BENNINGTON COLLEGE’S GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2012-2014
Carlos Torres ‘14,
Kilpatrick Fellow for Buildings & Grounds
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
3
Executive Summary
4
Introduction
6
Methodology
Boundaries of the Inventory
7
Limitations of Study
8
Assumptions made and suggestions for future data collection
9
Results Summary
20
2012
21
2013
24
2014
27
Overall Trends
30
Recommendations
33
Bibliography
34
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people made significant contributions to this report. Without their assistance, the
collection of data relevant to this inventory and the final version of this report would not have
been possible.
Ben Szalewicz, Former Associate Vice President for Facilities Management and Planning
Lynn Parmenter, Administrative Assistant for Buildings & Grounds
Holly Andersen, Project Manager
Zeke Bernstein, Director of Academic Planning
Holly McCormack, Dean of Field Work Term & Career Development
Heather Faley, Director of Human Resources
Nick Gault, Human Resources Analyst
Kendra Erickson, Assistant Director for Academic Services
Brian Murphy, Vice President for Finance and Administration
Katrina Tierney, Assistant Controller
Laura Callanan, Accounting Assistant
Trevor Mance, Founder and owner of TAM Waste Management
Shane Chase ’11, Co-Author of Bennington College’s previous Greenhouse Gas Inventory
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The last comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory of Bennington College was submitted
in 2011. This inventory is part of Bennington College’s (the College’s) commitment to mitigate climate
change as part of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), an
undertaking that the College has been part of as a signatory since 2011.
This inventory used the Campus Carbon Calculator (CCC) to convert the source data collected
from different offices to energy use in British Thermal Units (reported here as million Btu, MMBtu) and
emissions in Carbon Dioxide Equivalents, which are international standards that represent each GHG
relative to carbon dioxide (reported here as metric ton of eCO2, MTeCO2). The Campus Carbon
Calculator is a standard tool used by universities and colleges nationwide, and it is the tool most
recommended by the ACUPCC for GHG emissions calculation. The boundaries set by the calculator
applicable to the College are on-campus stationary sources of energy, College-owned vehicles,
purchased electricity, electrical transmission and distribution losses (T&D losses), solid waste,
wastewater, paper, school-sponsored travel, commuting, study abroad and Field Work Term1 travel.
There is data available concerning Field Work Term and study abroad travel that has been recorded, but
it was not included in this report. This inventory could only accurately measure one fiscal year of schoolsponsored travel, for the fiscal year 2014. This inventory does not also measure commuting. For a more
in-depth explanation of these omissions, please refer to Assumptions Made.
The College has taken considerable steps towards achieving decreased dependency on fossil
fuels, most importantly in 2008 when the campus Biomass Facility started burning woodchips to provide
heat and hot water for roughly two thirds of the campus. Since then, the facility has gone fully
operational and has successfully reduced emissions from on-campus energy generation by almost 70%
from 2007 to 2011. There has also been a change in the reporting itself. The College’s last GHG
inventory spanned the fiscal years 2002-2011; however there were omissions of various sources of
emissions. Items not covered or incorporated into its findings were wastewater, solid waste, paper, and
commuting. Thus, comparing these separate data sets might prove problematic at first glance, since the
net emissions for the years 2012-2014 will be larger than any of the net emissions for the years 2002-
1
Field Work Term is a seven-week off-campus winter term that students are required to complete every academic
year. During Field Work Term, students may pursue jobs or internships in areas that complement their studies.
4
2011, due to the fact that the calculations and inventory are more comprehensive. The College can only
accurately compare emissions on a year-to-year basis by comparing the sources of emissions
themselves. For a more detailed explanation please refer to Limitations of Study.
The College’s emissions for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-2014 are as shown in the following table (results
are in MTeCO2):
Fiscal Year
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
Total
2012
1,594.3
92.3
1,819.5
3,506.1
2013
1,600.6
656.0
1,692.5
3,949.1
2014
1,952.5
700.6
2,035.5
4,688.6
The College’s emissions in all Scopes increased between FY 2012 and FY 2014. This is due to various
internal and external reasons; some of which were beyond the College’s control and some were not. The
College’s electricity provider, for example, has changed its fuel mix during those years due to the closure
of Vermont Yankee, a nuclear power plant which formerly provided much of the electricity used locally.
Also, as mentioned before, part of the increase is due to the more comprehensive reporting. Please
refer to Overall Trends for a more detailed explanation of what these results show and mean.
5
INTRODUCTION
In 2011, Bennington College signed the American College and University President’s Climate
Commitment, pledging to reduce its environmental burden by achieving climate neutrality. The
ACUPCC’s mission is to expedite progress towards climate neutrality and sustainability by empowering
the higher education sector to educate students, create solutions, and provide leadership-by-example
for the rest of society.2 Achieving ‘net’ emissions is an important distinction to make, since it might not
be possible for schools to reduce all of their emissions. This can be due to a variety of reasons, but
colleges are expected to offset remaining emissions through either on-campus or off-site carbon
sequestration initiatives, by purchasing carbon credits, and by pursuing renewable energy programs, just
to name a few options. Although the ACUPCC is not a legally binding obligation, the open reporting
policies of the commitment encourage a deeper understanding of the CO2 emissions of campuses.
A GHG inventory is essential to effectively planning for climate neutrality. By conducting this
GHG inventory, Bennington College is attempting to gain a greater knowledge of the economic and
environmental costs related to its energy policies, culture of energy use and planning. It must be noted,
however, that this tool works on a number of assumptions and does have its boundaries and limitations.
This GHG inventory should not be used as the only way of evaluating whether Bennington College is
reaching the goals set by the ACUPCC. Economic, academic, behavioral and cultural matters simply
cannot be accurately represented in this inventory and can easily be neglected if this inventory is the
only way the College’s performance is evaluated.
The sustainable future of the College’s energy usage can be informed by quantifying the
greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere due to the school’s operations on a number of fronts.
The end results shown in this report should not and cannot be used as the only means to determine how
Bennington College will achieve its goals for climate neutrality. The GHG inventory is a crucial tool for
quantifying the College’s current environmental impact, while aiding as a data-based foundation for
emissions reduction strategies.
2
American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment
6
METHODOLOGY
BOUNDARIES OF THE INVENTORY
The Campus Carbon Calculator (CCC) is a Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet tool that provides
procedural protocols and a framework for investigation of campus GHG emissions. It is based on
workbooks by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for national inventories and the
methodologies and calculators of the GHG Protocol, adapted for higher education institutional use. The
CCC was originally developed by the former non-profit Clean Air-Cool Planet and the Sustainability
Institute at University of New Hampshire (UNH) in 2001. 3 UNH acquired ownership of the calculator in
2014 and has been managing it ever since. The CCC is designed to measure the six GHGs identified by
the
Kyoto
Protocol:
CO2
(carbon
dioxide),
CH4
(methane),
N2O
(nitrous
oxide),
HFCs
(hydrofluorocarbons), PFCs (perfluorocarbons) and SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride). The CCC converts the
data collected into universal energy (MMBtu) and emission (eCO2) units. The conversion of GHG
emissions to eCO2 is based on the concept of global warming potential (GWP), meaning that each gas
has a measurable effect on the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth’s atmosphere over
a certain period of time.
After choosing to use version 7.0 of the CCC, certain boundaries had to be developed and set to
help define exactly what emissions the College can be held accountable for, as well as just how
comprehensive this report could be. As was done with the previous GHG inventory for 2002-2011, an
operational approach was selected. An operational approach considers all activities that the College has
some form of control over. The ACUPCC has defined ‘scopes’, consistent with GHG Protocol standards, 4
and they are as follows:

