NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY JULY 2011-JUNE 2016

Transcription

1 NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY JULY 2011-JUNE 2016 Publication date: November 2018

2

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS... 2 FINDINGS... 3 DATA VALIDITY... 8 EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN Page 2 of 14

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Greenhouse gasses (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), and others that, in large quantities, are harmful to the environment. These gasses are generated by emissions from automobiles and transportation methods, energy production, manufacturing, and agriculture. The World Resources Institute s (WRI s) Greenhouse Gas Protocol categorizes these emissions into three scopes Scope 1: On-Campus Stationary sources including on-site transportation and natural gas Scope 2: Imported Energy including purchased electricity Scope 3: All other indirect sources of emissions (i.e., commuting, air travel, and solid waste not composted, burned or recycled). To reduce and mitigate the impacts of these emissions on the environment, it is important to first collect data to assess the amount of emissions being generated and then take steps to prioritize their mitigation or reduction by one of these three scopes. This assessment includes relative impact of the particular emissions as well as whether it is feasible to address specific sources given budget constraints. NOVA can reduce our carbon footprint and overall environmental impact; and educate future generations about emissions mitigating and reduction initiatives, processes, and technologies. As the climate continues to change, any steps NOVA can take to reduce our emissions would provide an example to other organizations and serve as educational opportunities for future generations. As above, the data is defined and collected based on the three scopes in the WRI protocol. Internally, this means identifying collection points, systems, and/or personnel that can provide this data; compiling the data; and entering it into a tool that can calculate carbon dioxide equivalents a consolidated calculation that measures the impact of greenhouse gasses based on their atmospheric. As it was a free tool as of the writing of this report, this report uses the Campus Carbon Calculator version 9 ( to capture NOVA s year-to-year emissions data between Fiscal Years (FY) 2012 and Based on the data and calculations included in this report, since FY12, NOVA s overall annual emissions footprint has been approximately 100,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (eco 2). eco 2 is warming potential. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include energy efficiency and reducing use and encouraging public transportation to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. By saving energy, the College can save money directly. More energy efficient equipment may also reduce long-term maintenance costs. Reducing the commuting trips of single occupancy vehicles reduces overall vehicle emissions. More broadly, these efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions result in fewer harmful air pollutants such as particulate matter which would reduce adverse health impacts and ultimately benefit the U.S. economy. 1 The year-to-year comparison of emissions provides a useful tool and baseline for the College to develop and implement measures to reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions thereby reducing its overall environmental impact. Despite the changing number of students and increasing building square footage, the emissions have remained fairly constant. This is a good sign that on-going efforts can effectively address emissions reduction measures. 1 Balbus, John M., et al. A Wedge-Based Approach to Estimating Health Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Activities in the United States. Climatic Change, vol. 127, no. 2, 2014, pp , doi: /s Page 1 of 12

5 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS Greenhouse gasses (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and others that, in extremely large quantities, are harmful to the environment. These gasses are generated by emissions from automobiles and transportation methods, energy production, manufacturing, and agriculture. As the College s first greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, this project used the Campus Carbon Calculator v9 from the Sustainability Institute at the University of New Hampshire. This was originally developed as the Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) GHG Emissions Inventory Calculator. Data collection for this inventory considered three scopes of emissions as defined by the World Resources Institute Greenhouse Gas Protocol, and used by the Carbon Calculator. The World Resources Institute s (WRI s) Greenhouse Gas Protocol categorizes these emissions into three scopes Scope 1: direct sources of emissions (i.e., emissions from directly controlled fleet vehicles, agriculture, heating and hot water, refrigerants and other chemicals); includes all direct sources of GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by your institution, including (but not limited to): production of electricity, heat, or steam; transportation of materials, products, waste, and community members; and fugitive emissions (from unintentional leaks). This includes: On-Campus Stationary sources Distillate oils used for heating or electricity generation (backup generators) Natural gas used for space heating Propane College Vehicle Fleet Agriculture (Fertilizer) Refrigeration and other Chemicals (PFCs, HFCs, SF 6) Page 2 of 12

