopted December 7, 2006 states: o Portland Community College is committed to becoming a leader in academic programs and operational practices that model the sustainable use of resources, so that the needs of current generations are met without impairing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs American Colleges and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) signed on June 7, 2007. Over 660 presidents of post-secondary institutions across the nation have joined in signing this commitment. District President Preston Pulliams launches Climate and Energy Leadership Taskforce in 2007. This taskforce is charged with: o Ensuring goals and timelines of the ACUPCC are met; o Researching and recommending carbon emissions reduction goals for the college; and o Developing a climate action plan for achieving those tools. September 15, 2009: President Pulliams signs PCC s first Climate Action plan. PCC committed itself to: o Reducing GHG emission levels 10% below 2006 levels by 2012; o Reducing GHG emission levels 40% below 2006 levels by 2030; and o Reducing GHG emission levels 80% below 2006 levels by 2050. June 15, 2012: PCC finishes its first Sustainability Tracking Rating and Assessment System (STARS) report in line with the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) s reporting system, joining over 200 institutions of higher education. Currently (2012): PCC is conducting another update to their GHG inventory, included in this report. c. GHG Methodology a. Inventory Protocols This inventory attempts to follow all existing and likely future protocols in order to ensure maximum consistency and comparability with future inventory efforts. Beyond all of the current and future statutory obligations that PCC will face, this inventory attempts to take the broadest feasible view of GHG emissions from activities on which PCC relies. An entity can gain and learn from calculating emissions from more sources than those required in reporting guidelines, and this proactive inventory is in part, a learning exercise. This inventory draws on several protocols that stem from or are related to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative (www.ghgprotocol.org) of the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The data-gathering process followed the methodology provided through the Climate Registry s General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2008. Difficult issues not addressed by existing protocols and tools are tackled through independent analysis. The inventory attempts to include best practices from well-established greenhouse gas registries and initiatives including: The Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol (2008); California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol (2007); 4

Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A corporate accounting and reporting standard, developed by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders, Inventory Guidance (2004); and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Technical Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1605(b)) Program (2006). ii. Boundaries When approaching a greenhouse gas inventory, it is important to evaluate which emissions sources will be measured and evaluated. One approach to determine the boundaries of the inventory is to answer the following questions: 1) What must be reported according to reporting requirements or regulations? 2) What should be reported based on the global warming impact of mission-critical activities? 3) What can be reported based on personnel time, resources and available data? In many GHG inventory protocols, emissions sources and activities are classified as either producing direct or indirect GHG emissions. Direct emissions are considered those that stem from sources owned or controlled by a particular organization. Indirect emissions occur because of the organization s actions, but the direct source of emissions is controlled by a separate entity. Indirect emissions can be considered share emissions. To distinguish direct from indirect emissions sources, three scopes are defined for traditional GHG accounting and reporting purposes (WRI, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, p. 25). Figure 1 (on the next page) shows a picture of the three scopes of emissions described below: Scope I- Direct sources of greenhouse gas emissions that originate from equipment and facilities owned or operated by PCC. Scope II- Indirect GHG emissions from imported electricity, heat or steam. Scope III- 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 company or entity, such as: business air travel; embodied emissions in material goods purchased by the institution; emissions from landfilled solid waste (when the landfill is not owned by the reporting organization); and the commuting habits of institution employees. Organizations are usually required to report Scope I (direct) and Scope II (indirect) emissions for most protocols and registries. Scope III emissions (indirect) are usually considered optional for reporting purposes. Registries consider these emissions optional because they can be difficult to track, in some cases there is a scientific uncertainty related to calculation methodology, and there can be significant differences between Scope III emissions for various organizations. Despite this difficulty, Scope III emissions can be very large in comparison to other types of emissions, showing that they are an important part of understanding and disclosing an organization s full climate footprint. While Scope III emissions should be considered shared, the share that belongs to the reporting organization should not be ignored. Additionally, understanding an organization s full carbon footprint is vital to understanding and preparing for the financial climate risk an organization will face as a cost of carbon is introduced into our economy. 5