Scope I: Emissions that are physically produced on-campus. These sources are owned or directly
controlled by the institution. The CCC accounts for the following areas:
On-Campus Cogeneration Plant(s)
Other Stationary Sources
Direct Transportation Sources
Refrigerants & Chemicals
Agriculture Sources
3
4
See http://www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/campus-carbon-calculator-faqs for more info on the CCC.
Please refer to the ACUPCC Implementation Guide.
7

Scope II: Indirect emissions resulting from activities that take place within the organizational
boundaries of the institution, but that occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity.
The CCC accounts for:
Purchased Electricity
Purchased Steam and Chilled Water

Scope III: Emissions from sources that are not owned or controlled by the institution, but that
are central to the institution’s operations or activities. The CCC accounts for the following areas:
Commuting
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Study Abroad Travel
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Paper
Offsets
Institutional data is then gathered in order to normalize the results of this report, so that it can be
compared to other institutions. In order to normalize energy use and emissions, the following data was
gathered:

Budgetary Data: Includes Operational and Energy budgets. Helpful when assessing what
percentage of the College’s budget is spent on energy.

Population Numbers: Student, faculty, and staff numbers including full and part time statutes
and positions. Per capita energy use can be computed with this information.

Building Space: Refers to the gross square footage of all buildings owned and leased by the
College that require energy (heating, electricity, etc.). This helps determine how efficiently
energy per square foot of building space is used by the College.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
Unfortunately, not all data needed to represent all parameters of each scope were gathered due
to certain barriers and limitations. Firstly, some data are not available at this time due to external
circumstances or because the College has not had a tracking system in place. For example, the Business
Office keeps track of travel expenditure done in a fiscal year, but does not note whether each was an
airfare expense, a car rental mileage tracking receipt, or a stop at a gas station. Several assumptions had
8
to be made on some parameters and will be noted accordingly (see Assumptions Made section of this
report).
A second barrier was differing file storing and accounting procedures since the last report was
completed in 2011.
Finally, time was a rigid barrier. It is always much more complex to dive into past data and
attempt to gather pertinent information than to refer to data sets that have been already collected with
this GHG inventory in mind. Although there was a dedicated full-time position that was tasked with the
creation of this inventory (as opposed to a student’s summer project, as happened with the 2002-2011
report), a lot of the data was not readily accessible and required a lot of individual inventorying and
manual file searching, which caused some information to be incomplete or not included in the report
altogether. This will be noted individually and accordingly within each parameter.
ASSUMPTIONS MADE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE DATA COLLECTION
Several assumptions about the data received or collected had to be made due to the previously
mentioned barriers of study. This section goes through each scope and its individual parameters to
provide information about the different assumptions that had to be made, what barrier lowered
precision or necessitated data omission, and further suggestions on how to acquire more accurate data
in future reports. Also included is the form in which data was received, the years of data recorded, and
where the data came from.
SCOPE I