6 Scope 2: imported energy (i.e., purchased electricity, including for generating chilled water for building cooling). includes GHG emissions from imports of electricity, heat or steam generally those associated with the generation of imported sources of energy. For NOVA, this includes: o Purchased Electricity Scope 3: all other indirect sources of emissions (i.e., commuting, air travel, and solid waste not composted, burned or recycled). 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 company, such as: business travel, outsourced activities and contracts, 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, and the commuting habits of community members. This includes: o Transportation Air Travel, Commuters o Solid Waste Incinerated Waste (waste to energy plant) not used for school power This report addresses all three scopes of NVCC emissions for Fiscal Years (July 2011 June 2016). GHG emissions estimates included carbon dioxide (CO 2) as well as other GHGs, together expressed in aggregate as metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalents (eco 2). Page 3 of 12

7 FINDINGS Fiscal Year Scope 1 (MT) Scope 2 (MT) Scope 3 (MT) Total Net (MT) eco 2 lb eco2 / Operating$ lb eco 2 / ft 2 MT eco 2 per 1000 ft 2 MT eco 2 / FTE ,395 17,490 74,582 94, ,271 17,998 76,260 98, ,904 18,896 76, , ,946 21,513 74, , ,846 21,869 73, , Table 1 NOVA s greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents (eco 2) Table 1 provides the year-by-year, total GHG emissions from all estimated sources for the period examined by scope and includes the calculation for carbon dioxide equivalent (eco 2) per operating dollar ($) spent by the College, per square foot of building space, and per full-time equivalent student. These can give a measure of comparison against other institutions and for year to year improvement. Page 4 of 12

8 Graphs 1 and 2 capture NOVA s FY16 emission by WRI scope and by individual emissions source. FY16 is the most recent year where all data is available and the available version of the Clean Air Cool Planet calculator is usable. As it was created in 2009, for years FY17 and beyond, this version of the calculator makes projections about emissions values that may not be realistic based on current information. Future reports will incorporate appropriate calculation data and methods for year-to-year comparisons. FY16 data and results are similar to years FY12-FY15, so this report uses FY16 as the representative data to discuss individual emissions sources. As Table 1 indicates, from FY12 to FY16, GHG emissions increased about 6%, from 94,000 MT in FY12 to 100,000 MT in FY16. Scope 1 Natural Gas Scope 2 Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Student Commuting Scope 3 Faculty/Staff Commuting Graph 1 FY16 Emissions by Scope Graph 2 FY16 Individual Emissions As Graph 1 indicates, for FY16 - Scope 1 emissions (On-Campus Stationary sources including on-site transportation and natural gas) contributed 5% to NOVA s total emissions, primarily from natural gas usage; - Scope 2 emissions (imported energy (i.e., purchased electricity, including for generating chilled water for building cooling)), contributed 22%; and - Scope 3 emissions (all other indirect sources of emissions) contributed 73% of NVCC s total GHG emissions. Graph 2 further separates these emissions into individual categories primarily to reflect that Scope 3 consists of both student commuting (69%) and faculty and staff commuting (4%) further outlined in the model and calculation methods described below. The red text indicates where data was not available Refrigerants & Chemicals, Agriculture, Directly Financed Air Travel, or Solid Waste. Future reports will attempt to incorporate that data. Emissions Scope Emissions Percentage 1 - sources including on-site transportation and natural gas 5% 2 - imported energy (i.e., purchased electricity, including for generating chilled water for building cooling) 22% 3 Student Commuting 69% 3 Faculty/Staff Commuting 4% Total 100% Table 1A Emissions percentage by Scope and source Page 5 of 12

9 Graph 3 shows that between FY 14 and FY17, while NOVA added gross square footage, the overall energy use intensity (EUI) decreased. This can be attributed directly to the College s energy efficiency initiatives (e.g., LED lighting, building controls optimization, equipment scheduling). Continued efficiency efforts and measures will continue to reduce NOVA s overall emissions and save money by reducing utility usage. Graph 3 EUI vs Gross Square Feet (GSF) Graph 4 shows the College s electricity usage has slightly increased between FY14 and FY17. This is a result of the added square footage in the newly constructed buildings during this time period. Graph 4 Electric usage (kwh) by FY Similarly, Graph 5 show the College s natural gas usage between FY14 and FY17. Despite the College s increase in square footage, natural gas usage has declined. This can be mainly attributed to shorter and less intense heating seasons as well as efficiency measures through building envelope examination and building controls optimization. Continued attention and awareness of gas rates and implementation of efficiency measures will continue to reduce overall gas usage and the associated emissions. Graph 5 Natural gas usage (therms) by FY Page 6 of 12

