Greenhouse Gas Assessment 2009-2010 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
a project of the EYP Planet program Content Prepared By: The Green Roundtable 38 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ table of contents Executive Summary 1 Part I: GHG Protocol and Background 3 GHG Protocol Project Background Part II: CO 2 E Assessment Scope 7 Scope Reporting Period Gases Included CO 2 E and Global Warming Potential Part III: Conversion Factors 11 Conversion Factors Part IV: Data Collection 15 Process Assumptions Part V: Results 21 Total MTCO 2 E by Scope Total MTCO 2 E by Location Total MTCO 2 E by Person Part VI: CO 2 Reduction 29 CO 2 Reduction / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
Proportional Dot Map Representing the Amount of CO 2 Produced by EYP Offices * Boston, MA 587 metric tons of CO 2 Albany, NY 756 metric tons of CO 2 New York, NY 136 metric tons of CO 2 Washington, D.C. 922 metric tons of CO 2 Orlando, FL 34 metric tons of CO 2 *numbers reflect yearly production / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ executive summary EYP Planet is an exciting initiative launched in 2008 that established a quantitative baseline to inform and measure current sustainable efforts relative to EYP s day-to-day business practices in addition to establishing future short and long term goals. The vision for EYP Planet is to improve EYP s performance as a business relative to the environment and to position EYP as a leader in green business practices within the AE industry. This greenhouse gas assessment is a project of the larger EYP Planet program. EYP Eco Facilitators and the Vice President for Design and Expertise lead the process. Eco Facilitators worked with each office location s Resource Directors and Office Managers, to establish and execute a plan for data collection for each of the offices included in the assessment. The offices participating in the assessment are Albany, Boston, New York City, Orlando and Washington D.C. The scope of this assessment includes emissions due to refrigerant and air conditioning use, purchased electricity, heat, and steam, waste disposal, employee business travel and commuting, and production of purchased materials. This initial effort provided much information regarding modifications to the calculator and changes in data collection that were necessary to more successfully capture an image of EYP s current impact. Going forward this effort will serve as the baseline from which further reductions may be measured and the calculator will continue to be used by EYP in an effort to reduce their impact. As a result of this assessment, the total GHG emissions produced by EYP offices in 2009 are approximately 2,435 Metric tons of CO 2 Equivalent, which results in an average of 8 Metric tons per person. Purchased energy and transportation in the form of commuting are identified as the largest drivers of emissions. As previously mentioned, EYP plans to use this assessment to set a baseline and inform their ongoing work to increase their organizational sustainability. A goal to reduce emissions by 5% annually or approximately 100 MT of CO 2 E per year would enable EYP to become carbon neutral by 2030. In order to reduce emissions the primary focus should be on purchased energy and transportation. Because EYP offices are tenants in their spaces, control over building systems efficiency is limited. However there are ways to reduce energy consumption that can be followed including specific energy conservation measures, use of energy efficient equipment, and evaluating lighting for potential retrofit opportunities. Going forward, choosing to locate offices within energy efficient buildings close to public transportation will assist EYP in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions due to energy use. Emissions due to commuting can be reduced through programs to incentivize or reward carpooling, use of public transportation and teleconferencing. This document represents Part I of EYP Planet initiative and provides a summary of EYP s offices Green House Gas baseline. The results are followed by recommendations for future data collection and assessments. Part II of the initiative identifies several action plans for potential reductions. 1 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
2 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
part I / GHG Protocol and Background 3 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
GHG Protocol What is a Green House Gas assessment and how is it measured? Greenhouse gases are gases that collect in the Earth s atmosphere and trap heat. As described on the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Emissions web page, some greenhouse gases occur in nature, while others emitted through human actions. The Environmental Protection Agency lists the following four gases as the main gases produced through human activity : 1. Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). 2. Methane (CH 4 ) Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. 3. Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. 