ON-CAMPUS COGENERATION PLANT(S)
Data Received: Omitted
Years Recorded: N/A
Source of Data: Ben Szalewicz, Former Associate Vice President for Facilities Management and
Planning
Barriers of Study: Bennington College does not own, lease, or manage any on-site cogeneration
plants.
Assumptions Made: N/A
9
Future Suggestions: N/A

OTHER ON-CAMPUS STATIONARY SOURCES
Data Received:
Amount of fuel used for heating the College
Units: gallons of distillate oil #2 and #4
Amount of wood chips used for the biomass generator (also for heating)
Units: short tons
Amount of propane
Units: gallons
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Lynn Parmenter, Administrative Assistant for Buildings & Grounds
Barriers of Study: The College stopped purchasing distillate oil #4 at the beginning of FY 2013.
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: N/A

DIRECT TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
Data Received:
Amount of gasoline and diesel used for the College’s fleet
Units: gallons
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Lynn Parmenter, Administrative Assistant for Buildings & Grounds
Barriers of Study: N/A
Assumptions Made: This report assumes that all diesel is used by the College fleet, since the
difference in quantities used elsewhere is minimum.
Future Suggestions: Although most of the diesel purchases done currently are to fill up a tank
used to refuel maintenance vehicles, some portion of the diesel is also used to power a few
generators around campus. A comprehensive study could be made to figure out if the
differences in emissions are actually negligible when comparing emissions from generators to
emissions from the College fleet.
10

REFRIGERANTS & CHEMICALS
Data Received: Omitted
Years Recorded: N/A
Source of Data: Ben Szalewicz, Former Associate Vice President for Facilities Management and
Planning
Barriers of Study: Bennington College does not record any information regarding leakage and
emissions of refrigerants and chemicals. The College does not own or operate any appliances
containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant and is thus legally absolved from reporting it.
Bennington College uses only a handful of cooling units instead of a large, central system.
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: N/A

AGRICULTURE SOURCES
Data Received: Omitted
Years Recorded: N/A
Source of Data: Ben Szalewicz, Former Associate Vice President for Facilities Management and
Planning
Barriers of Study: The College does not use fertilizer for campus landscaping, and it does not
have any involvement in animal husbandry.
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: As the College decides what to do with its land in the near future, it should
be imperative that the College have control over what kinds of fertilizers farmers might use,
should the College decide to lease some land for farming.
SCOPE II

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY
Data Received:
Amount of electricity used
Units: kWh
Fuel mix breakdown
Units: Percentages of each source used
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
11
Source of Data: Lynn Parmenter, Administrative Assistant for Buildings & Grounds, provided the
kWh data for FY 2012-2014. The fuel mixes were acquired from Green Mountain Power’s
website.
Barriers of Study: Bennington College’s past utility provider, Central Vermont Public Service,
merged with Green Mountain Power in 2012. Green Mountain Power currently provides utilities
to the College.
Assumptions Made: Due to the merger, Green Mountain Power does not have exact numbers on
their fuel mix breakdown for 2012. This report assumes that the fuel mix did not change from
2011 to 2012.
Future Suggestions: N/A

PURCHASED STEAM AND CHILLED WATER
Data Received: Omitted
Years Recorded: N/A
Source of Data: Ben Szalewicz, Former Associate Vice President for Facilities Management and
Planning
Barriers of Study: Bennington College does not purchase either of the two. All steam is
generated on campus, and there is no seasonal need for chilled water.
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: N/A
SCOPE III

COMMUTING
Data Received: Omitted
Years Recorded: N/A
Source of Data: N/A
Barriers of Study: The College does not keep track of the miles traveled and trips made by all
faculty, staff, and students while commuting. There are ways to glean this data other than doing
a campus-wide survey, for instance by acquiring individual addresses and then estimating the
number of trips and mileages to the College. This approach, however precise it may be, runs into
confidentiality issues that require this type of commuting audit to be done in conjunction with
12
multiple offices. It was therefore beyond the scope of the time available for this study. A survey
would be more effective at involving the College community, especially when dealing with a
behavioral issue such as commuting, but it would have to be done every year.
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: There are a number of ways the College might start recording commuting
data, and similarly, a number of offices that can work together to make sure the data is
recorded every year. Human Resources might send a survey to staff at the beginning of every
fiscal year, for example, or a student-run survey might aid the administration in successfully
gauging student practices when it comes to commuting to campus from off-campus.

