ARE WE REALLY “THINKING GREEN?”
AUSTIN COLLEGE’S CARBON FOOTPRINT SINCE 2008
AND
ANALYSIS OF RESIDENCE HALL ELECTRICITY
CONSERVATION COMPETITION
By
KATHERINE MOORE MASUCCI
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty
Of Austin College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the
HONORS PROGRAM of the Center for Environmental Studies
Sherman, Texas
14 April 2011
Approved by _______________________________, Thesis Director
Dr. Peter Schulze
Professor of Biology and Environmental Science
_______________________________
Wilbur Powell
Associate Professor of Mathematics & Computer Science
______________________________
Dr. Karánn Durland
Professor of Philosophy
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr.
Peter Schulze, not only for his mentorship through my honors project but also,
and more importantly, for his guidance and support throughout my collegiate
career. I would also like to thank Dr. Karánn Durland and Wilbur Powell for their
valuable insights and assistance as members of my honors committee. They too
have been wonderful mentors. Thank you to Presidents Page and Hass not only
for their dedication to Austin College’s sustainable future but to the growth of its
students’ environmental consciousness and care. I am so proud to have witnessed
the debut of “Austin College. Thinking Green.”
Thank you to the following individuals whose time and assistance made
the fiscal year 2010 emissions inventory possible: John Jennings, Dr. Keith
Kisselle, Dr. David Baker, Linda Welch, Ellen Miles, Sheryl Bradshaw, Jeannean
Smith, Valerie Roberts, Mary Buick, Judy Wheaton, Gail Lewis, Keith Larey, Dr.
Michael Imhoff, Shauna Redman, Katherine Case, Christina Robertson, Margie
Norman, Sandra Miller, Rachel Sims, Chris Donovan, Sarah Stevens, and Sandy
Beach. Thank you to Clean Air Cool Planet for providing a user-friendly and
instructive emissions calculator.
Thank you to Jade Rutledge ’09 who pioneered the greenhouse gas
emissions inventory procedure at Austin College. Her dedication to the initial
Austin College inventory paved the path not only for this project but for others to
come as Austin College moves closer to climate neutrality.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..iii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………...vi
List of Figures……………………………………………………………….....vi
Abstract…………………………………………………………………….….vii
Introduction………………………………………………………………….….1
American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment…...1
“Austin College. Thinking Green.” and Climate Neutrality………..….2
Part 1: Austin College’s Carbon Footprint Since 2008………………….....4
Data Collection Methods for Categories of Emissions, Choice of Calculator,
Data Requirements, and Objectives……………………………............4
Challenges, Assumptions, and Alterations to the Calculator………………....15
Results of FY 2010 Inventory……..……………………………..…...............20
Discussion of Inventory Results…..………………………………………......21
Comparing Emissions Inventories: Fiscal Years 2008 and 2010…......21
Considerations for Future Emissions Inventories………………….....23
Recommendations for Future Inventory Protocol…………………....24
Part 2: Analysis of Residence Hall Energy Conservation Competition....26
The Idea…………………………………………………………………..…..26
The Goals of the Competition……………………………………………......27
Following Examples………………………………………………………....27
AC Unplugged……………………………………………………….……….31
iv
Results and Discussion: the Initial Competition……..………………….……33
Recommendations for Future Competitions………………………………….34
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...37
References…………………………………………………………………….38
Tables……………………………………………………………………...….40
Figures……………………………………………………………………......54
Appendix 1: Commuting Survey Questions………………………………….58
Appendix 2: Commuting Raw Survey Data and Vehicle MPG……………...60
Appendix 3: Faculty & Staff Air Miles Raw Data……………………...……70
Appendix 4: Athletics Air Travel Calculations Summary………………...…76
Appendix 5: Study Abroad (Semester/Year) Air Miles Raw Data…….…….77
Appendix 6: Study Abroad (January Term) Air Miles Raw Data………..….79
Appendix 7: Copies of Calculator Input Pages for Future Reference…….…80
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Calculator Data and Source(s)
Table 2: Calculator Data and Corresponding Input Page/Column(s)
Table 3: Athletics Travel Sample Spreadsheet
Table 4: Rutledge’s Solid Waste Calculations
