Greenhouse Gas Inventory FY1998 - FY2009 University of Tennessee at - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
greenhouse gas inventory fy1998 fy2009 university of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Greenhouse Gas Inventory FY1998 - FY2009 University of Tennessee at - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 21, 2024 342 likes •680 views

Greenhouse Gas Inventory FY1998 - FY2009 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Brad McAllister, WAP Sustainability, LLC Thursday, May 13, 2010 Background Thursday, May 13, 2010 Background American College and University Presidents

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Brad McAllister, WAP Sustainability, LLC Greenhouse Gas Inventory FY1998 - FY2009 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Background

  • American College and University President’s Climate Commitment

Signatory (ACUPCC)

  • 677 signatories
  • 16% of sector
  • Inception: 2007
  • Requirements
  • GHG inventory
  • Climate Action Plan
  • Implementation of key tangible actions
  • Annual reporting
Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-4
SLIDE 4 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-5
SLIDE 5 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Data Collection

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-7
SLIDE 7 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-8
SLIDE 8 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-9
SLIDE 9 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Key Concepts

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Key Concepts

  • CO2e
  • Baseline and Historical

Years

  • Scope 1, 2 and 3
Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-12
SLIDE 12

CO2e

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-13
SLIDE 13

CO2 + CH4 + N2O + (Synthetics) = CO2e

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Baseline vs. Historical

FY09 FY98-FY08

12 Years of GHG Emissions

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-16
SLIDE 16

What’s Included?

Scope Source FY2009 emissions Relative Contribution to total footprint Scope 1 On Campus Stationary University Fleet Fuel Use Scope 2 Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Wastewater Landfill waste Business Travel Student Commuting Faculty and Staff Commuting Scope 2 T&D Losses Other (credits) Forest Preservation Green Power Purchases Total, gross emissions Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-17
SLIDE 17 Scope 1 18% Scope 2 51% Scope 3 31% On-site Combustion 55% Fleet 45% 14% 46% 11% 1% 11% 0% 16% Faculty/Staff Commute Student Commuting Financed Air Travel Other Financed Travel Solid Waste Wastewater T & D Losses

Scope 1 Scope3

Key Finding: Absolute Emissions FY2009

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-18
SLIDE 18 Scope 1 18% Scope 2 51% Scope 3 31%

Key Finding: Absolute Emissions FY2009

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Key Finding: Relative Contribution

Scope Source FY2009 emissions Relative Contribution to total footprint Scope 1 On Campus Stationary University Fleet Fuel Use Scope 2 Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Wastewater Landfill waste Business Travel Student Commuting Faculty and Staff Commuting Scope 2 T&D Losses Other (credits) Forest Preservation Green Power Purchases Total, gross emissions Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Key Finding: Relative Contribution

Scope Source FY2009 emissions Relative Contribution to total footprint Scope 1 On Campus Stationary 5,716 10% University Fleet Fuel Use 4,653 8% Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 28,689 51% Scope 3 Wastewater 22 0% Landfill waste 1,961 3% Business Travel 2,069 4% Student Commuting 7,920 14% Faculty and Staff Commuting 2,448 4% Scope 2 T&D Losses 2,837 5% Other (credits) Forest Preservation (1,295.2) 2% Green Power Purchases (464.5) 0.8% Total, gross emissions 56,314 100% Total, net emissions 54,555 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Key Finding: Trends

Percent Change YEAR SCOPE 1 SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 Gross Emissions NET Emissions FY98 through FY09
  • 55%
32% 25%
  • 3%
  • 6%
15000 30000 45000 60000 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Institutional Data: Total Building Space Operating Budget Research Budget Energy Budget # Students # Faculty # Staff

Normalized Emissions

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Key Finding: Normalized Emissions

Year Operating Budget Research Budget Energy Budget Students Faculty and Staff Building Space g CO2e / $ Kg CO2e / $ Kg CO2e / $ MT CO2e / Person MT CO2e / Person Kg CO2e / FT3 FY98 889.7 60.9 13.1 8.1 7.2 31.4 FY09 623.6 38.4 12.2 6.3 5.3 22.3 Percent Change Year Operating Budget Research Budget Energy Budget Students Faculty and Staff Building Space FY98 through FY09
  • 30%
  • 37%
  • 16%
  • 22%
  • 26%
  • 12%
Highest and Lowest
  • 14%
  • 55%
  • 21%
  • 15%
21% 14% Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-24
SLIDE 24

Key Findings: Forecast

Percent Change YEAR SCOPE 1 SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 Gross Emissions FY09 - FY25 0% 25% 34% 5% FY09 - FY50 0% 54% 87% 36% Absolute Emissions YEAR SCOPE 1 SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 Gross Emissions FY09 10,369 28,689 17,263 56,321 FY25 35,786 23,087 58,873 FY50 44,137 32,230 76,367 *Report includes forecast estimate in 5 year increments beginning in 2015 Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Are We Good or Bad?

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-26
SLIDE 26

“Making fair comparisons between higher education institutions is always challenging due to the rich diversity of higher education. The unverified nature of the information in this database and unavailability of unbiased normalization metrics means such comparisons are even more difficult. Users should therefore approach direct institution to institution comparisons with caution and recognize that all comparisons between institutions are inherently biased.”

  • ACUPCC
Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-27
SLIDE 27

Making fair comparisons between higher education institutions is always challenging due to the rich diversity of higher education. The unverified nature of the information in this database and unavailability of unbiased normalization metrics means such comparisons are even more difficult. Users should therefore approach direct institution to institution comparisons with caution and recognize that all comparisons between institutions are inherently biased.

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-28
SLIDE 28

UTC Appalachian State Kennesaw Sewanee UTK Rhodes Carnegie Class 10 20 30 40

Per FTE Per 1000 ft2

MTCO2e

NOTE: Scope 3 excluded; Total Scope 1 + 2 = 39,058

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-29
SLIDE 29

TAKE HOME

  • Electricity is biggest contributor
  • Behavior is significant (commuting)
  • Water and waste have limited GHG impact (but...)
  • Impressive gains in on-site efficiency has decreased

emissions

  • Trees help but green power purchasing is insufficient
  • Total footprint will increase unless something is done
Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-30
SLIDE 30

THANK YOU

  • Dr. Deborah Arfken

Barbara Keegan Bob Snider Tom Ellis Doug Silver Maggie Hall Linda Collins

  • Dr. Thomas Wilson

Jillian Koss Donnie Hodge Danny West Kimberly McDonald

  • Dr. Richard "Dick" Gruetzemacher

Cynthia Taylor

Thursday, May 13, 2010
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Brad McAllister brad@wapsustainability.com 423-598-3329 www.wapsustainability.com

Thursday, May 13, 2010