DIRECTLY FINANCED OUTSOURCED TRAVEL
Data Received:
Individual accounts payable invoices
Units: Converted to miles traveled (see Assumptions Made)
Visa card-holder statements of the College
Units: Converted to miles traveled (see Assumptions Made)
Years Recorded: FY 2014
Source of Data: Received from the Business Office.
Barriers of Study: This data was very difficult to gather for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the
current accounting system used by the Business Office cannot pull up specific numbers
regarding travel expenses, meaning that there was no way of acquiring individual data
pertaining to different modes of travel. This meant that the only feasible way to collect any data
was to manually go through various receipts, invoices, credit card statements, personal mileage
reimbursement requests, etc. Because of this, it was only possible to acquire travel data for one
fiscal year (2014) during the time the data collection took place. The Business Office has never
(aside from personal mileage reimbursements) had to quantify travel in terms of miles traveled,
but rather in monetary amounts for their accounting purposes.
Assumptions Made: Several assumptions had to be made in order to have a consistent
methodology when deciding what receipts, invoices and card statements translate into Collegefinanced travel. First, in order to more accurately estimate airfare mileage, statistics on the
13
average price per passenger air mile from Airlines for America5 were obtained to convert total
air travel expenditures into passenger air miles. Following the Association for the Advancement
of Sustainability in Higher Education’s guidance, the cost per passenger mile was adjusted up by
20% to take taxes into account6. Second, an Amtrak mileage calculator was used for train travel7
and unless otherwise noted, the travel to the stations and back was not taken into account.
Finally, Google Maps was used when only destinations were noted in an itinerary or when a
rental car was used but no mileage was reported.
Future Suggestions: The Business Office has updated its accounting system, using coding that
identifies each mode of transportation, which will streamline this process for future reporting.

STUDY ABROAD TRAVEL
Data Received: Omitted from inventory, data received but inclusion is optional.
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Kendra Ericson, Assistant Director for Academic Services
Barriers of Study: Students are responsible for their travel plans. The College has no information
regarding how students choose to travel to their school of choice.
Assumptions Made: Due to the lack of information for study abroad travel, several assumptions
were made about the data. First, it was assumed that all students left from JFK International
Airport and arrived in the international airport closest to the study abroad program’s location.
An online air mile calculator was used8. Second, it was assumed that no connecting flights were
realized, or that students did not travel back to their homes if they were attending a year-long
program.
Future Suggestions: The College has not explicitly stated that it should be responsible for the
environmental impact of Study Abroad programs. The previous GHG inventory reported that the
College feels that it “does not have control and should not have control over where students
choose to study”9. However, the College has not been asked to revise its thoughts on this
matter, or Field Work Term travel. The data is recorded and many departments are currently
5
See http://airlines.org/data/a4a-monthly-passenger-and-cargo-yield-fares-per-mile/ for more info.
http://www.aashe.org/blog/guidance-scope-3-emissions-pt-2-air-travel
7
The calculator https://carbonfund.org/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=2&Itemid=216
8
http://www.airmilescalculator.com/
9
The previous inventory can be found in the ACUPCC website http://rs.acupcc.org/site_media/uploads/ghg/40882011-inventoryreports.pdf
6
14
willing to revise the environmental impact of the academically required Field Work Term
internship period.

SOLID WASTE
Data Received:
Amount of solid waste, roll-off and compost that is collected by TAM Waste
Management.
Units: short tons
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Trevor Mance, founder and owner of TAM Waste Management.
Barriers of Study: N/A
Assumptions Made: Weight slips for Bennington College’s solid waste were obtained. After
reviewing the data with Trevor Mance, he suggested that the assumption should be made that
at least 80% of the roll-off numbers be included in the solid waste total numbers, since that is
the average percentage of roll-off waste from the College that ends up being land-filled as well.
Future Suggestions: For future decision-making on how to decrease numbers on solid waste,
and what parts of the College generate more waste than others, much more specific data is
needed. The College might want to consider working with TAM Waste Management to figure
out a way to make waste numbers location-specific.

WASTEWATER
Data Received:
Amount of wastewater used
Units: gallons
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Lynn Parmenter, Administrative Assistant for Buildings & Grounds.
Barriers of Study: N/A
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: N/A