Table 5: Summary of Alterations Made to the Calculator
Table 6: Emissions Sources by MT-eCO2 and % of Total: FY 2008 vs. 2010
Table 7: Announced Results of First Annual “AC Unplugged” Competition
Table 8: Raw Occupancy and kWh per Occupant Data for Each Residence Hall
2005-2010
Table 9: kWh/Occupant Day Data per Residence Hall with Updated Competition
Standings
List of Figures
Figure 1: MT CO2 Equivalent Totals for FY 2008 and FY 2010
Figure 2: Emissions Sources by % of Total Emissions for FY 2008 and FY 2010
Figure 3: Long-Term Residence Hall Electricity Consumption for the Month of
October during 2005-2010
Figure 4: Residence Hall kWh per Occupant Day for October 2008-2010
vi
Abstract
Since Austin College became a signatory of the American College and
University Presidents Climate Commitment in 2008, it has worked to decrease its
carbon footprint with the ultimate goal of achieving climate neutrality.
The
College completed its first greenhouse gas emissions inventory for fiscal year
(FY) 2008 as per the Commitment’s requirements. The College emitted a total of
14,191 MT-eCO2 during FY 2008.
Signatories must complete emissions
inventories every other year; this study presents the procedures and results of the
second campus emissions inventory, completed for FY 2010. The college emitted
a total of 13,226 MT-eCO2 during FY 2010, a decrease of 965 MT-eCO2 as
compared to FY 2008 inventory results. This 7% decline in emissions was due to
a number of factors, including the College’s reliance on a higher percentage of
purchased electricity generated by renewable sources, namely wind.
The College has prepared a Climate Action Plan, which serves as an
outline of the campus’s chronological steps to achieve climate neutrality. The
Plan has a target climate neutrality date of 2020 and is founded upon a goal of 2%
reduction in electricity and natural gas use per year (20% reduction by 2020)
combined with a shift to electricity generated by renewable sources. In terms of
annual Climate Action Plan goals, the College did not succeed in reducing its
electricity use by at least 2% annually between FY 2008 and FY 2010; over the
course of two years, electricity use only decreased by 2.2%. Natural gas use
increased by about 7% between FY 2008 and FY 2010.
vii
In order to promote environmentally conscious behavior and energy
conservation on campus, Austin College launched “AC Unplugged,” a residence
hall electricity conservation competition, in October of 2010. The competition
was meant to encourage residents of each hall to conserve electricity over the
course of a four-week competition period. Halls’ conservation efforts were
monitored via weekly electricity consumption (kWh) measurements.
The
particular effects of prior operational changes in each hall on the accuracy of
competition results have not been determined. It was determined that calculations
of electricity consumption per occupant per day for each hall (based on the
number of days in the October billing period) yield more accurate data on each
hall’s overall percent reduction in electricity consumption during the competition
period. According to these calculations, the halls saved an average of 7.8%
electricity per occupant per day in October 2010 compared to previous years.
Austin College’s overall carbon footprint has decreased since the initial
greenhouse gas emissions inventory was completed for FY 2008. The College
has achieved conservation since FY 2008, but the FY 2010 emissions inventory
shows that energy consumption did not fall as fast as hoped as per the goals
described in the College’s Climate Action Plan that was adopted during FY 2011.
However, the residence hall competition suggests potential for better
conservation.
viii
Introduction
American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
The American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
(PCC) aims both to address the global issue of anthropogenic climate change and
to promote environmental consciousness in venues of higher education. Thus,
participating colleges and universities set an example of sustainability and give
tomorrow’s leaders the knowledge and understanding to take on climate change
and other environmental issues. Campuses are required to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions as well as to provide students with curricular and extracurricular
environmentally themed learning opportunities.