10 Data Discussion Data from other emissions sources (Directly Financed Air Travel, Refrigerants and Chemicals, Agriculture (landscaping), and Solid Waste) are likely to be insignificant compared to the overall total. Solid Waste is a minor GHG sink (i.e., it reduces the amount of emissions as compared with landfilled waste) because it is burned in a Waste-to-Energy facility. However, it may offset nearly all emissions from Direct Transportation, Refrigerants and Chemicals, and Agriculture. These percentages are expected to be nominal and fairly consistent across these years. It is not surprising that Student Commuting and Purchased Electricity together accounted for 90% of NOVA s GHG emissions. In FY16, the largest, single GHG source is Student Commuting, which equates to nearly 70% of net emissions. This is to be expected in a College with a large population of non-resident students. The next largest sources are Other On-campus Stationary (the College s natural gas usage) at 5% and purchased electricity at 22%. Both of these are driven by building usage and operations. Current efforts to reduce energy usage, install energy efficient equipment, and implement energy efficiency measures will reduce these emissions. Page 7 of 12

11 Table 2 - NOVA's greenhouse gas student commuting inputs Fiscal Trips/week Year One-Way Students Trips / Commuters Week Total Commuter Trips / Week Weeks/year Drive Alone Trip Distribution (% trips by Mod) Carpool Bus Trip Distance (Miles per One- Way trip for each mode) Drive Alone Carpool Bus Fuel Efficiencies used in calculations Automobile (mpg) bus fuel efficiency (mpg/passenger) , , % 5% 30% , , % 5% 30% , , % 5% 30% , , % 5% 30% , , % 5% 30% Table 3 - NOVA's greenhouse gas faculty commuting inputs Fiscal Trips/week Year One-Way Faculty Trips / Commuters Week Total Commuter Trips / Week Weeks/year Drive Alone Trip Distribution (% trips by Mod) Carpool Bus Trip Distance (Miles per One- Way trip for each mode) Drive Alone Carpool Bus Fuel Efficiencies used in calculations Automobile (mpg) bus fuel efficiency (mpg/passenger) , , % 0% 15% , , % 0% 15% , , % 0% 15% , , % 0% 15% , , % 0% 15% Table 4 - NOVA's greenhouse gas staff commuting inputs Fiscal Trips/week Year One-Way Staff Trips / Commuters Week Total Commuter Trips / Week Weeks/year Drive Alone Trip Distribution (% trips by Mod) Carpool Bus Trip Distance (Miles per One- Way trip for each mode) Drive Alone Carpool Bus Fuel Efficiencies used in calculations Automobile (mpg) bus fuel efficiency (mpg/passenger) , % 0% 15% , % 0% 15% , % 0% 15% , % 0% 15% , % 0% 15% DATA VALIDITY Commuting data is based on College population and then the Carbon Calculator calculates student, staff, and faculty commuting emissions based on the percentage of total population using a particular transportation method, including distances traveled. Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide the input assumptions about commute lengths, average fuel efficiency, and number of trips for students, staff, and faculty in order to calculate an estimate of overall commuting emissions. Adjusting these assumptions will yield different commuting emissions results. Page 8 of 12

12 Graph 6 shows that when measured against NOVA s operating dollars per fiscal year, the amount of CO 2 emission equivalents has seen a decrease since FY12 (0.91 to 0.83). This trend should continue as energy efficiency and building controls are improved. Graph 6: Pounds of eco2 per Operating $ Graph 7 shows that when measured against the number of Full Time Equivalent students (FTE), the amount of CO 2 emission equivalents has seen a slight increase since FY12 (2.65 to 2.95). This can be attributed to decreased FTE enrollment over that period. Graph 7: Metric Tons of eco2 per Full Time Equivalent Student Graph 8 shows that when measured against the total square feet of building space, the amount of CO 2 emission equivalents has seen a slight decrease since FY12 (103 to 100). As mentioned previously, this is likely a result of decreased FTE enrollment over that period. Graph 8: Pounds of eco2 per Square Foot of Building Space Graphing these metrics allows for future comparisons as the College building footprint and emissions sources change. It also allows for comparison with other colleges and universities. Page 9 of 12