PAPER
Data Received:
15
W.B. Mason invoices
Units: Reams and cartons later converted into pounds (see Assumptions Made)
Years Recorded: FY 2013-2014
Source of Data: Business Office
Barriers of Study: As was the case with school-sponsored travel, the Business Office has never
had the need to quantify the amount of paper purchased by weight or reams/cartons. Likewise,
the College’s current accounting system can’t pull up specific numbers about paper purchases
(reams and cartons of printer paper, for example, are purchased through Buildings & Grounds,
and are then distributed across the College on a demand-based system). The College currently
uses only one vendor for all its office supply needs, so it was possible to pull up the W.B. Mason
accounts payable folder and go through all the invoices made for the FY 2013-2014 manually.
Unfortunately, due to extensive flooding damage caused by Hurricane Irene in 2011, the W.B.
Mason folder for FY 2012 does not exist.
Assumptions Made: First, the assumption that most of the College’s paper purchases are done
through W.B. Mason was a necessary one, for the sake of time; there are many other types of
paper purchased from other offices and departments, but no stream-lined way of acquiring this
data exists currently. The assumption that a ream of paper weighs 5 pounds was made, and
used to calculate the total paper weight. Since data for FY 2012 was unattainable, but data from
FY 2013 and FY 2014 was available, the assumption that the College did not change their paper
purchasing policies or that the paper usage trends did not shift was made in order to have a
number for FY 2012, by averaging out FY 2013 and FY 2014 and putting that as the FY 2012
paper estimate. Finally, the number acquired is not of how much paper is used but rather, how
much paper was purchased.
Future Suggestions: There are multiple ways of acquiring more specific data regarding paper
purchases. The Business Office, as was the case with school-sponsored travel, is making sure
that their new accounting system reflects the need to know how much paper is bought, and not
merely how much it costs. To improve its data, the College should develop a plan to track
individual departments when it comes to all paper purchases, in order to figure out what parts
of the institution can and cannot reduce their paper purchases.

OFFSETS
Data Received: Omitted
16
Amount of composting done by TAM Waste Management
Units: Short tons
Years Recorded: FY 2013-2014
Source of Data: Trevor Mance, owner and founder of TAM Waste Management.
Barriers of Study: Although the data was readily available for FY 2013-2014, the College pays
TAM Waste Management to do all composting off-site. Under the ACUPCC guidelines for offsets,
the College therefore does not qualify to include its composting done by TAM as an institutional
carbon offset, because the composting is not done on-campus.
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: The College may be interested in looking into this particular area as it starts
to reduce its environmental impact. Offsets such as carbon sequestration through reforestation,
composting, purchasing carbon credits, and other alternative technologies could help decrease
the impact of more challenging emission sources which are institutionally necessary, such as
school-sponsored travel.
INSTITUTIONAL DATA

BUDGETARY DATA
Data Received:
The College’s operating budget per fiscal year
Units: dollars
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Brian Murphy, Vice President for Finance and Administration
Barriers of Study: N/A
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: N/A

POPULATION NUMBERS
Data Received:
Counts of all undergraduate students for both Fall and Spring terms categorized by fulltime and part-time.
Counts of all faculty categorized by full-time and part-time.
17
Counts of all staff categorized by full-time and part-time.
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source(s) of Data: Zeke Bernstein, Director of Academic Planning (student and faculty data), and
Nick Gault, Human Resources Generalist (staff data).
Barriers of Study: N/A
Assumptions Made: In order to equally weigh the environmental impact of an individual in a
part-time status (be it faculty, staff or student), a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) of 0.5 was used.
This FTE assumes that part-time faculty, staff, and students, have half the environmental impact
on campus, when compared to their full-time peers.
Future Suggestions: It would be of great value to assess the differences in the environmental
impact of each College constituent. Assuming that part-time faculty, staff and/or students have
half of an impact on campus when compared to their full-time peers might be an unrealistic
assumption to make, and the College won’t know its true emissions and energy use per capita
until these questions are resolved. The next step for this inventory is to begin taking into
account the summer and winter programs that take place on campus. Once the College knows
its exact emissions and energy use per capita, and what constituents represent more of an
environmental impact than others, then the College can make better-informed decisions on
what parts of the College and its activities can be held more accountable for the institution’s
overall emissions.