The ultimate goal of the
commitment is for campuses to achieve climate neutrality (zero net emissions of
greenhouse gases) by a target date chosen by each respective signatory campus
(PCC, 2011).
Former Austin College President Oscar C. Page signed the PCC during the
summer of 2008. Following his retirement the subsequent academic year, current
President Marjorie Hass made the commitment a priority, and the Presidents
Climate Commitment Steering Committee was formed to begin drafting the
campus’s Climate Action Plan, an outline of the College’s plan to achieve climate
neutrality. According to PCC protocol, a Climate Action Plan, complete with a
target neutrality date and interim milestones, must be submitted within two years
after a college becomes a signatory of the commitment (PCC, 2011); the
College’s official Climate Action Plan was adopted during FY 2011.
1
Signatory colleges must also complete an inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions within one year of signing the Commitment, and a new inventory must
be completed every other year after the completion of the initial inventory (PCC,
2011). Jade Rutledge, honors student and member of the Austin College Class of
2009, completed the initial emissions inventory for FY 2008 and wrote a
comprehensive guide as an honors project for the Center for Environmental
Studies.
This project is an extension of Rutledge’s; it will present emissions
inventory data for FY 2010 and will analyze the effectiveness of residence hall
electricity conservation competitions as tools for reducing energy consumption. It
will not only analyze “green” behavior at Austin College but at several other
colleges across the country that have taken steps to promote conservation and
“fun” learning opportunities.
“Austin College. Thinking Green.” and Carbon Neutrality
President Hass showed her passion for the PCC not only by making it a
priority for the College’s near and distant future, but also by encouraging the
development of a holistic campaign to promote environmental consciousness on
campus, in the local community, and internationally. “Austin College. Thinking
Green.” (commonly referred to as “Think”) was born from her vision. Behind the
campaign is the Presidents Climate Commitment Steering Committee as well as
another committee geared toward marketing “Think” to the campus community
through extracurricular events and projects. During April of 2010, an official
2
kick-off of “Think” introduced students to the campaign most notably through the
first annual “GreenServe,” a campus-wide service event, where students
participated in the “green” service project of their choice. Projects included work
at the Sherman Community Garden, neighborhood and park clean-ups, native
prairie restoration work at Sneed Environmental Research Area, and the
distribution of compact fluorescent light bulbs to neighborhoods adjacent to the
College, among others.
During October of 2010, the first annual “AC Unplugged” Residence Hall
Competition was held. The goal of the competition was for residents of each
traditional residence hall to reduce their electricity consumption through practical
measures like switching off power strips and turning off lights and appliances
when not in use. Halls competed against one another for the highest percent
decrease in electricity consumption during the four-week competition period.
This thesis will also analyze the results of the first “AC Unplugged” competition.
3
Part 1: Austin College’s Carbon Footprint Since 2008
Data Collection Methods for Categories of Emissions, Choice of Calculator,
Data Requirements, and Objectives
This section describes the methods used in collecting and entering the data
required by the Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator™, Version 6.6,
for the FY 2010 greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
As per Rutledge’s protocol and recommendations, the Clean Air Cool
Planet’s (CACP) Campus Carbon Calculator™, Version 6.6, was used for the FY
2010 emissions inventory (CACP, 2011). As explained by Rutledge (2009), the
CACP Calculator is endorsed by the PCC, and “facilitates comparison with over
1,200 other campuses that have used it.”
The benefits of the CACP calculator include the ability of the user to enter
categories of emissions in their original measurement units.
For example,
purchased electricity is entered in kWh, while natural gas is entered in MMBtu,
etc. The calculator then converts these measures and others into their respective
Global Warming Potentials (MT-eCO2), measurements of the extent to which a
particular greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4, etc.) contributes to anthropogenic climate
change.
Once calculations are complete, the CACP calculator enables users to
view all emissions by source as equivalent to CO2, CH4, or N2O in kg or MMBtu.
Users may also choose to view all categories of emissions in metric tons of CO2
4
equivalent (MT-eCO2).