13 COMPARISON TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS Tables 5 and 6 provide NOVA s emissions as compared to other schools. These schools were selected based on region (GMU, UVA) and expected similar functions and student behavior (CCCD, PCC). Table 5 shows that NOVA s results are similar in scale to a comparable institution (PCC), specifically in metric tons per full-time enrollment. As compared to institutions in the same geographic region, while NOVA s per square foot emissions are higher, per full-time enrollment emissions are lower. This can likely be directly attributed to all students commuting. As NOVA has no residents and as noted previously, the Scope 3 contribution is significant. Additionally, the 4-year schools (GMU, UVA) have other facilities (aquatic center, sports stadiums and arenas) that contribute to their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Total MT of CO2 emissions MT of CO2 emissions per Full-Time Enrollment MT of CO2 emissions per 1000 Square Feet Report year NVCC FY16 Portland Community College (PCC) (OR) FY12 GMU FY07 UVA CY14 100,292 84, , , Draft 2018 Not available Feb TABLE 5 COMPARISON TO OTHER SCHOOLS INCLUDING SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS (COMMUTING) Page 10 of 12

14 Total MT of CO2 emissions MT of CO2 emissions per Full-Time Enrollment MT of CO2 emissions per 1000 Square Feet NVCC FY16* Coast Community College District (CCCD) (Costa Mesa, CA) ,715 38, Report year Draft 2018 Spring 2009 TABLE 6 COMPARISON TO OTHER SCHOOLS EXCLUDING SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS (COMMUTING) In Table 6, Scope 3 emissions are excluded from the results for both community colleges considered. Notably, Coast Community College District in California (CCCD) consists of multiple community colleges with multiple campuses but did not include student, staff, or faculty commuting emissions in their calculations. Additionally, the 4-year schools (GMU, UVA) have other facilities (aquatic center, sports stadiums and arenas) that contribute to their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. By excluding Scope 3 emissions, the results indicate NOVA s emissions are nearly half of CCCD s emissions per FTE and per square foot. This could be due to both NOVA s energy efficiency efforts and to CCCD s distributed facilities (3 multi-campus colleges and a headquarters district) and geographic region (more temperate climate). Page 11 of 12

15 EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN While over 70% of NVCC emissions come from commuting, numerous sources and institutions have discovered that this is one of the most difficult sources to reduce. Measures like promoting public transportation (e.g., bus usage), encouraging carpooling (e.g., car share, ZimRide), and expanding the NOVA Shuttle routes are steps to reduce emissions in this scope (Scope 3), but it is difficult to change individual, car-centric behavior, especially for a non-residential college. The next largest emissions contributor is Purchased Electricity (22% in FY16). NOVA is undertaking a series of project intended to reduce this with a combination of energy conservation and efficiency projects (e.g., converting to LED, equipment optimization, temperature and lighting controls, setbacks). These are already underway at the College as part of a strategic energy plan. Finally, this report is a first step at increasing awareness of the College s overall emissions footprint. As part of a strategic awareness, outreach, and education campaign, this will ideally influence individual behavior change to amplify the cost savings and emissions reductions resulting from the equipmentbased energy projects. Optimistically, the next emissions inventory will quantify the resulting emissions reductions from these efforts. Initiatives Continue energy conservation initiatives and projects to reduce electric and gas usage Create strategies to increase usage of public and commuter transportation methods e.g., NOVA Shuttle, MetroBus, car-pooling / ride-sharing, etc; Increase awareness of impacts of emissions reduction efforts and projects References Other institutions emissions' reports: - Coast Community College District (Spring 2009), - GMU July 2002-June 2007 (Feb 2009), - Portland Community College GHG Emissions Report, - University of Virginia Greenhouse Gas Report Calendar Year 2014, 4.pdf Page 12 of 12