BUILDING SPACE
Data Received:
A list of all buildings owned or operated by the College that use energy and their
respective gross square footage.
Units: ft2
Years Recorded: FY 2012-2014
Source of Data: Ben Szalewicz, Former Associate Vice President for Facilities Management and
Planning.
Barriers of Study: N/A
Assumptions Made: N/A
Future Suggestions: N/A
18
19
RESULTS SUMMARY
SUMMARY RESULTS LAYOUT
The results of this report are presented annually, for each fiscal year. Bennington College’s
emissions and energy use are normalized and contextualized per full-time equivalent students and per
1000ft2 of building space, in order to be comparable to other colleges. The results are organized as
follows:
TOTAL ENERGY USE
The totals of each Scope are measured in million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) along with the
contextual metrics of per FTE students and per 1000ft2 of building space.
TOTAL EMISSIONS
The totals of each Scope are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTeCO2) along with
the contextual metrics of per FTE students and per 1000ft2 of building space.
INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Operational budgets, population numbers, and gross square footage of building space are provided.
SCOPE SUBTOTALS
Each Scope is broken down into its different segments and measured for its energy use and emissions.
The electricity fuel mix is also provided to show which sources the College is getting its energy from.
SOURCE DATA
The source data that was used to calculate the total emissions and energy use of the College through
the Campus Carbon Calculator.
20
FY 2012 RESULTS SUMMARY
TOTAL ENERGY USE
MMBtu
MMBtu/Student
MMBtu/1000 ft2
Scope 1
92,298.1
134.7
171.1
Scope 2
26,557.8
38.8
49.3
Scope 3
1,641.5
2.4
3.1
120,497.4
175.9
223.5
MTeCO2
MTeCO2/Student
MTeCO2/1000 ft2
Scope 1
1,594.3
2.3
2.9
Scope 2
92.3
0.2
0.2
Scope 3
1,819.5
2.7
3.4
Total
3,406.7
5.2
6.5
Total
TOTAL EMISSIONS
INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Budget
Population
Physical Size
Operating Budget
$27,825,286.10
Full-Time Students
683
Part-Time Students
3
FTE Students
685
FTE Faculty
90
FTE Staff
217
Total Building Space
538,838 ft2
21
SCOPE SUBTOTALS BY SECTOR FOR FY 2012
SCOPE 1
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
On-Campus Stationary
91,021.1
1,500.8
Direct Transportation
1,277.0
93.5
SCOPE 2
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions(MTeCO2)
Purchased Electricity
26,557.8
92.3
Breakdown of Purchased Electricity by Source
Natural Gas
0.13%
Biomass
3.93%
Net Purchased
5.54%
Residual Oil
(#5-6)
0.07%
Distillate Oil
(#1-4)
0.02%
Hydro-Electric
40.20%
Nuclear
50.11%
SCOPE 3
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
Commuting
Not included
Not included
Directly Financed Air Travel
Not included
Not included
Other Directly Financed Travel
Not included
Not included
Solid Waste
N/A
1,689.5
Wastewater
N/A
7.8
Paper
N/A
22.5
Scope 2 T&D Losses
1,641.5
99.7
22
SOURCE DATA BY SCOPE FOR FY 2012
SCOPE I
Source
Amount
Distillate Oil (#2)
62,398 gallons
Distillate Oil (#4)
13,018 gallons
LPG (Propane)
13,074 gallons
Wood Chips
5,167 short tons
Gasoline Fleet
10,052 gallons
Diesel Fleet
201 gallons
SCOPE II
Source
Amount
Electricity
4,861,330 kWh
SCOPE III
Source
Amount
Air Travel
N/A
Train
N/A
Personal Mileage Reimbursement
N/A
Landfilled Waste
545 short tons
Wastewater
15,123,000 gallons
Paper
16,500 short tons
23
FY 2013 RESULTS SUMMARY
TOTAL ENERGY USE
MMBtu
MMBtu/Student
MMBtu/1000 ft2
Scope 1
94,472.2
137.7
175.3
Scope 2
24,566.5
35.8
45.6
Scope 3
1,518.4
2.2
2.8
120,557.1
175.7
223.7
MTeCO2
MTeCO2/Student
MTeCO2/1000 ft2
Scope 1
1,600.6
2.3
3.0
Scope 2
656.0
0.9
1.2
Scope 3
1,692.5
2.5
3.1
Total
3,949.1
5.7
7.3
Total
TOTAL EMISSIONS
INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Budget
Population
Physical Size
Operating Budget
$29,461,704.65
Full-Time Students
684
Part-Time Students
4
FTE Students
686
FTE Faculty
95
FTE Staff
218
Total Building Space
538,838 ft2
24
SCOPE SUBTOTALS BY SECTOR FOR FY 2013
SCOPE 1
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
On-Campus Stationary
93,171.5
1,505.3
Direct Transportation
1,300.6
95.3
SCOPE 2
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
Purchased Electricity
24,566.5
656.0
Breakdown of Purchased Electricity by Source
Biomass
3%
Hydro-Electric
46%
Net Purchased
44%
Distillate Oil
(#1-4)
0%
Nuclear
6%
Residual Oil
(#5-6)
1%
SCOPE 3
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
Commuting
Not included
Not included
Directly Financed Air Travel
Not included
Not included
Other Directly Financed Travel
Not included
Not included
Solid Waste
N/A
1,568.6
Wastewater
N/A
8.3
Paper
N/A
23.4
Scope 2 T&D Losses
1,518.4
92.2
25
SOURCE DATA BY SCOPE FOR FY 2013
SCOPE I
Source
Amount
Distillate Oil (#2)
65,832 gallons
Distillate Oil (#4) 10
6,510 gallons
LPG (Propane)
16,284 gallons
Wood Chips
5,316 short tons
Gasoline Fleet
10,017 gallons
Diesel Fleet
403 gallons
SCOPE II
Source
Amount
Electricity
4,496,834 kWh
SCOPE III
Source
Amount
Air Travel
N/A
Train
N/A
Personal Mileage Reimbursement
N/A
Landfilled Waste
506 short tons
Wastewater
16,113,000 gallons
Paper
17,155 short tons
10
The College stopped all purchases of distillate oil #4 during FY2013.
26
FY 2014 RESULTS SUMMARY
TOTAL ENERGY USE
MMBtu
MMBtu/Student
MMBtu/1000 ft2
Scope 1
110,274.0
179.6
204.6
Scope 2
27,725.4
41.3
47.1
Scope 3
4,031.9
6.6
7.5
142,031.3
231.3
263.6
MTeCO2
MTeCO2/Student
MTeCO2/1000 ft2
Scope 1
1,952.5
3.2
3.6
Scope 2
700.6
1.1
1.3
Scope 3
2,035.5
3.3
3.8
Total
4,688.6
7.6
8.7
Total
TOTAL EMISSIONS
INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Budget
Population
Physical Size
Operating Budget
$29,960,894.68
Full-Time Students
609
Part-Time Students
10
FTE Students
614
FTE Faculty
90
FTE Staff
217
Total Building Space
538,838
27
SCOPE SUBTOTALS BY SECTOR FOR FY 2014
SCOPE 1
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
On-Campus Stationary
109,006.3
1,859.4
Direct Transportation
1,267.7
93.1
SCOPE 2
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Emissions (MTeCO2)
Purchased Electricity
27,725.4
700.6
Breakdown of Purchased Electricity by Source
Natural Gas
0.70%
Hydro-Electric
47.14%
Net Purchased
45.14%
Nuclear
7.02%
SCOPE 3
Energy Consumption (MMBtu)
Commuting
Not included
Emissions (MTeCO2)
Not included
Directly Financed Air Travel
1,700.8
332.9
Other Directly Financed Travel
555.6
39.8
Solid Waste
N/A
1,537.6
Wastewater
N/A
7.0
Paper
N/A
22.9
Scope 2 T&D Losses
1,775.5
95.3
28
SOURCE DATA BY SCOPE FOR FY 2014
SCOPE I
Source
Amount
Distillate Oil (#2)
95,381 gallons
LPG (Propane)
18,993 gallons
Wood Chips
6,123 short tons
Gasoline Fleet
8,571 gallons
Diesel Fleet
1,462 gallons
SCOPE II
Source
Amount
Electricity
4,646,277 kWh