This is so that all emissions can be aggregated and
viewed as a single total amount instead of in measures of different greenhouse
gases, each of which has a different global warming potential (CACP, 2011). The
CACP calculator requires minimal input and no manual conversions; data are
simply entered into a series of “Input” worksheets, and the calculator makes all
the necessary conversions and calculations. Note that greenhouse gas inventories
are not comprehensive; while they account for the major categories of the
College’s emissions, it would be nearly impossible to track down each and every
last emission in a given period of time.
Though the calculator’s interface looks complex, its required data inputs
are simple given Austin College’s infrastructure and small campus. Table 1
shows the data that were entered into the calculator as well the college staff
member(s) who supplied the data. Table 2 shows where various data are entered
into the spreadsheet; this table is meant to serve as a “map” of the calculator for
future analysts (alongside Appendix 7). Some calculator inputs required more
advanced procedures other than correspondence with a staff member(s). These
procedures are explained below.
Gasoline Fleet
This section includes gasoline consumed by Physical Plant and Campus
Police vehicles as well as biology vans (these vans use gasoline purchased from
an outside vendor). Logbooks kept in the two biology vans were used to calculate
5
FY 2010 mileage for both vehicles. The College has a gas pump located at the
Physical Plant that is used for some vehicles (those operated by Physical Plant
staff, Campus Police, and Heidi Ellis) but not for other college-owned vehicles.
The Physical Plant’s annual gasoline purchase (gallons of gasoline and diesel)
was collected from Physical Plant Office Manager Linda Welch. This purchase
accounts for vehicles operated by Physical Plant and Campus Police personnel.
Vice President Heidi Ellis also uses the College’s gas pump to fill up her collegeowned vehicle; according to Shauna Redman, Ellis sometimes fills up her vehicle
off-campus but uses the College’s pump most often.
For College vehicles not fueled at the Physical Plant, vehicle mileage data
were acquired from Jeannean Smith, and personal miles for those vehicles were
acquired from Gail Lewis and deducted from vehicle mileage totals.
Refrigerants, Chemicals, and Fertilizer
Rutledge (2009) determined that these emissions sources were de
minimus, or insignificant to the campus’s total emissions; these sources accounted
for 1% or less of the College’s total emissions during FY 2008. The PCC does not
require that such minimal categories be tallied for each consecutive inventory.
However, since the data for FY 2010 were readily available, new FY 2010 data
were incorporated into the FY 2010 inventory.
6
The Physical Plant used three types of fertilizer during fiscal year 2010:
5,750 lbs. of synthetic fertilizer at 28% nitrogen, 600 lbs. of synthetic fertilizer at
32% nitrogen, and 25 gallons of liquid organic fertilizer at 10% nitrogen.
The total amount (lbs.) of synthetic fertilizer was calculated, and as per
Rutledge’s protocol, a weighted average was taken to determine the average
concentration of nitrogen for all of the synthetic fertilizer used during fiscal year
2010.
Twenty-five gallons of organic fertilizer at 10% nitrogen were used during
FY 2010. However, the calculator requires that the data be entered in pounds.
According to Bundy (1991), liquid fertilizers generally weigh approximately 11
pounds per gallon. This statistic was used to calculate approximately how many
pounds of organic fertilizer were used during FY 2010.
Purchased Electricity and Custom Fuel Mix
Electricity consumption for all 14 of the campus’s meters was obtained via
communication with Director of the Physical Plant John Jennings.
Custom fuel mix considers the sources of a campus’s purchased
electricity; according to John Jennings, Austin College’s FY 2010 purchased
electricity was generated by: 38% natural gas, 32% coal, 11% nuclear, 15%
renewable, and 4% “other.” Analysts are required to choose their NERC region
within the calculator; Texas’s eGRID sub region is called “ERCT.” Entering a
custom fuel mix is optional, but since the data were available, custom fuel mix
7
information was entered for both FY 2008 and FY 2010 inventories.
