Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report

Transcription

1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report Data Collection and finding for FY /22/2013 Prepared by: Lakeland Community College Dept. for Facilities Management - Susan Walker-Meere Updating the FY04-11 which was prepared by Affinity Consultants

2 Lakeland Community College Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report Data Collection and finding for (FY12) Introduction: In its continued efforts to be an academic institution that acts responsibly and chooses to teach by example, Lakeland Community College (LCC) has recently undertaken and completed a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (GHG) for the fiscal year This report incorporates and updates the previously published inventories for the years which were prepared by, developed and compiled by Affinity Consultants. It extends Lakeland s inventories through Fiscal Year (FY) This is the college s calendar year within the time period of July 1, 2011 through June 30, This survey continues to support the participation of LCC as a member in the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) through which a framework is offered, the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), that gauges the relative progress towards colleges and institutions work toward sustainability. This report is structured to provide: 1. An introduction to related the purpose of the report 2. A letter from the compiler 3. A background which provides an overview of why it is important to conduct such a survey 4. An overview of the steps and methods used to develop and compile the survey 5. Details on what data was necessary to obtain, who provided 6. Annual Emissions Summaries for FY2004 through FY2012 An important first step in reducing and avoiding emissions is to better understand the activities associated with an institution s contribution to climate change by creating a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Lakeland has, since its first baseline survey in 2004, notably and expectedly, decreased its overall GHG emissions primarily from the bold energy efficiency action plan which was developed and implemented in the years preceding this report. 2 P a g e

3 Background It is a commonly held belief within the global scientific community that the climate changes that are currently being felt as super storms and other unusual weather events are caused by the elevation of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide-in the atmosphere of the planet, much of which is produced by anthropogenic processes. These include the burning of fossil fuels for energy and other industrial processes that give the modern western cultures their products that enable the first world to live in the comfort and often luxury in which it does. The Tufts University report Method for Conducting a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for Colleges and Universities offers a good overview. Molecules found in the Earth's atmosphere act as "greenhouse gases." When light strikes the Earth's surface, some of the sunlight is reflected as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases tend to absorb part of this infrared radiation as it is reflected back towards space, trapping the heat in the atmosphere. Many gases exhibit such "greenhouse" properties, including those that occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), and those that are man-made, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth s atmosphere. As a result, the planet is heating at a faster rate than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Eleven of the hottest years in recorded history have occurred since The decade of the 1990s was the hottest in the 20th century. Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate is projected to alter forests, crop yields, water supplies and affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems (Tufts). Affinity Consultants, created and compiled the previous inventories, developing a framework in which future inventories could be built by LCC. As anticipated this FY12 survey was conducted by LCC, updating, revising to reflect the present inventories information. Guidance was offered when requested by Affinity Consultant s Tim Schwendeman. Lakeland appreciates these efforts and hopes to continue to find further avenues to improve its reduction of GHG emissions and carbon footprint by exploring additional efficiencies, innovative technologies and effort by the college s community in conservation of resources. These might include: printing on two sides of the paper, turning off lights, reducing the use of individual space heaters, composting post-consumer organic waste, increasing recycling, adding renewable energy systems where feasible and other such measures. 3 P a g e

4 Letter from the Compiler My academic work in Anthropology, Psychology, the Biological and Physical Sciences, in addition to earning a Certificate in the Engineering Science Dept. from LCC focused on the built environment, all have benefited me as I was conducting and compiling this FY12 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory and Report for LCC. I was able to utilize the knowledge I had gained from my personal experience and college work in an applied, observational and academic way throughout the survey process. In my position as compiler of the LCC FY12 GHG inventory, I was able to interact on both an individual level and campus cultural level helping to create an awareness of the impacts that institutions such as LCC have on the overall accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere. The process teaches-by-doing that campus sustainability is a team effort. Performing an annual GHG inventory continues a dialog and forges relationships between those that contributed to build this survey and the larger campus community where a sense of pride in our accomplishments can be instilled. The view of the modern west is changing as it is becoming apparent that humans are altering ecosystems in detrimental ways and contributing to climate change. Human beings have the ability to be greatly autonomous by controlling nature for every need. Yet, we are still profoundly embedded within the ecosystems of our planet, which function as a whole and is constantly seeking homeostasis. The challenge then is to understand the psychological motivations, cultural epistemologies and the structures of hegemony that exist at the cultural and institutional levels. Stakeholders have needs which act as drivers motivating their actions. Understanding these will help to inform how decisions which consider sustainability might be made while still fulfilling goals. Ideally, all decisions might then be considered holistically by how they affect the economic, the environmental and ethical aspects of every action taken. The GHG inventory and LCC s membership in AASHE offer a strong foundation from which additional sustainability initiatives can be implemented as the college continues its direction toward developing an institutional sustainability plan which would expand upon the continued positive steps the college has been taking in this direction already. This survey allows a window into this success and a template for future growth. Susan Walker-Meere Project Liaison Department for Facilities Management 4 P a g e