4. Fluorinated Gases Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Scopes included in WRI s Corporate Protocol for GHG Accounting Purchased Electricity, Heat, and/or Steam CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O CO 2, CH 4 N 2 O, HFC, PFC, SF 6 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Produced Electricity, Heat, or Steam, Company-owned Transport, and Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Units CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Waste Disposal, Employee Transportation, Purchased Materials, Contractor Transportation, and Off-Site Computer Servers 4 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ GHG protocol and background Greenhouse gas emissions can be measured using a variety of standards with a variety of tools that are available. A typical assessment may divide the sources of GHG emissions into the following three scope areas. Scope 1 Direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the business; electricity, heat, and/or steam produced on-site; company-owned transport; and refrigeration and air conditioning units. Company-owned transportation can include company cars, private jets, and trucks transporting company products. Scope 2 Indirect GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, and/or steam used in the office. Scope 3 Indirect emissions from waste disposal, employee transportation, production of purchased materials, and contractor vehicles. Wasterelated emissions are a function of the disposal method (e.g., landfilling, recycling, combustion) as well as the types of materials disposed. Employee transportation includes modes and distances employees commute to and from work along with any travel associated with work, such as travel to conferences. The production of purchased materials, such as computers, and paper is included in scope 3 estimates. Project Background This greenhouse gas assessment is a project of the larger EYP Planet program. The goal of this assessment is to provide a benchmark of the firm s carbon footprint. This benchmark will be used to evaluate EYP s current sustainability efforts as well as indicate potential areas for further reduction efforts. The five offices participating in the assessment are Albany, Boston, New York City, Orlando and Washington D.C. For this carbon assessment GRT reviewed the variety of available standards, guidance documents and best practices. For this project GRT chose the Office Carbon Footprint Tool available from the Environmental Protection Agency and developed by ICF. As stated in the calculator, the format follows methodologies and emission factors presented in the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development s (WRI/WBCSD) GHG Protocol Corporate Standard for organizations estimating GHG emissions and basic methodology recommended in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance. GRT made numerous updates, revisions and additions to the calculator to improve the accuracy of the results of this assessment. General EYP Office Statistics by Location Location People Square Feet Albany, NY 122 34,000 Boston, MA 75 22,100 New York, NY 31 8,100 Orlando, FL 4 1,800 Washington, DC 76 23,200 5 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
6 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
part II / CO 2 E Assessment Scope 7 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
Scope For this assessment the WRI scopes outlined in the previous section were tailored to EYP as follows: Scope 1: Refrigerants in company-owned refrigerators. Scope 2: Purchased and pro-rated electricity. Scope 3: Employee business travel and commuting, pro-rated building heating, landlord-controlled refrigerants, production of purchased materials, waste & wastewater disposal. Other: Non-Kyoto Gases (refrigerants such as CFC s and HCFC s). Inventory Scope For EYP* Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Other Office Sites REFRIGERANTS PURCHASED TRANSPORT. PRO-RATED LANDLORD PURCHASING WASTE & NON-KYOTO ELECTRICITY HEAT REFRIGERANTS WASTEWATER GASES DISPOSAL (REFRIGERANTS) ALBANY BOSTON n/a INCLUDED NEW YORK n/a ORLANDO WASHINGTON D.C. EXCLUDED NONOTECH GREENVILLE *All emissions categories not listed under Scope 1 and Scope 2 are not applicable. Reporting Period Office Building Energy Purchasing Waste Water Transportation ALBANY 2009 40 days in 2009 2009 JAN-JUNE 2009 BOSTON 2008 2009 40 days in 2009 2009 JAN-JUNE 2009 NEW YORK 2009 2009 40 days in 2009 2009 JAN-JUNE 2009 ORLANDO JUNE 2008 JUNE 2009 2009 40 days in 2009 2009 JAN-JUNE 2009 Reporting Period The reporting periods for this assessment is summarized in the table below. It is suggested that the reporting period across scope areas and locations be synchronized in future assessments. WASHINGTON D.C. 2008 2009 40 days in 2009 2009 JAN-JUNE 2009 8 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ CO 2 E assessment scope Gases Included All of the major applicable greenhouse gases were included: CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, and HFC s. CFC-12 and HCFC-22 were also tracked as Non-Kyoto Protocol Gases (not considered part of Scope 1, 2, or 3). Please see the following table detailing gases and corresponding emissions sources. CO2 and Global Warming Potential For reporting, it is necessary to convert the variety of greenhouse gases that are included in a common measurement. The unit that is typically used is carbon dioxide equivalent or (CO 2 E). CO 2 E is obtained by multiplying the greenhouse gas by its global warming potential (GWP). The calculator has been updated to incorporate GWP from the most recent available Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For the assessment the calculator used GWP