(See
“Challenges, Assumptions, and Alterations to the Calculator” for notes to future
analysts on collecting all purchased electricity and custom fuel mix data).
Commuting
The CACP calculator requires users to input various data regarding the
commuting habits of students, faculty, and staff. These data are used to compute
emissions (MT-eCO2) due to commuting.
An online survey generated on
www.surveymonkey.com was sent to students, faculty, and staff via e-mail.
Survey takers were asked eleven simple questions about their commuting habits,
including the make, model, and year of vehicles regular commuters used to
commute to and from campus (Appendix 1).
Responses were compiled, and the EPA Fuel Economy website,
www.fueleconomy.gov, was used to identify the fuel efficiency of each regular
commuter’s vehicle. The combined (city & highway) MPG of each vehicle was
averaged for student, faculty, and staff vehicles, respectively (Appendix 2).
This portion of the survey response analysis was somewhat subjective in
that MPG for each vehicle was referenced using limited information provided by
survey respondents. For example, if a respondent did not provide a particular
model (for example, Honda vs. Honda Civic), or if a particular model listed
multiple versions (for example, manual vs. automatic, varied chassis sizes, etc.)
the MPG for each version was averaged.
8
If
multiple
versions
of
a
particular
model
were
listed
on
www.fueleconomy.gov the vehicle was assumed to be automatic and to consume
regular gasoline.
Four cylinder engines were assumed for small-to-midsize
vehicles, while 6 cylinder engines were assumed for trucks and SUV’s. Vehicles
listed with 2WD and 4WD options were assumed to be the 4WD variety. Models
with hybrid options were assumed not to be hybrids unless specified by the
respondent. These assumptions were made only when the respondent did not
provide detailed vehicle information.
The website www.fueleconomy.gov does not list vehicles released prior to
1984. For respondents’ vehicles with model years prior to 1984, MPG estimates
from the EPA’s 1984 database were recorded.
If the respondent did not provide the vehicle’s model year, the MPG for
the 2011 model was recorded. This procedure was done in accordance with
Rutledge (2009) in which the author used vehicle data from the year 2009 in cases
where respondents did not supply their vehicle’s model year. If limited vehicle
information was provided by a respondent (for example, only the model year), the
MPG was not recorded and, thus, was left out of average MPG calculations. If a
respondent listed two or more vehicles used for commuting to and from campus,
the MPG of each of the vehicles listed was averaged.
Respondents were asked to record the number of roundtrips to and from
campus taken per week and, subsequently, the number of weeks per year trips
were taken. Several respondents claimed to commute regularly but actually did
9
not. If a respondent made < 3 trips per week, it was assumed that they did not
commute regularly.
A request to complete the survey was sent to all members of the campus
community (students, faculty, and staff) or approximately 1,600 people. Based on
information provided by 316 respondents, the following statistics were entered
into the CACP calculator’s commuting worksheet for students, faculty, and staff,
respectively: average automobile fuel efficiency (MPG), percent of people that
used a personal vehicle to travel to campus, percent of people that carpooled,
average trips per week, average weeks per year, and average miles per trip.
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
The air travel category in this section of the input worksheet is split into
faculty/staff air miles and student air miles.
Directly financed faculty and staff air miles are found in purchasing card
and voucher query records. Ellen Miles provided a spreadsheet of these records
for FY 2010. While the reimbursed faculty and staff members were noted for each
listing, their respective destination cities were not always clear.
The
corresponding individual was contacted for clarification of ambiguous flight
destinations. All known flight mileages were averaged, and the average roundtrip mileage was assigned to the remaining flights with unknown destinations.
Faculty and staff air miles were summed based on this procedure. (See Appendix
3 for calculations). Air miles traveled by athletics staff were added to purchasing
10
card/voucher query air miles (See Appendix 4 for calculations). Note that the
mileage traveled by outside speakers to get to and from the College is accounted
for in this section. Mileage traveled by Global Outreach (GO) Fellows is also
included in this section.