5 Methodology and Framework: Incorporates the GHG Report for LCC FY prepared by Affinity Consultants with updates, additional remarks and procedural references relevant to the present FY12 report added throughout by this compiler. The finished inventory is the culmination of three weeks of data collection gathering, extracting and extrapolating by this compiler through direct research and by outreach to those that have access to the information needed to gain as complete a picture as possible from a range of sources direct, indirect and various other sources of GHG emissions. The final input of that data into the Clean Air Cool Planet Carbon Calculator resulted then in the completion of the project. The following steps, as related by Affinity Consultants in previous reports, were followed as part of the methodology to develop the GHG inventory report: 1. Define organizational and operational boundaries 2. Identify sources of GHG emissions (e.g., scopes) 3. Select an emission calculation tool/approach 4. Collect activity data and choose emissions factors 5. Apply calculation tools to estimate GHG emissions 6. Summarize and total GHG emissions from all scopes Lakeland applied an operational control approach for determining the organizational boundary for the emissions inventory. Organizational boundaries define what location(s) is to be measured and reported (e.g., department, school, entire campus, university system, etc.). The GHG emission report is specific to the Kirtland Campus (main campus) and does not include (except for paper purchasing impacts) information relative to leased spaces that are utilized by Lakeland (e.g., East Campus, West Campus, etc.). Lakeland s operational boundary will include Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect energy consumption emissions), and Scope 3 (other associated emissions) sources, which is consistent with Campus Carbon Calculator and ACUPCC guidance for inclusion of specific sources of GHG emissions. The scope accounting concept provides an institution with a method for categorizing and understanding emissions while at the same time eliminating the potential for double counting emissions between entities. Each scope speaks to a level of responsibility and control that an entity has over the GHG emissions of a particular source. Scopes are characterized as follows: 5 P a g e

6 Scope 1 - Direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned and/or controlled by the institution. This includes combustion of fossil fuels in college-owned facilities or vehicles, fugitive emissions from refrigeration, and emissions from on-campus agriculture or livestock husbandry. The institution has complete control over these GHG emissions. Scope 2 - Indirect GHG emissions from sources that are neither owned nor operated by the institution but whose products are directly linked to on-campus energy consumption. This includes purchased energy: electricity, steam, and chilled water. Although the institution is not directly responsible for these GHG emissions, it is strongly implicated. Scope 3 - Other GHG emissions attributed to the institution from sources that are neither owned nor operated by the institution but are either directly financed or are otherwise linked to the campus via influence or encouragement (i.e. air travel for study abroad programs, regular faculty, staff, and student commuting, waste disposal, supplies, etc.). The organizational and operational boundaries have been summarized in the figure below and represent the LCC inventory boundaries. Findings of this inventory The data for which the report is based is reflective of Lakeland s fiscal year which starts on July 1st and ends June 30th of the following year. Data were collected for the main GHG emission contributors including: electricity, natural gas, commuting impacts, college fleet, directly financed outsourced travel, solid waste, refrigerants, wastewater discharge, paper purchases, and fertilizer. 6 P a g e

7 Additional information including population data (student, faculty, and staff) and building space (gross square feet) were gathered and utilized within the Campus Carbon Calculator primarily for metric purposes and are as follows with a summary of percent of change compared to the previous year: Population information was provided by Laura Chew of the Research Department and is summarized in Table 1, utilizing calculations from the Higher Education Information System. Table 1 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Population Summary Fiscal Year Student Population FTE (#/Year) Faculty Population (#/Year) Staff Population (#/Year) 2003/2004 8, /2005 8, /2006 8, /2007 8, /2008 9, /2009 9, /2010 9, /2011 9, /2012 9, Student, faculty, and staff population information provided by Research Department and obtained from Banner software, Higher Education Information System. The student population data, represented as full-time equivalents, was calculated by adding the number of full-time students to one-half the number of part-time students. The faculty and staff population data, represented as full-time equivalents, were calculated by adding the number of full-time faculty/staff to onethird the numbers of part-time faculty/staff. Lakeland has seen a decrease by 5.9% in full-time equivalent student populations (FTE), a decrease by 1% in faculty population and an increase by 1% in staff population. But looking at these metrics as percent change from the original reporting year would be: a 14% increase in FTE, an 18% increase in faculty population and a 23% increase in staff population. The physical building sq. footage area at the LCC campus has increased over time but has seen little growth between FY04 and FY12 a 0.3% increase. There has been no increase for the FY12. Scope 1 Activity Review On Campus Stationary Sources (Natural Gas Consumption) Many on-campus stationary sources are powered by natural gas. Natural gas information for FY2004 through FY2011 was supplied by the Facilities Management Department and is based on billing information. 7 P a g e