from the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The following table shows GWP as detailed in the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Gases Included Kyoto Protocol Gases Non-Kyoto Protocol Gases Included CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O HFC s PFC s SF 6 CFC-12 Emissions HCFC-22 NATURAL GAS X X n/a n/a n/a n/a FUEL OILS #1-#6 X X n/a n/a n/a n/a ELECTRICITY n/a n/a n/a n/a REFRIGERANT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a MICRO-RELEASES MOTOR GASOLINE n/a n/a n/a n/a (EXCEPT BUS) MOTOR DIESEL n/a n/a n/a n/a (EXCEPT BUS) PASSENGER RAIL n/a n/a n/a n/a CNG BUS n/a n/a n/a n/a Global Warming Potentials for Gases Applicable to EYP Gas GWP CO 2 (Carbon Dioxide ) 1 CH 4 (Methane) 25 N 2 O (Nitrous Oxide) 298 CFC-12 10,900 HCFC-22 1,810 HFC-134a 1,430 *HFC-410c 1,640+/- GWP s taken from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Global Warming Potentials Table except *HFC-410c (not listed in IPCC Table) JET FUEL n/a n/a n/a n/a PURCHASED MATERIALS X X n/a n/a n/a n/a WASTE-RECYCLING n/a n/a n/a n/a & LANDFILL WASTE WATER n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
10 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
part III / Conversion Factors 11 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
12 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ conversion factors Conversion Factors The conversion factors that were used in this assessment are detailed in the calculator available online at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/wastewise/carboncalc.htm. However, modifications needed to be made to the calculator to account for bus transportation as well as an entry for emissions due to purchased heat from natural gas and fuel oil as well as hot water. Revisions to EPA Calculator Added ability to input Refrigerant and Air Conditioning Use under Scope 2. Added Fuel Oil under Purchased Electricity, Heat, and Steam. Added Buses to Transportation. Revised 1 cell in the Forest Carbon Sequestration column on Waste Factors tab to match EPA value (changed from 0.83 to 0.55). Updated egrid data from 2004 to 2005 (most current available). Updated Global Warming Potential values from IPCC 2nd Assessment Report to IPCC 4th Assessment Report 13 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
14 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
part IV / data collection 15 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
Process As previously mentioned in order to facilitate the assessment EYP created a staff team of Eco Facilitators. Eco Facilitators worked with the Resource Directors and Office Managers, to establish and execute a plan for data collection for each of the offices included in the assessment. The experiences and efforts of EYP s staff in regard to data collection for this assessment are detailed below. Gathering data to establish baseline, goals, and progress for EYP Planet was challenging, because we were collecting various types of data across office locations in several cities, and different cities have different recycling rules and utility providers. We also needed to educate vendors and landlords about what we were doing, so that they could supply the detailed information we required. Although the Firm had not undertaken such an effort before, our Eco Facilitators met the challenge head on, working with local Resource Directors and Office Managers to establish and execute a data collection plan for each of the offices included in the assessment. We learned a lot along the way, and now that our vendors and landlords understand what we are looking for and why, the process should run more efficiently in the future. The EYP Planet team gathered data concerning the Firm s energy usage, purchasing, operations and refrigerants, waste and recycling, and transportation. 16 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ data collection Energy Annual energy data was collected from each office and analyzed to determine use per square foot. In Albany and NYC, this process was relatively simple, because our actual electric use is directly metered. For other offices, we pro-rated our energy use according to the percentage of a building that EYP occupies. Boston and NYC use additional heating energy which also had to be pro-rated. (Albany s heating is electric, employing air-to-air heat pumps, so it had already been accounted for.) We converted electric and heating energy to equivalent emissions in CO 2 using local factors which vary considerably, because they are based on the energy source used to generate electricity. This factor (lbs of CO 2 per kwh) is well below the national average for NY and MA, reflecting the percentage of hydroelectric and nuclear power, as well as natural gas. In Washington DC, the factor is several times higher due to the greater reliance of electricity providers on coal and oil. Purchasing Purchasing was evaluated in two categories, which were capital expenditures and office supplies. We were tasked with calculating the amount of recycled content in the materials we buy for our offices. The majority of our office supplies is paper. We worked with our office supply vendors and printing facilities to obtain our annual paper purchase in pounds, and determined how much of the paper contained recycled material. We assessed capital expenditures including computers, office furniture, and office renovation materials. We