Directly financed student air miles consist of flights taken by athletic
teams. In order to calculate these air miles, a spreadsheet was obtained from
Sandra Miller, the administrative assistant of athletics. The spreadsheet listed
details of each trip taken by each athletic team during the fall 2009 and spring
2010 semesters.
These details include: the date, destination, method of
transportation, mileage, and travel party counts for all trips taken by each team.
Table 3 presents a portion of the spreadsheet obtained by Miller.
Bus Travel
Because this emissions source was determined to be de minimus by
Rutledge (2009), it was not re-calculated for FY 2010. Rutledge’s bus travel data
were used for the FY 2010 inventory.
Personal Mileage Reimbursement
Rutledge (2009) determined that this emissions source was de minimus, or
largely insignificant in terms of the campus’s total emissions. However, since the
data for FY 2010 were readily available, they were incorporated into the FY 2010
inventory.
11
Study Abroad Air Travel
The Study Abroad office provided lists of students who studied abroad
and their respective destinations for fiscal year 2010.
The website
www.terrapass.com was used to calculate round-trip mileage from DFW
International Airport to each student’s destination. If only a destination nation
was provided, the nation’s capital city was assumed as the student’s destination.
If a destination city without an international airport was provided, the closest
major city with an international airport was assumed to be the destination.
According to the lists provided by the Study Abroad office, seven students
were abroad for the entire academic year (fall 2009 and spring 2010), while the
rest studied abroad for only one semester.
According to Valerie Roberts,
Assistant Director of the Study Abroad office, most students who study abroad for
the entire academic year do not come home during the winter break due to high
travel costs. Thus, it was assumed that each of these students (except two, who
spent one semester in one country and the second semester in another) only made
one round-trip. The total miles traveled during fall 2009 and spring 2010 were
summed (Appendix 5).
January Term 2010 travel courses were also included in the study abroad
air travel total (Appendix 6). A spreadsheet of all off-campus January Term
courses was obtained from January Term Coordinator Mary Buick (Study Abroad
Office). A similar protocol as that used to calculate total fall 2009 and spring
2010 study abroad miles was used to calculate total January Term 2010 miles.
12
From the given spreadsheet, round-trip miles to the destination city/cities were
multiplied by the number of travelers (students + faculty + alumni) who
participated in each trip. Similarly, international January Term NSOC and CSOC
course miles were added. A separate spreadsheet was obtained from Margie
Norman of Career Services, which listed the destinations of the 78 students who
participated in domestic CSOC courses. Only seven of those 78 students traveled
out of state for their CSOC. The air miles traveled by those seven students were
calculated using www.terrapass.com and were added to the total air miles traveled
during January Term 2010.
It was assumed that students drove to CSOC
destinations within Texas. Most such destinations were probably the students’
hometowns. Note that miles accounted for in the January Term 2010 total include
both international and domestic air travel.
Solid Waste
Rutledge’s solid waste data were used for the FY 2010 inventory, as no
new “trash” receptacles have been added, and the frequency of pick-up has not
changed since Rutledge completed her study. The calculator only accounts for
non-recyclables, or “trash.” Only new recycle receptacles have been added since
the completion of Rutledge’s inventory. While it is important to note the increase
in recycling on campus, the emissions calculator does not take into consideration
the volume of materials that are recycled. As noted by Rutledge, the methane gas
(CH4) associated with landfilled waste from Austin College (and other landfill
13
users) is not recovered at the landfill site. Thus, the measure of landfilled solid
waste is entered into the calculator under the column titled, “No CH4 recovery.”
See Table 4 for Rutledge’s solid waste calculations. Rutledge’s solid waste
calculations may be used in future inventories if it is determined that trash
receptacles have not been added, removed, or changed in any way.
Wastewater
Because this emissions source was determined to be de minimus by
Rutledge (2009), it was not re-calculated for FY 2010. Rutledge’s wastewater
data were used for the FY 2010 inventory.