8 Table 2 Natural Gas Consumption Fiscal Year Natural Gas Consumption (MMBtu/Year) FY ,572 FY ,620 FY ,846 FY ,363 FY ,053 FY ,830 FY ,326 FY ,505 FY ,453 Direct Transportation Sources (College Vehicle Fleet) Lakeland maintains a college fleet which consists primarily of Police and maintenance-related vehicles, with a few additional vehicles for food service and athletics. From FY2004 through FY2009, Lakeland did not currently track actual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption for the college fleet. However, Ron Lee, Director of Budgeting (Administrative Services) was able to provide annual budgetary information for college fleet gasoline and diesel fuel consumption (combined). The Facilities Management Department estimated that diesel consumption equated to 8% of the total annual college fleet fuel budget, with gasoline making up the remainder. Starting in FY2010, the college began tracking the individual costs associated with diesel and gasoline consumption. Fuel cost estimates (FY2004 through FY2009) or actual annual fuel costs (FY2010 and FY2011) were divided by the average annual fuel cost values ($/gallon of diesel or gasoline) listed for the Midwest of the U.S., as documented by the U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration, to estimate college fleet fuel consumption by fuel type as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Gasoline & Diesel Consumption for College Fleet Fiscal Year Estimated Gasoline Consumption (Gal/Yr) Estimated Diesel Consumption (Gal/Yr) FY04 11,583 1,011 FY05 12,362 1,080 FY06 11, P a g e

9 Fiscal Year Estimated Gasoline Consumption (Gal/Yr) Estimated Diesel Consumption (Gal/Yr) FY07 10, FY08 10, FY09 10, FY10 8,859 2,351 FY11 8,884 2,338 FY12 8,884 2,338 The FY12 costs where base on the FY11 costs because the metric used in the past reports was changed due to not having a separate value for either gas or diesel. LCC is review ways to isolate these two fuel types by gallons used and cost. This would help gain an accurate measurement which would help future GHG reporting. Agricultural Sources (Fertilizer Application) LCC contracts TruGreen to routinely apply a synthetic granular urea fertilizer blend, as well as control products when necessary, to the grounds of Lakeland s Kirtland Campus. TruGreen and Lakeland s Facilities Management Department indicate that the typical fertilizer blend contains 28% nitrogen. Through analysis of TruGreen s invoices (supplied by the Facilities Management Department), Lakeland was able to provide annual fertilizer application information as presented in Table 4. Fiscal Year Table 4 Annual Fertilizer Application Nitrogen Percentage Fertilizer Applied (Lbs/Yr) (%) FY ,520 FY ,220 FY ,750 FY ,500 FY ,150 FY ,940 FY ,230 FY ,220 9 P a g e

10 Refrigerants and Chemicals Lakeland has utilized two refrigerants (HFC-134A and HCFC-22) over FY04-FY11 with an addition HCFC-410A in FY12, within their heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. HCFC s are being phase out by the international agreement The Montreal Protocol which acts to eliminate ozone depleting gases. But, HFC s still have a large GHG impact. HFC-134A (1,1,1,2- Tetrafluoroethane) has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1,300 and HCFC-22 has a GWP of 1,700 and HFC-410A as a GWP similar to HCFC-22. GWP is defined as the cumulative relative radiative forcing of gases over a specified time horizon (usually 100 years) resulting from the emission of gas relative to a reference gas (usually carbon dioxide). Losses of these refrigerants may occur at Lakeland due to equipment failure or maintenance activities. The Facilities Management Department has not tracked refrigerant loss in the past; however, the department estimated annual loss to be well below 10 pounds per year. Lakeland allocated refrigerant loss between HFC-134A, HCFC-22 and HCFC-410A based total onsite quantities of each refrigerant (e.g., percentage breakdown). Table 5 Total Refrigerant Losses HFC-134A Losses HCFC-22 Fiscal Year (Lbs/Yr) Losses (Lbs/Yr) FY FY FY FY FY FY FY HFC-R-410A Losses (Lbs/Yr) FY Scope 2 Activity Review Purchased Electricity Electricity consumption for FY2004 through FY2012 was supplied by the Facilities Management Department and is based on billing information. Table 6 Electricity Consumption Electricity Consumption Fiscal Year (kwh/year) FY ,168,197 FY ,611,450 FY ,759, P a g e