counted all computers, including how many of each model, and checked their specifications to ascertain unit weight and recycled content (if any). We called the manufacturers of our office furniture to determine unit weight of furnishings and weight of recycled content (if any). Renovations had to be handled differently. We measured partition walls and glass walls and calculated their weight and recycled content. We calculated weights for ceiling and carpet tiles by area to determine the number of tiles, and then calculated the recycled content weight (when available) for each tile. We also noted the weight of window shades, (these appeared to have no recycled content.) While we were unable to calculate the total weight of recycled content of all new office furnishings, we did provide the manufacturer s LEED information and a list of all the components that had been purchased. Operations and Refrigerants A team member in each office location contacted the building manager or directly reviewed the products used including hand soap, paper towels, hand dryers, toilet paper, trash bags (various), toilet room cleaner, glass cleaner, multi-purpose cleaner, dish soap, dishwasher soap, and mop soap. Each product was also checked to determine its environmentally-friendly or green content and typical usage rates, such as with paper products. We employed a similar process to review refrigerants. These products included those used by domestic refrigerators, chillers, residential and commercial A/C, and mobile A/C. We recorded the total number of units, area served, refrigerant charge, and type of refrigerant. Waste and Recycling The process of tracking waste and recycling quantities in our Albany, Boston, NYC, Orlando, and Washington, DC offices was a collaborative effort that required input from many people. Once we determined which items we should track and why, we met with Office Managers and Resource Directors to identify appropriate collection locations for waste and recycling and to contact building owners about coordinating 17 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
with waste haulers. Our building owners supported the weighing process by providing additional receptacles in one office (Boston); reserving loading dock space to store the materials (Boston, Washington, DC, NYC); and, in the case of Albany, modifying the collection schedule for our office. We measured our waste and recycling over an eight-week period thanks to the help of volunteers. Every Office Coordinator scheduled volunteers for each daily task and created excel spreadsheets to collect the data. In each office, the volunteer of the day spent about 15 to 30 minutes weighing the follow items: trash, paper, third-class mail, cardboard, glass, plastic, and metal. In addition, volunteers in our Albany office took composting home to their gardens about every other week. Transportation We collected data on various aspects of employee business-related travel, from daily commutes to travel for project work and travel among EYP offices. We employed two methods of data collections. Our travel agent provided total air miles traveled, which was calculated by multiplying the average number of air miles traveled per trip by the total number of trips within a given time period. In the future, we will work with our travel agent to break down the total by travel type, i.e., interoffice, project related, conferences, etc. We also surveyed all staff about distance traveled and mode of transportation, achieving a response rate of approximately 70 percent. Respondents indicated whether they traveled by car, train, plane, foot, bike, or bus for daily commute, travel to project sites, and travel to other EYP offices. The format allowed respondents to indicate mixed modes of travel (i.e. riding a bike to work in the summer and driving in the winter, or walking and riding mass transit to work). We also tracked situations in which employees do not commute to the office every day (i.e., part-time jobs or telecommuting). 18 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ data collection Assumptions The following assumptions were made in order to complete this assessment: Assumptions re: Transportation Flights to clients are sorted into trip length by a calculated simple average of total miles divided by number of trips made. (Short, medium and long-haul flight distinctions are for one-way distances.) Flights to clients are assumed all to be direct flights. All flights are assumed to be economy class. Rail distances for interoffice travel taken from Fall 2009/Winter 2010 Amtrak System Timetable. For interoffice travel, responses giving a primary means of travel other than a car but indicating a number of people in the carpool were ignored, assuming this meant carpooling the short distances on either side of the journey. Since no distance data was given, did not estimate. Carpooling: Interoffice travel was not divided by number of people in the carpool, assuming that these groups are all EYP employees and that they weren t counted twice by separate respondents. Commuting travel was divided by number of people, assuming carpool members may be neighbors or spouses and not all going to EYP. Unspecified bus miles are included as diesel. Inter-office travel by car is assumed to be in a medium gasoline car. Assumptions re: Purchasing and Waste Average values for recycled content for all consumables other than paper (aluminum, glass, cardboard, PET) were used. The values for average recycled content may be found in the calculator. All metal recycled assumed to be aluminum. Assumed the 40-day reporting period (on waste data) was consecutive calendar days. To divide up the reported Total Trash into the material categories, a direct proportion between the percent recycled of each material category and the Total Recycled amount (in pounds) was assumed. 19 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