SCOPE III
Source
Amount
Air Travel
654,990 miles
Train
51,730 miles
Personal Mileage Reimbursement
85,223 miles
Landfilled Waste
496 short tons
Wastewater
13,626,000 gallons
Paper
16,760 short tons
29
OVERALL TRENDS
The goal of performing this GHG Inventory and pledging to be part of the ACUPCC is ultimately
to reduce the College’s GHG emissions and to achieve climate neutrality. Bennington College has
increased its emissions in all Scopes since FY 2012, as seen in Figure 1. There are various reasons this
increase has occurred. First, as touched upon in Limitations of Study, there was a full-time position
created this past year that would solely deal with the data collection, reporting, and completing the GHG
Inventory of the College. Secondly, the College implemented many of the previous report’s
recommendations (specifically with wastewater) and a lot of the information was readily available, from
either the College or external service providers (such as TAM Waste Management). Because of these
two reasons, this report has a more complete data-set than the College’s previous GHG Inventory, and
the College’s net emissions for the FY 2012-2014 are much higher than any of its previous years. When
Figure 1: Total emissions by scope, 2012-2014
5,000.00
4,500.00
4,000.00
2,035.50
3,500.00
1,692.50
3,000.00
2,500.00
1,819.50
700.6
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
656
92.3
1,594.30
1,600.60
2012
2013
1,952.50
500.00
0.00
CAPA went operational
Scope 1
2014
Change of fuel mix
Scope 2
More complete accounting
Scope 3
one tries to justify each increase by Scope, however, the situation gets more complex. Between FY 2012
and FY 2013, Green Mountain Power merged with Central Vermont Public Service, and began to change
its fuel mix to phase out nuclear energy, due to the eventual shutting down of Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Plant in late 2014. This change in the College’s fuel mix predictably represented a significant
increase in the College’s total emissions for Scope 2, as this report shows. The substantial increase in
Scope 3 emissions from FY 2012 to FY 2014 can be attributed to the fact that the most complete dataset regarding College-sponsored travel was only possible to acquire for FY 2014.
30
MTeCO2
MMBtu
Figure 2 shows that a similar trend is apparent when comparing the College’s energy usage
results to the College’s total emissions; the College’s energy consumption has been steadily increasing
from FY 2012 to FY 2014. Although the ACUPCC is concerned with total emissions and the eventual goal
of carbon neutrality, it is of utmost importance to consider ways to reduce energy use, since the
reduction of carbon
Figure 2: Total Energy Use vs. Total Emissions
emissions
don’t
160000
5000
necessarily
correlate
4500
140000
with the reduction of
4000
energy consumption. For
120000
3500
example, although the
100000
College has technically
3000
not increased electricity
80000
2500
usage in a substantial
2000
60000
way in the years covered
1500
in this report, emissions
40000
1000
due to electricity usage
20000
have
increased
500
significantly due to a
0
0
different, more fossil2012
2013
2014
fuel heavy fuel mix from
Energy Consumption(MMBtu)
Emissions(eCO2)
Green Mountain Power,
which obtains much of its electricity from the New England energy market and thus depends on what
the electricity market is offering at the time of purchase (as of this report, ISO New England is reporting
that their current fuel mix is 47% natural gas, 26% nuclear, 9% coal, 7% hydro-electric, 7% renewables,
and 4% oil) 11.
It is important to be aware of the conditions present when analyzing the results shown in this
report. Since Bennington College is a very small institution, both in its population numbers and in its
day-to-day energy purchases and operations, one must be very precise when trying to address what
parts and practices of the College can be modified to lower emissions and energy use. As shown in
Figure 3, the College’s total emissions for FY 2014 have on-campus stationary fuel usage and solid waste
as the biggest contributors to the school’s emissions followed by purchased electricity and directly
financed air travel. Although the College’s previous GHG inventory showed a trend of a gradual decrease
in fuel usage to heat the College since the biomass plant went online in 2008, it seems that the College is
now in a time where the biomass plant has reached its output capacity, and must now revise once more
what specific activities and operations are using fuel and for what reasons. In an institution as small as
Bennington College, its size allows for exact and impactful small changes to have big results, and
decisions must be made with consistent priorities in mind.
11
Please refer to ISO New England’s website for real-time data on their fuel mix: http://www.iso-ne.com/
31
In conclusion, these components of the College’s total emissions vary in potential opportunities
for a concerted, well-informed and organized effort that the College can choose to embark on, with
varying levels of success.
Directly
What can the College do to
Figure 3: Total Emissions Breakdown FY 2014
Financed Air reduce its environmental
Purchased
Travel
impact
when
tackling
Electricity
7.10%
electricity usage? What can
14.94%
Other Directly
Direct
be done to revise the
Financed
Transportation
various behavioral trends
Travel
1.99%
0.85%
shown in the community
regarding
solid
waste
numbers?
Can
schoolSolid Waste
32.79%
sponsored travel be planned
in a way so that the
On-Campus
Stationary
College’s
environmental
39.66%
impact is minimal, or should
Wastewater
the College seek to offset
Paper 0.15%
Scope 2 T&D
these necessary activities
0.49%
Losses
and operations with other
2.03%
kinds of strategies (like the
purchasing of carbon credits, or carbon sequestration through reforesting, etc.)? This report can
hopefully help inform decision-making in a productive and effective way, while the College continues to
move into the future, determined to reduce the school’s emissions and energy use while contributing to
the fight against climate change.
32
RECOMMENDATIONS
The information presented in this GHG Inventory should act as a foundation for informed
decision-making regarding issues of sustainability. The inventory itself is not technically complete, since
the College must start accounting for commuting, paper purchases outside of office paper, and decide
whether or not it can be held accountable for Field Work Term travel and/or Study Abroad related
emissions. These are some suggestions for future inventories (compiled from the Future Suggestions
sections of the inventory; for more detailed explanations of specific suggestions, please refer to the
pages noted below):