11 Fiscal Year Electricity Consumption (kwh/year) FY ,341,306 FY ,674,047 FY ,478,891 FY2010 8,337,483 FY2011 7,867,070 FY2012 7,654,528 Transportation and distribution losses associated with electricity purchases are accounted for within Scope 3 calculations within the Campus Carbon Calculator. Scope 3 Activity Review Student Commuting Lakeland is a community college; therefore student commuting to and from campus can have a significant impact to GHG emissions. Greater than 99% of the students that attend Lakeland commute from one of four counties Lake, Cuyahoga, Geauga, and Ashtabula. In order to calculate student commuting distances, Lakeland estimated the average traveling distance from each of these counties and combined this with registration information for these same counties as presented in Table 7. County Avg. One-Way Commuting Distance 2 (Miles/Trip) Table 7 Student Commuting Distances FY2004 Percentage of Students Registered During Period FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Lake 10 63% 64% 64% 62% 63% 63% 62% 62% 61% Cuyahoga 20 20% 20% 21% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 23% Geauga 20 10% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 11% 10% 10% Ashtabula 40 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 2Average one-way commuting distance is based on traveling from the center of each respective county to Lakeland s Kirtland Campus. Based on the data presented in Table 7, Lakeland calculated a weighted-average student commuting distance for each of the fiscal years. The weighted-average student commuting distance was calculated to be approximately 15 miles per trip (one-way) for fiscal years FY2004 through FY2012. Lakeland estimated the number of trips to campus per day, days per week, and weeks per year to estimate the total number of trips associated with students, faculty, and staff commuting. To further refine these estimates, Lakeland evaluated Laketran ridership, carpooling, and distance learning (opportunities which have progressively 11 P a g e

12 increased over the years). Since September of 1999, students enrolled in credit classes at Lakeland are entitled to free Laketran bus service, Lake County s regional transit authority. Laketran was able to provide Lakeland with a ridership summary (trips per year) for each fiscal year. Each trip via Laketran is assumed to be 10 miles as Laketran travels primarily within Lake County. Lakeland does not track the number of students that may carpool - nor does Lakeland believe that carpooling is very prevalent. Therefore, Lakeland has assumed the percentage of student carpoolers to be 1 percent. Lakeland calculated the total number of student commuting trips (to and from the college) based on the following equation: Student Commuting Trips/Year = (Annual Student FTE) x (Trips/Day) x (Days/Week) x (Weeks/Year) Table 8 provides details on student commuting trips based on population information contained in Table 1 and Lakeland commuting frequency estimates. Fiscal Year Student Population (#/Year) Table 8 Total Student Commuting Trips Trips Per Day Days Per Week Weeks Per Year 3 Student Trips Per Year Laketran Trips Per Year FY2004 8, ,344,140 36,825 FY2005 8, ,329,020 37,898 FY2006 8, ,376,540 50,577 FY2007 8, ,413,260 56,189 FY2008 9, ,517,750 53,199 FY2009 9, ,520,450 62,237 FY2010 9, ,671,920 66,884 FY2011 9, ,675,565 61,580 FY2012 9, ,520,720 68,154 3 Weeks Per Year determined from a 16-week fall term, a 16-week spring term, and a 13-week summer term. Based on the total student commuting trips calculated in Table 7 and Laketran ridership information, Lakeland was able to estimate student commuting percentages for personal vehicles (single occupant), carpooling, and bus ridership. 12 P a g e Fiscal Year Table 9 Student Commuting Percentages Percent Personal Vehicles Percent Laketran Ridership Percent Carpooling FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1%