iii. Overview of Greenhouse Gases The protocols encourage entities to report on all six of the greenhouse gases (GHG) regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, shown in Figure 3. Each of these gases has an associated global warming potential (GWP). The GWP compares the ability of one mass unit of a particular gas to affect global warming relative to one mass unit of carbon dioxide. The higher the GWP, the more damage one unit of that gas can have on the climate. For example, one kilogram of nitrous oxide, which has a GWP of 310, will produce the same amount of global warming as 310 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Of these six gases, carbon dioxide dominates PCC s emissions through the burning of fossil fuels. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions come primarily from agricultural practices, which do not make up a significant share of PCC operations. These two gases are included in this inventory, although to a considerably lesser extent compared to carbon dioxide, also through the combustion of fossil fuels. Hydro fluorocarbons and per fluorocarbons are primarily used as refrigerants and are included as fugitive emissions from building air conditioning systems. The sixth and final gas, sulfur hexafluoride, is a gaseous insulator used in electrical switchgear in small quantities, but is not included in this inventory. iv. Data Issues Throughout the data collection process, various data issues were identified. In some cases, data was easy to find with a high degree of accuracy. In other cases, data was incomplete and required a certain degree of estimation based on credible assumptions. We have attempted to use the best data available to complete the inventory and have documented all assumptions. d. Results Summary i. Overview The data for emissions sources within Scopes I and II is the most accurate and contains the fewest estimations and assumptions. These are the emissions sources over which PCC has the most control (Scope I) and influence (Scope II). Within Scope III, air travel and solid waste had the most precise data and contained the fewest assumptions. The information used to calculate the last two sources of Scope III emissions (commute and supply chain) was less precise and relied on several estimations and assumptions (documented in the Source Notes section for each emissions source). Though imprecise, (see Sensitivity Analysis in Section 3, part e, for level of imprecision) these calculations still provide a valuable sense of scale in comparison to other emissions sources and provide an important baseline from which to improve data quality in the future and to measure success in future GHG reductions. ii. Scope I emissions Within Scope I, the largest source of emissions comes from natural gas use. Natural gas is burned primarily for space and water heating within PCC buildings. There are certain buildings that have been identified as major energy consumers for both natural gas and electricity (HT and CC buildings on the Sylvania campus). However, Willow Creek center, Downtown Center and Newberg Center have been identified in the district as having the lowest rate of energy consumption. Fleet emissions include the gasoline and diesel consumed by PCC-owned vehicles within the District. Refrigerants are used in building air conditioning and refrigeration systems. While the fugitive emissions from refrigerants comprise a small piece of PCC overall carbon footprint, one of the refrigerants (R-22, Freon) is being phased out of production in the United States (per the Montreal Protocol) due to its harmful impacts to the ozone layer. Replacing systems that use this 6

refrigerant should be an action item for PCC in the near future. iii. Scope 2 emissions Electricity emissions include all kilowatt-hours consumed in buildings and for park lighting. Electricity emissions are calculated using the utility-specific grid mix for those buildings served by Portland General Electric. Utility-specific information was not available at this time for Pacific Power, so emissions from facilities being served by this facility were calculated using the regional generation mix for the Northwest Power Pool as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency s egrid, 2006. Emissions from Scope II are greater than all combined emission sources from Scope I. iv. Scopes I and II Combined Emissions Many reporting protocols require organizations to report emissions from Scope I and II. The figure below shows the four emissions sources that make up these two Scopes together. In 2012, electricity was the biggest source of emissions accounting for more than 66% of Scope I and II combined emissions. Natural gas comprises roughly 32% and fleet makes up roughly 2% of overall emissions, leaving refrigerants with less than 1%. Figure 3-ES: 2012 Scope I & II GHG Emissions v. Scope III Emissions Scope III emissions calculations are the least precise due to some data gaps and the number of assumptions and estimations. Despite this imprecision, Scope III emissions results provide PCC a sense of scale of the importance of the emissions sources, in comparison with the other emissions categories. Scope III emissions are not completely PCC s responsibility, but should be considered shared among other groups. Due to their significance, PCC s share should not be dismissed. Air travel is a small part of PCC s overall carbon footprint, but it has steadily increased with the increase in enrollment. Solid waste emissions include the methane and other greenhouse gases released as waste decomposes at landfills associated with various haulers that serve PCC. 7

Employee and student commute includes the emissions associated with PCC employees and students traveling to and from the college. This figure was estimated based on the transportation mode split established in the recently completed transportation survey of students completed by the Parking and Transportation department in partnership with the Westside Transportation Alliance as well as full-time and part-time student and employee figures, provided by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. The largest category of emissions within any Scope is the embodied emissions within purchased goods and services, also known as Supply Chain. Within Supply Chain, construction materials and professional services are the biggest source of emissions. Emissions from Scope III are greater than all combined emissions sources from Scope I and II. vi. Scope III emissions, broken down by source Supply chain emissions are the largest source of emissions for this GHG inventory. It should be noted, PCC is the first community college in the nation to bring our supply chain emissions to this level of detail. Commute is the largest source of emissions, contributing over 47.8% to the overall Scope III sum. Supply chain falls not far behind at 47.7% while business travel contributed over 2% and solid waste contributed less than 1%. Figure 4-ES: 2012 Scope III GHG Emissions vii. Summary of GHG Inventory Findings This GHG inventory is the most comprehensive data PCC has collected to date of its greenhouse gas emissions. With this information, PCC is able to make more informed decisions regarding its sustainability efforts. Overall, PCC s emissions since 2006 (PCC s baseline year) have increased by 21%. This can be attributed to an increase in square footage as well as an increase in enrollment. With this data, PCC now has the capability to restructure its sustainability committees and efforts around the largest areas where GHG reduction is needed. Currently, the PSC is broken down into the following, Climate Action Plan-specific subcommittees: 8