Paper
According to Jeannean Smith, the college typically orders 600 cases of
uncoated freesheet paper per academic year; each case weighs 52 lbs. The paper
is composed of 20% post-consumer waste. Because there is no input column for
20% post-consumer waste in the calculator, the paper data were entered in the
following manner: 80% at “0% recycled” and 20% at “100% recycled.”
Offsets and Renewable Energy Credits
The College purchased retail offsets for January Term air travel and
renewable energy credits for the college’s purchased electricity during FY 2010.
14
Offsets were purchased for the air travel of five international and two
domestic January Term 2010 courses. In order to incorporate the purchase of
these offsets into the emissions calculator, the total air miles traveled by all
participants of the seven courses was calculated. These air miles were entered
into the “Study Abroad Air Miles” column of the calculator’s “input” page in
order to determine the total MT-eCO2 that the offset air miles accounted for.
Then, the measure of offset MT-eCO2 was entered into the “Offsets with
Additionality” section of the “input” page under the column “Retail Offsets (High
End).” Note that a clear definition of “high end” vs. “low end” retail offsets was
not found; the calculator yielded the same results when MT-eCO2 of offsets were
entered into either “high end” or “low end” retail offsets. Thus, January Term air
travel offsets were entered in the “high end” category.
The college’s FY 2010 custom fuel mix included 15% renewable sources.
Thus, renewable energy credits (REC’s) that the College purchased during FY
2010 were accounted for in the custom fuel mix input page of the calculator;
REC’s were not entered for FY 2010 at the REC entry option in the calculator.
(See the section in “Challenges, Assumptions, and Alterations to the Calculator”
for a discussion of REC’s and custom fuel mix).
Challenges, Assumptions, and Alterations to the Calculator
This section discusses the procedures followed and assumptions made
when emissions data were either insignificant, ambiguous, or were otherwise
15
altered. Several changes were made to the calculator’s emissions factors in order
to yield more accurate emissions results; the reasons behind each of the changes
made to the calculator are described toward the end of this section.
According to Rutledge (2009) several categories of emissions were found
to be de minimus upon completion of the initial emissions inventory for fiscal
year 2008. De minimus measurements are classified as emissions categories that
account for less than 1% of the campus total. Rutledge (2009) determined that the
following categories of emissions were de minimus: personal mileage
reimbursements, bus mileage, refrigerants, wastewater, and fertilizer.
Thus,
according to PCC protocol, these categories need not be collected for subsequent
emissions inventories. Rutledge’s upper-bound estimates from FY 2008 were
entered into the calculator for the FY 2010 emissions inventory for all de minimus
categories except for personal mileage reimbursement, refrigerants, and fertilizer
application, for which FY 2010 data were readily available.
It is important that future analysts make sure that the purchased electricity
data provided by John Jennings account for all 14 of the campus’s meters (this
includes the electricity used by facilities at the McCarley and Sneed properties)
and not simply the “primary grid.”
This “double-check” is necessary, as
Rutledge’s initial calculations did not include the electricity used by `Roo Suites,
an upperclassman dormitory on the edge of the campus; `Roo Suites and other
facilities are not included in the “primary grid.” Rutledge’s FY 2008 inventory
was revised and updated when the inadvertent omission was discovered. For this
16
reason, it was necessary to confirm with Jennings that the measure of purchased
electricity included all Austin College meters.
The Sneed and McCarley
properties are serviced by separate providers that are paid independently of
primary campus buildings. Together, they account for 140 kWh of purchased
electricity in one fiscal year. Thus, according to John Jennings, it was necessary
to add 140 kWh to the total purchased electricity measurement that he provided
earlier in the data collection process.
Dr. Peter Schulze inadvertently adjusted Rutledge’s original inventory in
such a way that REC’s were double-counted in the version uploaded to the PCC
website in 2009. Schulze entered these REC’s in the “Green Power Certificates”
column of the input worksheet, but Rutledge had already accounted for them as
renewable energy in the custom fuel mix input. In order to correct for this, FY
2008 data were reanalyzed without entering Green Power Certificates (kWh) into
the calculator (since they’re already accounted for in the custom fuel mix).