13 Fiscal Year Percent Personal Vehicles Percent Laketran Ridership Percent Carpooling FY % 2% 1% FY % 2% 1% Trip mileage estimates, annual trips per year, and carpooling/laketran ridership percentages are entered into the Campus Carbon Calculator (which takes into account fuel efficiency for all applicable transportation) to properly estimate GHG emissions from student commuting. Faculty and Staff Commuting Lakeland has a multitude of faculty and staff that serve various functions for the college. In order to determine commuting distances, Lakeland evaluated the driving distance from each faculty/staff member s city of residence based on an evaluation of FY2009 records from the Human Resources Department. Based on this data, Lakeland calculated a weighted-average commuting distance for faculty and for staff (separately). The weighted-average commuting distance was calculated to be approximately 15 miles per trip (one-way) for faculty and approximately 11 miles per trip for staff. Lakeland has assumed that faculty and staff commuting trip estimates have remained relatively the same over the years; therefore, were applied to total annual faculty and staff commuting travel calculations for fiscal years FY2004 through FY2011. Lakeland calculated the total number of faculty and staff commuting trips (to and from the college) based on the following equations: Faculty Commuting Trips/Year = (Annual Faculty FTE) x (Trips/Day) x (Days/Week) x (Weeks/Year) Staff Commuting Trips/Year = (Annual Staff FTE) x (Trips/Day) x (Days/Week) x (Weeks/Year) The following tables calculate the total faculty and staff commuting trips based on population information contained in Table 1 and Lakeland commuting estimates. 13 P a g e

14 Fiscal Year Faculty Population (#/Year) Table 10 Total Faculty Commuting Trips Trips Per Day Days Per Week Weeks Per Year 4 Faculty Trips Per Year FY ,370 FY ,100 FY ,230 FY ,640 FY ,450 FY ,180 FY ,800 FY ,310 FY ,960 4 Weeks Per Year determined from a 16-week fall term, a 16-week spring term, and a 13-week summer term. Table 11 Total Staff Commuting Trips Fiscal Year Staff Population (#/Year) Trips Per Day Days Per Week Weeks Per Year 5 Staff Trips Per Year FY ,370 FY ,866 FY ,468 FY ,804 FY ,804 FY ,010 FY ,766 FY ,850 FY ,766 5 Weeks Per Year calculated as 52 weeks less an average of 17 vacation days, 4 personal days, and 10 holidays (or 6.2 weeks). Lakeland does not track the number of faculty and staff that may carpool - nor does Lakeland believe that carpooling is very prevalent. Therefore, Lakeland has assumed that 1 percent of the faculty and staff carpool. Lakeland believes that Laketran ridership for faculty and staff is at or near 0 percent; therefore, no Laketran ridership is assumed for these groups. 14 P a g e

15 Trip mileage estimates, annual trips per year, and carpooling/laketran ridership percentages are entered into the Campus Carbon Calculator (which takes into account fuel efficiency for all applicable transportation) to properly estimate GHG emissions from faculty and staff commuting. Directly Financed Outsourced Travel Directly financed travel is the result of faculty and staff-related business travel and travel associated with college athletics has a significant impact on Lakeland s overall GHG inventory (e.g., air travel, bus travel, rental vehicles, etc.). Airline travel is of particular concern as it consumes large amounts of fossil fuels and the impacts of radiative forcing is estimated to be 1 to 5 times greater in the stratosphere than in the troposphere according to the IPCC. The Campus Carbon Calculator incorporates a radiative forcing factor of 2.8, which is derived from IPCC's best estimates of the ratio of total radiative forcing from air travel to that from carbon dioxide emissions alone. Travel distances associated with these activities have not been accurately tracked over the years and obtaining the data at this point would be a significant undertaking, if not impossible. In order to quantify directly financed travel mileage, Lakeland reviewed expense documents for a representative time period (i.e., July 2009 through October 2009) to quantify air travel mileage (based on departure and destination airport), bus travel mileage associated with athletics (based on roundtrip distance from the Kirtland Campus to destination city), and personal mileage reimbursements (as reported on personal expense reports). The data for these four months was extrapolated to estimate annual mileage for these three categories. An additional 10% was added to bus travel to account for other variables such as route taken, miscellaneous travel within destination city, etc. The overall travel budget has increased modestly since fiscal year FY2004. As a result, Lakeland has assumed that mileage associated with directly financed travel has remained relatively constant. Therefore, the mileage estimates shown in Table 12 are reflective of each fiscal year represented in this report (FY2004 through FY2012). Table 12 Directly Financed Air Travel, Bus Travel, & Personal Mileage Reimbursement 6Based on roundtrip flight miles from departure and arrival airports as calculated by 7Based on roundtrip distance from Kirtland Campus to destination city as reported by plus 10% 15 P a g e Air Travel 6 (Miles/Year) Bus Travel 7 (Miles/Year) Personal Miles Reimbursement (Miles/Year) 51,066 12,157 72,365