20 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
part V / Results 21 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
22 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ results EYP Total MTCO 2 E by Scope 3000 Total MTCO2 per Person 2500 / results Figure 5.3 illustrates EYP greenhouse gas emissions per person by location. The offices with 2000 the greatest emissions per person are Washington D.C., Orlando and Boston. 1500 1000 500 Total MTCO 2 E by Scope Illustrated: Total EYP greenhouse gas emissions in MTCO 2 E. The total emissions is approximately 2,436 Metric tons of CO 2 Equivalent. As a result of this assessment, purchased energy and transportation have been identified as the largest contributors of emissions. Additionally, it is important to note that the results show a negative amount of emissions, or a credit under waste. This is due to the fact that according to the EPA, recycling some materials such as aluminum, corrugated cardboard, newspaper, dimensional lumber, and medium-density fiberboard reduces greenhouse gas emissions more than source reduction. The EPA states that This is because recycling is assumed to displace 100 percent virgin inputs, whereas source reduction is assumed to displace some recycled and some virgin inputs. 0 Total Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Other MTCO 2 E Total Scope 1-0 Scope 2 1,231 For further information please see: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/srvsrecycling.html Scope 3 1,124 Other 80 Total 2,435 23 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
EYP Total MTCO 2 E by Location 1000 Total MTCO 2 E by Location Illustrated: EYP greenhouse gas emissions in MTCO 2 E by location. The offices with the largest emissions are Washington D.C. with 922 MT, Albany with 756 MT and Boston with 587 MT. All three offices produce the majority of their emissions from purchased energy and transportation. Additionally, it is important to note that the offices in Washington D.C., Albany, Boston are where most EYP employees are located. 800 600 400 200 Washington Orlando Boston Albany New York 0-200 Total Refrigerants Purchased Energy Transportation Other Scope 3 Non-Kyoto Gases (Pro-Rated Heat, (Refrigerants) Landlord Refrigerants, Waste & Purchasing) Wastewater Disposal Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Other MT Per Location TOTAL Refrigerants Purchased Transportation Other* Waste & Non-Kyoto Energy Scope 3 Wastewater Gases Disposal Washington 922-0 700 191 15-28 45 Orlando 34-0 16 17-0 -0-0 Boston 587-0 227 305 123-68 -0 Albany 756-0 246 481 14-20 35 New York 136-0 42 51 46-3 -0 TOTAL 2435-0 1231 2276 2474-119 80 24 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
EYP Total MTCO 2 E Per Person / results 14 Washington 12 10 8 Orlando Boston Albany New York 6 4 2 0-2 Total Refrigerants Purchased Energy Transportation Other Scope 3 Non-Kyoto Gases (Pro-Rated Heat, (Refrigerants) Landlord Refrigerants, Waste & Purchasing) Wastewater Disposal Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Other MT Per Person TOTAL Refrigerants Purchased Transportation Other* Waste & Non-Kyoto Energy Scope 3 Wastewater Gases Disposal Washington 12-0 9 3-0 0 1 Orlando 8-0 4 4-0 0-0 Boston 7-0 3 4 2-1 -0 Albany 6-0 2 4 0 0-0 New York 4-0 1 2 1 0-0 Average 8 MT per person 25 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
Total EYP emission of 2,435 metric tons of CO 2 Equivalent is equal to... 26 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ results... the amount of CO 2 emissions from 273,903 gallons of gasoline consumed. That s as many gallons of gasoline as it takes the average mid-size car to drive from Boston, MA to San Diego, CA and back 1,305 times.... the amount of carbon sequestered annually by 519 acres of forest. That s enough trees to fill 393 football fields.... the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from sending 820 tons of waste to the landfill. That s as much waste 1,122 people will produce on average annually. 27 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
28 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
part VI / CO 2 Reduction 29 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
30 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ CO2 Reduction Projected CO2 Reduction 3000.0 2500.0 2000.0 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 Carbon Production Offset Payment Adjusted Carbon Production CO 2 Reduction In preparation for this assessment EYP has implemented a variety of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. As continued efforts are tracked, progress as well as potential areas for improvement can be documented. As previously mentioned, purchased energy and transportation have been identified as the largest contributors of emissions. These areas should be targeted for reduction. An overall reduction goal of 5% annually or approximately 100 MT of CO 2 E per year would enable EYP to become carbon neutral by 2030. 0.0-500.0-1000.0-1500.0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 Strategies that should be evaluated to reduce emissions include energy conservation measures, use of new technologies to reduce interoffice travel, transportation management plans targeting commuting and education and outreach to increase employee engagement. Further, once emissions have been reduced, carbon offsets may be purchased to achieve carbon neutral. 31 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
