2009-2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report
Capital Planning & Development Department
Sustainability Interns Fall 2010 / Spring 2011
Completed December 15, 2011
Linfield College
Green House Gas Report
January 2012
ABSTRACT
Using data gathered from fiscal year 2009-2010, this report is the second inventory of
Linfield’s McMinnville Campus greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with the
American College and University President’s Climate Commitment. It forms a basis for
future biannual emissions reports, and towards development of an action plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Significant finds of this report compared with the first inventory:
2006-2007
2009-2010
Emission Total
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
Totals
MT eC02
3,368
NA
4,511
7,879
MT eC02
3,380
NA
4,523
7,903
Emissions per Linfield student
Emissions per 100 square feet
Emissions per $10.000 of
4.6 MT eC02
8.0 MT eC02
2.0 MT eCO2
4.9 MT eC02
8.0 MT eC02
2.1 MT eCO2
Underlined years 2007 & 2010 will refer to the respective fiscal year throughout this report
The data for 2010 year has increased 1.0% from our first report. This increase is
attributed to additional emission categories not included in the first report. Linfield now
includes refrigerants & chemicals, agriculture, solid waste and waste water into our data
base, and deleted faculty/staff/student commuting mileage due to lack of verification.
These changes along with original interpretation of data created comparative
differences between the first and second reports. Linfield will use the 2010 year as the
new benchmark year for comparison with future changes in our green house gas
emissions.
Because Linfield’s electricity is sourced from 96% hydroelectric and 4% wind power and
other sources there are no emissions reported for electrical usage. Nonetheless, it
remains important to reduce electricity usage due to capacity constraints on carbon
neutral electricity sources. Use of hydroelectric and wind power instead of regional
average electricity sources allows Linfield to avoid emissions of 3,713 MT eC02, which
corresponds to 2.3 MTeC02 per student, a savings of 32%.
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2007, Linfield College President Thomas L. Hellie appointed an Advisory
Committee on the Environmental and Sustainability (ACES), comprised of students,
faculty and staff. That committee compiled information about what Linfield has been
doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and recommended that the President sign
the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) to
reduce those emissions. On April 22, 2008, Earth Day, President Hellie signed that
commitment.
Since the signing of the ACUPCC document Linfield has completed several energy
conservations projects saving approximately 1 million kWh (1). This would be in
addition to energy savings from past projects.
METHODS
Data was collected for Scopes 1, 2 and 3 following Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus
Calculator (CACP) and all conclusions reported were based on results from that
calculator.
The ACUPCC identifies direct and indirect emissions which are divided into three scopes
used for reporting purposes. Definitions below are quoted from ACUPCC
Implementation Guide.
Scope 1 includes “direct GHG emissions occurring from sources that are owned or
controlled by the institution including: on-campus stationary combustion of fossil fuels;
mobile combustion of fossil fuels by institution owned/controlled vehicles; and fugitive
emissions”.
Linfield owns and operates a Central Heating Plant (CHP) which produces steam from
natural gas. The college is on interruptible tariff which requires Linfield to use heating
fuel oil, diesel light or PS300 fuels as back-up in case of natural gas shortages. There
was an interruption of natural gas during the 2010 fiscal year and heating fuel oil was
included into the final calculation of emissions.
Scope 1 emission sources for Linfield College include: the CHP, Direct Transportation,
and two new sources: Refrigerants & Chemicals and Agriculture (fertilizers). These
newest categories increased emissions by 82 MT eC02 or 2.4% from our 07 data.
Data collected from Capital Planning & Development Office and Facilities Services
Scope 2 includes “direct emissions generated in the production of electricity consumed
by the institution”. Linfield purchases its electricity from McMinnville Water & Light who
purchases 96% from Bonneville Power Administration as hydroelectric power. The
remaining 4% is purchased from a variety of sources including wind (2). Therefore,
campus electricity usage does not directly contribute to Linfield’s C02 emissions in a
significant and tractable fashion.
Although Linfield has no significant Scope 2 emissions, there is still a benefit to reducing
electricity usage. Regional and national sources of carbon neutral electricity are limited,
and by reducing Linfield’s electricity usage, capacity is made available to others. Hence,
Linfield’s potential emissions, as if regional average sources of electricity were used,
have also been calculated. This will allow Linfield to demonstrate the impact of future
reductions in electrical usage.
Utility data were provided by the Capital Planning & Development Office and
information on electricity sources provided by McMinnville Water and Light.
Scope 3 underscores “all other indirect emissions-those that are a consequence of
the activities of the institution, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the
institution”. Data was collected from a variety of sources around campus including:
Controller’s Office, Institutional Research, Human Resources, International Program
Office, Facilities Services and Capital Planning.
Emissions from solid and water waste was added to this category. These newly
reported emissions increased Linfield’s total by 247 MT eC02 or 5.5% from 07 data.
Information on solid waste CH4 Recovery for Electric Generation was provided by
Western Oregon Waste and Waste Management. Information on the waste water
treatment was provided by McMinnville Public Works Department. (3)
Linfield did not include faculty/staff/student commuting emissions due to lack of
accurate information.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Linfield identified and collected new emission data on refrigerants, chemicals, fertilizer
usage, solid waste and waste water in the 2010 year. These additions along with a reanalysis of the 2007 data suggested discrepancies in comparisons between the data
sets of 2007 and 2010. Based on these changes the College has determined the 2010
year will become the new base line year.