16 Solid Waste As solid waste decomposes within the landfill, methane gas is generated as a by-product. The Campus Carbon Calculator correlates greenhouse gas emissions with solid waste disposal associated with the College. Lakeland College s solid waste is currently transported via Waste Management to the Lake County Solid Waste District (Lake County Landfill) in Painesville, Ohio. The Lake County Landfill is, and has been since FY2004, equipped with a methane capture system which collects the methane which is then used as the primary fuel for retrofitted boilers at nearby organizations. Any methane that cannot be used as a fuel must be flared for proper emissions destruction. The Lake County Landfill was unable to provide a breakdown of methane consumed for fuel purposes versus flared volumes. As such, Lakeland has assumed that all methane generated at the landfill is flared resulting in greater emissions estimates and is therefore more conservative. The amount of solid waste generated by the College was based on estimates from the Facilities Management Department, as well as, disposal documentation where available. Waste vendors collect solid waste on a routine basis from all waste receptacles except for the compactor unit which is emptied on an as needed basis. Only the waste collected in the compactor unit is weighed (by the vendor) and documented through invoices. As a result, the Facilities Management Department conducted an evaluation in which it estimated the remaining solid waste collection (non-compactor receptacles) resulted in the generation of approximately 310 tons per year (on average) based on solid waste collection frequency, average receptacle volumes, and an average solid waste density of 300 pounds per cubic yard (USEPA - Volume-to- Weight Conversion Factors). Estimates and actual reported volumes have been summarized in Table 13. Table 13 Annual Solid Waste Volumes & Landfill Methane Management Landfill Methane Recovery Waste & Flaring (Tons/Year) (%) Fiscal Year Methane Recovery & Electric Generation (%) FY % 1% FY % 1% FY % 1% FY % 1% Wastewater Wastewater effluent from the College is discharged to the sanitary sewer and treated by the Gary L. Kron Water Reclamation Facility located in Mentor, Ohio. Wastewater effluent generates methane gas which contributes to Lakeland s Scope 3 emissions. Utility bills provided by the Facilities Management Department indicate the annual discharge volumes listed in Table 14. There has been a 44% decrease 16 P a g e

17 in discharge from FY due to low flow faucets and low flush toilets being added throughout campus. Table 14 Annual Sanitary Sewer Discharge Fiscal Year Sanitary Sewer Discharge (Gal/Year) FY ,466,992 FY ,301,608 FY ,226,212 FY ,219,176 FY ,210,948 FY2009 7,779,948 FY2010 6,313,120 FY2011 7,824,828 FY2012 7,593,696 Paper Purchases The production of paper stock creates significant upstream GHG emissions. Given the amount of paper consumed by Lakeland, this is an important Scope 3 emission. The Purchasing Department was able to provide estimates on the total amount of paper purchased by the college broken down by type and recycled content. The Purchasing Department was unable to provide specific data for each fiscal year; therefore, the data reflects the average annual purchase amount for each paper type based on total combined purchases of fiscal years FY2004 through FY2009. It should be noted that the Purchasing Department was unable to separate paper purchases by campus; therefore, the information contained within Table 15 is reflective of Kirtland and the East, campus. Recycled Content (Verify Recycled Contents) 30% Recycled Content Table 15 Annual Paper Purchases Uncoated Freesheet (Lbs/Yr) 10% Recycled Content 0% Recycled Content Uncoated Groundwood (Lbs/Yr) 90% Recycled Content Uncoated Groundwood (Lbs/Yr) 35% Recycled Content FY , , ,009 2,654 FY10 20, ,641 3,500 2,654 FY11 20, ,396 3,500 2,654 FY12 20, ,396 3,500 2, P a g e

18 Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy Credits Lakeland does not currently use renewable energy sources or purchase renewable energy credits for offsets; therefore, the net emissions are equivalent to total emissions. It should be noted that the Kirtland campus includes a significant amount of undeveloped property much of which is forest. Lakeland has estimated that the property includes 248 acres of forested area. Although existing forested areas cannot be viewed as true offsets (only new plantings or acquisition of existing forests), these forested areas have the ability to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide. Trees remove carbon dioxide from the air in a process called carbon sequestration, transforming the carbon dioxide into carbon and making use of it to build living matter - leaves, stems, trunk, roots. Understanding the true sequestration benefit that the existing trees provide can be done using the protocols and calculation methods within Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol. Results and Discussion All of the data gathered was entered into the Campus Carbon Calculator to determine the total metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (eco2). As previously noted, Lakeland has utilized the most recent version of the Campus Carbon CalculatorTM (Version 6.851) and entered all the updated data inputs for FY12, as well as, all data originally entered into Version 6.4 of the original GHG inventory for FY2004 through FY2011. The updated version contains minor changes in emission factors which have been applied and resulted in updated emissions estimates, albeit minor in nature. The following table contains all fiscal year GHG emissions estimates including recalculation of FY2004 through FY2012. Table 16 Total GHG Emissions by Source Category (MT eco2) Fiscal Year Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Total/Net Emissions FY2004 2,628 10,319 16,651 29,597 FY2005 2,426 10,728 16,613 29,767 FY2006 2,585 10,865 17,050 30,501 FY2007 2,538 8,044 16,905 27,488 FY2008 2,566 8,263 17,573 28,401 FY2009 2,496 7,417 17,473 27,385 FY2010 1,833 5,901 18,008 25,742 FY2011 1,684 5,568 17,372 24,624 FY2012 1,213 5,288 16,153 22,654 See the bottom of the S_Annual TAB in the Calculator to obtain these figures. 18 P a g e