Energy EYP s energy related emission result from purchased heat and electricity as well as refrigerants. There are multiple strategies that should be evaluated to reduce energy consumption including; Submetering Lighting retrofits Occupancy and/or daylight sensors ENERGY STAR Equipment Commissioning Education and outreach Submetering will enable the electricity consumption of specific systems or plug loads to be tracked. Lighting can be evaluated for possible retrofits with more efficient options. Occupancy and/or daylight sensors can be installed to reduce excess lighting use or used to control heating/cooling and ventilation and energy efficient ENERGY STAR equipment can be used. Additionally, adjusting thermostats will conserve heating/cooling when spaces are unoccupied. Commissioning can be used to verify performance of building systems and pinpoint opportunities for improvement. Also, use of refrigerants with lower global warming potential, combined with efficient equipment as well implementation of preventative maintenance to reduce leakage will reduce refrigerant related emissions. Further employees can be educated to turn off computers, monitors and task lighting when those items are not in use. Transportation There are three sources of EYP s transportation emissions, commuting, interoffice travel and project related travel. Of the three sources of transportation emissions interoffice travel may be the easiest to target for reduction. For commuting, individuals will use the easiest, most cost effective commuting method, and project related travel is a must in many cases. Some strategies that should be evaluated to reduce transportation related emission include: Increase tracking of travel, specifically reduce interoffice travel Education and outreach In regard to commuting, outreach can be done to encourage employees to carpool, or use public transportation or, an incentive could reward individuals for reducing emissions due to transportation. 32 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.
/ CO2 Reduction There are immediate steps that can be taken to reduce interoffice travel and the related emissions. EYP has already begun to take steps to reduce interoffice travel. To facilitate tracking the travel agency that is used has been engaged so that travel can be tracked at point of purchase. Emissions resulting from interoffice travel have been targeted for reduction through adoption of new technologies to facilitate communication between offices. The new technology, the Huddle will allow employees to interact visually and verbally in real time from different locations. In order to ensure that employees are fully utilizing this new technology EYP is conducting training. Simultaneously, employees are given the updated travel policy which aims to limit interoffice travel. Purchasing, Waste and Water That the purchase of environmentally preferable products for both capital expenditures and office supplies reduces the impact on virgin resources as well as fosters market demand for like products. Waste and wastewater results show a negative amount of emissions or a credit under waste. This is due to the fact that according to the EPA, recycling some materials such as aluminum, corrugated cardboard, newspaper, dimensional lumber, and medium-density fiberboard reduces greenhouse gas emissions more than source reduction. Therefore while diverting waste from landfill or reducing water use has a smaller impact than energy or transportation in this assessment, it is a positive impact. Additionally there are many other environmental benefits that can be attributed to recycling and water efficiency. Carbon Offsets (& RECs) As previously mentioned, once emissions have been reduced, offsets may be purchased to further reduce impact. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) or green power can be purchased to support the generation of renewable energy, and Carbon Offsets can be used to offset carbon emissions (note that RECs and Carbon Offsets do not address the same issues). According to Renewable Choice, the cost for RECs equivalent to EYP s annual electricity consumption is approximately $4,000. According to Carbon Solutions Group, the cost for Carbon Offsets equivalent to EYP s annual Carbon Emissions is approximately $24,000. EYP Planet is an exciting initiative that has used this assessment to establish a baseline which will be used to inform and measure current sustainability efforts relative to its day-to-day business practices. Additionally the exercise of conducting this assessment and the findings contained in this report will directly impact the development and implementation of future short and long term goals to reduce EYP s environmental impact.
/ Copyright 2010 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C. All rights reserved 34 / EYP Architecture and Engineering P.C.