Buildings and Energy; Transportation; Consumption and Solid Waste; Food and Agriculture; SPARC; The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF); Community Outreach; and Tracking Progress and Financing. viii. Summary of PSC Retreat In May of 2012 the PSC hosted and facilitated, with the help of Innovative Growth Solutions, a retreat for all PSC leaders and sub-committee members. The objectives of this retreat were to recognize and celebrate accomplishments, develop prioritized action plan for coming year, and to develop plan to report GHG results. Dr. Pulliams welcomed retreat and participants and thanks Dr. Linda Gerber, Dr. David Rule and Tim Donahue for chairing and co-chairing the PSC and making this retreat possible. Erin Stanforth, Alex deroode and Eric Crum were also recognized for their contributions to sustainability and helping to bring the retreat together. PSC Sub-committees reported the following accomplishments: Consumption and Solid Waste Sub-Committee: Proposed modifications to Climate Action Plan. Changes to purchasing policy. The district-wide recycling program was instituted: new signage, new containers. Requested $100,000 for equipment and received it from FMS. Hallmark program recognized by City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Recycling Coordinator and program established. Pre-consumer food composting at Cascade, SE Center and Sylvania campuses. Developed a KPI tracking system or waste, garbage, recycling, utilities increasing district average diversion rate from 7.45% to approaching 27% by early 2012 reducing solid waste towards our CAP objective 7. Reduced demand for waste hauling from 8 pounds to 5 pounds per student. Implemented pre-consumer waste diversion. Greatly enhanced website. Produced education video. Tracking Progress and Finance Committee: Developed funding and data. PEAK- Sustainability Revolving Loan Fund. Gathered data for funding to support sustainability. Support on development of KPIs. Assisted with estimation of scope three emissions for GHG inventory. Building funds into budget to support positions and programs. Being inclusive and flexible in regard to financial strategies. SPARC: Creating revolving leadership to keep continuity. Tagged green courses in catalogue. Helping faculty integrate sustainability into their coursework. 9

Created seven green outcomes to incorporate into courses. Expanded pool of sustainability-knowledgeable faculty. Academic award focused on sustainability. Social equity around sustainability. Buildings and Energy Committee: Fuel cells at Sylvania campus. Energy audit at Sylvania campus. Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) providing financial support. ETO incentive pool. New construction Bond team passive ventilation more energy efficient. Future projects E6 and Facilities to upgrade the CC building at Sylvania with energy efficient system. Improvements of HT building. Condensing boilers at Sylvania campus reduced natural gas by 15%. Pool captured heat for reuse. Upgraded energy management system across the district. Newberg net zero building. Hand dryers energy savings. New appliances energy STAR. Thinking outside the box creative solutions. Installation of largest solar array in the state. Community Outreach Committee: Upgrade to sustainability website. Upgrade of College s participation in annual Earth Day event. TGIF Committee: Helping students make things happen. Peace and tranquility garden at Southeast Center. Bike covers at Sylvania and bike program at Cascade (students check out a bike and use it for the term). Rock Creek campus pedal power stationary bike generates energy by pedaling. Take Back the Tap Water filling stations. Sylvania campus and Rock Creek campus learning gardens. Earth Week was a great success. Teaching students and empowering them. Transportation Committee: Westside Transportation Alliance survey of students mode splits established. Completed STARS worksheet 37% of total available points. Upgraded website. New carpool program: Drive less, connect. Rideshare permit. TDM section on website. Finalizing TDM plan for Cascade campus and now working on district. Tracking systems in shuttles GPS and Twitter. District-wide task forces bike to PCC day at all campuses developing goals for each campus. Hiring TDM Coordinator. Recognition of John Garner s efforts in TDM plan. 10

Food Committee: After reviewing invoices for FY12 food & beverage purchases made up 31.5% of the total expenditures (a 1.5% increase from FY11). Sustainable food is defined as produced, grown or manufactured within 250 miles (local) or certified organic. The Food section of the STARS rating system will earn 5.53 points. Worked with Eric Crum to develop a pre-consumer compost waste program at Sylvania Campus - was a successful pilot and will be expanding to other campuses in the upcoming year. Student committee members developed promotional campaign to educate people about sustainable food purchases. ix. STARS Reporting PCC chose to become a reporter for AASHE s Sustainability Tracking and Assessment Rating System (STARS) during FY12. STARS covers many areas of the college, including cocurricular education, curriculum, building, dining services and diversity, access and affordability amongst others. Upon submission, PCC ranked highest in the Education and Operations sections, scoring 50.14% and 44.14%, respectively. The lowest-scoring section was Planning, Administration and Engagement, scoring a 35.90%. Overall, PCC received a Bronze level rating. Although admirable, the PSC will be working to achieve a Silver level during fall term. For a more detailed report of our STARS rating, please see the attached spreadsheet. 11