19 Review of the emissions data from FY2004 through FY2012 has indicated that major contributors to GHG emissions at Lakeland include, in order of greatest contribution: - Student Commuting (Scope 3) - Electric Consumption (Scope 2) - Natural Gas Consumption (Scope 1) Further analysis of this data indicated that student commuting has not changes from last year, electric consumption has not changed from last year, and natural gas consumption has decreased from last year. Details of this breakdown are presented in Table 17. Table 17 Contribution of Major Sources of GHG Emissions (% of Total Emissions) Fiscal Year Natural Gas Consumption (% of Emissions) Electric Consumption (% of Emissions) Student Commuting (% of Emissions) FY2004 9% 35% 47% FY2005 8% 36% 46% FY2006 8% 36% 46% FY2007 9% 30% 51% FY2008 9% 30% 51% FY2009 9% 28% 55% FY2010 7% 24% 60% FY2011 7% 23% 62% FY2012 5% 23% 62% Total Emissions (Metric Tons CO2) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Total Emissions by SCOPE Scope 1 Emissions Scope 2 Emissions Scope 3 Emissions 19 P a g e Fiscal Year

20 Total Emissions (MT eco2) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Fiscal Year Scope 2 T&D Losses Paper Wastewater Solid Waste Study Abroad Air Travel Directly Financed Outsourced Travel Commuting Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Purchased Electricity Agriculture Refrigerants & Chemicals Direct Transportation On-Campus Stationary 4 3. Student Full Time Equivalent/Metric Tons eco2 Total Emissions (MT eco2) per Student FTE Fiscal Year 20 P a g e

21 Total Emissions per square foot (kg eco2 / ft^2) 4. kg eco2 / Square Foot Building Space Fiscal Year Mitigation Lakeland has been taking significant steps over the past few years to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The following is a short list of activities and accomplishments; however, there are many opportunities that still exist. 1. In June of 2008, Lakeland hired Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. to implement a comprehensive energy and resource efficiency improvement project. As of July 2009, substantial portion of this project has been completed. Once completed, Siemens estimates that the scoped projects will increase Lakeland s energy efficiency from 20 percent to 30 percent and reduce annual energy costs by more than $500, Lakeland has spelled out their energy conservation goals in Resolution No which will translate into GHG reductions in both Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Those conservation goals are as follows: - Reduction in electricity purchase per gross square foot 21 P a g e

22 - FY % (cumulative) - FY13/14 50% (cumulative) - FY14/15 and beyond to be determined - Reduction in natural gas per gross square foot - FY % (cumulative) - FY13/14 60% (cumulative) - FY14/15 and beyond to be determined 3. Lakeland has installed a green roof on the A-Building, the first in Lake County, which minimizes storm water runoff and provides additional insulation. 4. The college recently upgraded the roof of the T-Building with insulation levels that exceed current building codes. 5. In August of 2002, Lakeland transitioned from a 5-day per week class schedule to a 4-day per week class schedule. Although this inventory does not include data prior to FY02/03, it is assumed that this change reduced GHG emissions associated with commuting to and from the college. Benchmarking For benchmarking purposes, Lakeland obtained data from the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) Reporting System to assess the carbon emissions of similar community colleges in the region. The availability of data was limited; however, three community colleges were chosen for comparison purposes based on their proximity to Lakeland and included: Cincinnati State Technical and Community College, Columbus State Community College, and Lorain County Community College. Please note that the majority of activities associated with Lakeland s leased spaces have not been included within this GHG emissions report. Graph 5 compares GHG emissions per student (full-time equivalent), the GHG emissions per 1,000 gross square feet of building space, and the percent of GHG emissions offset (by means renewable energy or renewable energy credits) in relation to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions alone. Emissions data are reflective of varying fiscal years based on availability. Comparison between colleges is a bit arbitrary and should only be used as a rough gauge because of actual FTE, Building Square footage and other variable differences that make it a bit of an apples to oranges type comparison. 22 P a g e