Emission Comparisons with other NW Colleges/Universities
Linfield College’s emissions compare favorably with nearby liberal arts colleges as
summarized in Table 1. Because Linfield’s electrical consumption is almost entirely from
hydro our net emissions are considerably lower than similar colleges in the Pacific
Northwest. If Linfield electrical consumption was included in our emissions calculations,
then our total emissions would be 11,616 MTeC02 and emissions by FTE and GSF would
be consistent with the other colleges. The electrical savings reduces emissions by 32%.
Table 1. Emissions (MTeC02) Comparisons for all Scopes
Net Total
Emissions/FTE
Emissions/1000GSF
2010
2010
2008
2007
Linfield
Lewis &
Clark
Willamette
University
of Portland
7,903
4.9
8.0
12,554
3.6
10.0
17,934
6.9
12.8
17,772
5.5
14.9
Data collected from ACUPCC website
Emission Distribution
Figure 1 summarizes the distribution of emissions from different sources.
2009
Seattle
Pacific____
17,934
6.9
12.8
College related travel is the major contributor to Linfield’s green house gas emissions,
followed by natural gas usage from our Central Heating Plant. Clearly if Linfield is to
approach net zero emissions we will need to focus on these two items. In the future
strategies will be developed to lower emissions in all categories with emphasis on the
two largest. Lowering of natural gas emissions may be attainable and should be
reviewed first.
Table 2. Shows comparison between 2007 & 2010 natural gas usage
Fiscal Year
Therms
MTeC02
Fall FTE
Building GSF
HDD*
2006-2007
565,853
2994
1713
981,007
5921
2009-2010
561,163
2985
1608
983,204
6656
Differences in consumption from 2007 and 2010 is only 0.8% is not considered
significant.
*HDD-Heating Degree Day (5)
Addition of New Emissions to Baseline
In calculating Linfield’s 2010 based year several additions to the 2007 data was
included to Scopes 1 and 3. In Scope 1 refrigerants and fertilizers were added which
increased total emissions by 82 MT eC02 or 2.4% from the 2007 data. In Scope 3 solid
waste and waste water emissions were added which increased emissions by 247 MT
eC02 or 5.4% from 2007 data. These increases were partially offset by decreases in
existing categories.
Table 2. Comparison of 2007 and 2010 emissions
Scope 1
CHP
Direct Transportation
Refrigerants
Fertilizers
Totals
Scope 2
MTeC02
2007
MTeCo2
2010
2994
374
N/A
N/A
3368
2985
313
69
13
3380
N/A
N/A
Total
Percent Change_______
0.4%
Scope 3
Commuting
Air Travel
Other Travel
Solid Waste
Water Waste
Totals
1094
3319
98
N/A
N/A
4511
N/A
4021
256
234
12
4523
0.3%
Totals all Scopes
7879
7903
0.3%
100% of the emission increases are created by the additions of items in Scopes 1&3.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of 2007-2010 Emissions
Data showed an increase of 24 MTeC02 from 2007 to 2010; however 328 MTeC02 is
attributed to additional emission sources not previously identified. Additionally, no
commuting emissions could be verified in 2010 and were omitted from totals. In 2007
commuting emissions accounted for 1094 MTeC02.
During the periods between the two reports the college completed a variety of
electrical energy conservation projects that reduced overall consumption by 902,715
kWh. This translates into lowering of our carbon footprint by 619 MT eC02 (6).
Comparisons of Emissions with other NW Colleges and Universities
Linfield’s net total emission are about half of the average emissions reported by 4 other
Pacific NW colleges. This difference is attributed to the “Linfield Hydro Factor”, which
allows Linfield to obtain most of its electrical energy from a renewable source. When
factoring in the electrical energy consumed into our total emissions Linfield is still lower
or equal to the comparison colleges in all emission categories.
Emission Distribution
Comparison of emission distribution is generally similar to our 2007 report with air
travel and natural gas the largest contributors to emissions. Natural gas emissions
were similar at 38% of the total MTeC02 produced for both years; while college travel
was 58% for 2010 compared with 48% in 2007. We attribute the difference in how
data was collected and calculated in 2007.
Linfield’s travel abroad program is a prominent and important part of the curriculum
which requires community discussion before strategies on emission reduction can be
developed. Reductions in natural gas usage are attainable and can be developed
through behavior and engineering changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Immediately develop a procedure to capture all travel - miles by departments
and establish as college policy. This is paramount in collecting consistent data
between bi-annual periods.
2. Capital Planning & Development Office and Facilities Services work together in
developing a natural gas reduction program. This program should comprise both
engineered solutions along with a strong educational program to promote
conservation.
3. Develop and conduct annual faculty/staff/student commuting surveys to provide
a consistent methodology for calculating commuting emissions.
4. Use the 2010 GHG Report as the new baseline year.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
(1). Linfield College internal document. Capital Planning & Development Office,
July 21, 2010. Historic Record of Energy Conservation Projects.
(2) Information provided by McMinnville Water & Light, December 2011.
(3) Information obtained from Western Oregon Waste, November 2011 AND
McMinnville Department of Public Works Environmental Services, September
2011
(4) MT eC02 numbers calculated using Linfield 2009-2010 CACP calculated results
and extrapolating by ratio analysis
(5) Heating Degree Days (HDD) is a calculation typically used to normalized
energy data when calculating energy savings to buildings.
(6) EPA-2011, eGRID 2010 Version 1.1
Formula: 6.8956 x10-4 MT C02 /kWh.