Tracking the purchase of diesel to fuel some maintenance vehicles and diesel purchased to
power some generators around campus (page 10).

Should the College lease some of its land for farming, decisions should be made regarding what
kinds of fertilizer farmers/the College might use, for agricultural and/or educational reasons
(page 11).

Developing ways to obtain accurate and current commuting information (page 12).

The College must decide if Field Work Term and/or Study Abroad travel should be part of the
inventory (page 14).

Determining a method of data collection and accounting practices for specific solid waste
numbers, to determine what areas of the College generate more waste than others (page 15).

Determining a method of data collection and accounting practices for paper purchases across
the College, to determine what areas generate more paper purchases/consumption than others
(page 16).

The College should make a decision regarding offsets, including but not limited to: carbon
sequestration, carbon credits purchasing, on-campus composting, among others (page 17).

In order to ascertain what College activities can be held more accountable for the College’s
overall emissions, the College should examine the potential environmental impacts of different
constituents. For example, a strategy that incentivizes more sustainable printing practices during
the academic year, might not be effective when implementing it for a summer or winter
program (page 18).
33
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A4A Publications. Airlines for America. November 2014. December 2014.
Air Miles Calculator. n.d. December 2014.
American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment. Mission and History. n.d. 6 1 2015.
Carbonfund.org. Amtrak. n.d. December 2014.
Chase, Shane and Valerie Imbruce. "Bennington College's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2002-2011." 2011.
Dautremont, Julian. Guidance on Scope 3 Emissions, pt 2: Air Travel. 2 October 2008. December 2014.
Dautremont-Smith, Julian. "American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment
Implementation Guide." 2012.
ISO New England. Main Page. n.d. 14 January 2015.
Sustainability Institute. University of New Hampshire. n.d. 5 1 2015.
<http://www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/calculator>.
34