23 Graph Emissions Per Student Full-Time Equivalent (MT eco2) Emissions Per 1,000 Square Feet (MT eco2) Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (FY08/09) Columbus State Community College (FY08/09) Lakeland Community College (FY10/11) Lorain County Community College (FY10/11) 70 Emissions Per Student Full-Time Equivalent (MT eco2) Emissions Per 1,000 Square Feet (MT eco2) Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (FY08/09) Columbus State Community College (FY08/09) Lakeland Community College (FY10/11) Lorain County Community College (FY10/11) 23 P a g e

24 The following pages contain concise overview Annual Summaries for each inventory year starting with FY04 that show total emissions by Scope. It is a useful tool to use as a comparison from year to year and for evaluation of areas that have change for better or worse. Annual Summary Fiscal Year MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2004 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 46, ,469, ,476.9 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 111, ,273, ,286.0 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 14, ,011, ,038.3 Student Commuting 185, ,206, , ,552.7 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 2, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 11, ,016, ,017.3 Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 48, ,581, ,642.2 Scope 2 111, ,273, ,286.0 Scope 3 211, ,300, , , ,144.9 All Scopes 371, ,156, , , ,073.0 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 29, P a g e

25 Annual Summary Fiscal Year MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2005 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 42, ,259, ,266.7 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 116, ,681, ,694.2 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 14, ,045, ,072.8 Student Commuting 186, ,269, , ,617.5 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 2, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 11, ,056, ,057.7 Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 44, ,379, ,439.3 Scope 2 116, ,681, ,694.2 Scope 3 213, ,436, , , ,276.3 All Scopes 374, ,497, , , ,409.9 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 29, P a g e

26 Annual Summary Fiscal Year MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2006 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 45, ,430, ,438.3 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 117, ,817, ,830.7 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 16, ,188, ,219.3 Student Commuting 186, ,297, , ,644.3 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 2, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 11, ,069, ,071.2 Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 47, ,540, ,599.8 Scope 2 117, ,817, ,830.7 Scope 3 215, ,619, , , ,472.8 All Scopes 380, ,978, , , ,903.3 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 29, P a g e

27 Annual Summary Fiscal Year MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2007 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 45, ,405, ,412.5 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 87, ,997, ,010.5 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 15, ,120, ,149.3 Student Commuting 183, ,173, , ,514.4 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 2, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 8, , Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 46, ,512, ,553.4 Scope 2 87, ,997, ,010.5 Scope 3 208, ,146, , , ,969.3 All Scopes 342, ,657, , , ,533.2 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 26, P a g e

28 Annual Summary Fiscal Year 2008 MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2008 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 46, ,441, ,449.3 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 90, ,215, ,228.6 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 15, ,112, ,141.8 Student Commuting 190, ,610, , ,964.0 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 2, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 8, , Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 47, ,548, ,580.3 Scope 2 90, ,215, ,228.6 Scope 3 215, ,595, , , ,431.5 All Scopes 353, ,360, , , ,240.5 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 27, P a g e

29 Annual Summary Fiscal Year MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2009 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 44, ,376, ,384.2 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 78, ,227, ,239.2 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 15, ,127, ,157.3 Student Commuting 191, ,651, , ,006.3 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 1, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 7, , Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 46, ,483, ,510.0 Scope 2 78, ,227, ,239.2 Scope 3 215, ,553, , , ,376.1 All Scopes 340, ,264, , , ,125.3 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 26, P a g e

30 Annual Summary Fiscal Year 2010 ODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2010 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 32, ,713, ,719.2 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 62, ,750, ,759.8 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 15, ,103, ,132.7 Student Commuting 202, ,442, , , ,816.8 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 1, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 6, , Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 33, ,816, ,843.9 Scope 2 62, ,750, ,759.8 Scope 3 224, ,173, , , ,894.0 All Scopes 320, ,740, , , ,497.7 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 24, P a g e

31 Annual Summary Fiscal Year 2011 MODULE WORKSHEET UNIVERSITY Summary Overview of Annual Emissions Lakeland Community College Select Year --> 2011 Energy Consumption CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 29, ,564, ,569.1 Direct Transportation 1, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 59, ,426, ,434.8 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 15, ,119, ,148.6 Student Commuting 203, ,523, , , ,901.4 Directly Financed Air Travel , Other Directly Financed Travel , Study Abroad Air Travel Solid Waste - - 5, Wastewater - - 1, Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 5, , Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 30, ,667, ,694.4 Scope 2 59, ,426, ,434.8 Scope 3 225, ,237, , , ,969.0 All Scopes 315, ,330, , , ,098.3 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 24, P a g e