Similarly, no Green Power Certificates (kWh) were entered in the FY 2010
calculator.
As for fleet vehicle data, college vehicle mileage was available only by
calendar year. Thus, college vehicle mileage from January 2009 through January
2010 was used for the FY 2010 emissions inventory. According to Jeannean
Smith, data are now collected in terms of fiscal year rather than calendar year.
Similarly, as noted by Gail Lewis, personal miles on college vehicles are now
17
recorded monthly and will also be available by fiscal year for subsequent
emissions inventories.
The commuting data requirement was perhaps the most challenging to
tally, as it is not feasible to obtain replies from every member of the Austin
College community regarding their commuting habits. In order to be consistent
with Rutledge’s protocol, a survey was sent to all students, faculty, and staff via
e-mail. Considering the total population of students (not counting summer school
students), faculty, and staff for FY 2010, approximately 12.5% of students, 46%
of faculty, and 54.7% of staff responded to the survey. Just under 20% of the
entire campus community responded to the survey. In order to account for the
calculated vehicle mpg averages of students, faculty, and staff, respectively, the
default mpg provided in the “Automobile Fuel Efficiency” columns on the
commuter input page of the calculator was replaced with the calculated average
mpg of student, faculty, and staff vehicles based on survey responses.
It was challenging to accumulate faculty and staff directly financed
outsourced air travel, as many flight destinations were not recorded in the
spreadsheet provided by Ellen Miles.
Some uncertain destinations were
determined through correspondence with faculty and staff, while others – about
12% of flight destinations - remained ambiguous.
The average mileage of
faculty/staff flights was calculated using known destination mileages; that average
mileage was assigned to the remaining ambiguous flights.
18
Only air miles were accounted for in terms of directly financed outsourced
travel and study abroad travel. No thorough records exist for rental car, taxi, train
travel, etc. Further, much of the surface travel done by students while abroad is
for leisure purposes; the College is not responsible for the resulting emissions.
Three alterations were made to the calculator, as per Rutledge’s procedure
(Table 5). First, student, faculty, and staff personal vehicle mileage averages,
which are given in the calculator based on national vehicle mpg averages, were
changed to represent the actual fuel efficiency of the cars used by members of the
campus community.
Second, because study abroad flights are largely international, the
emissions calculator’s coefficient for the kilograms of CO2 per mile of air travel
was multiplied by 0.64 to reflect the lower emissions per mile for longer,
international flights, as opposed to higher emissions per mile for shorter, domestic
flights. Since takeoff and landing cause the highest amount of emissions per mile
traveled, it was assumed that longer flights yield fewer emissions: the longer the
flight the smaller the proportion of emissions used in takeoff and landing. Thus,
long flights use fewer emissions proportionally during takeoff and landing than
shorter flights. When the calculator determines air travel emissions, it assumes
short, domestic flights. Multiplying this coefficient by 0.64, according to DEFRA
(2008), corrects for this difference in efficiency of domestic and international
flights. This alteration applies only to study abroad flights; it was assumed that
19
all directly financed air travel flights were domestic, and the efficiency of these
flights was not adjusted.
Third, a radiative forcing index (RFI) is used in the calculator to account
for the cirrus clouds that form from the exhaust emitted by airplanes. Radiative
forcing is any change in the balance between radiation coming into the
atmosphere and radiation going out. Positive radiative forcing warms the surface
of the earth, and negative radiative forcing cools it (Imperial College, 2005).
According to Dr. David Baker (2011), these clouds can increase the earth’s
average surface temperature, contributing to global climate change. According to
Rutledge (2009), the default RFI for air travel in the calculator is 2.8, which
reflects 1992 IPCC measurements; another IPCC study indicated an RFI of 1.
Because various sources indicate that radiative forcing data are inconclusive, an
estimated RFI of 2 was used in the calculator based on the data available; this
procedure is consistent with Rutledge’s procedure for the FY 2008 inventory. If
more conclusive data are released in the near future, the RFI used in the calculator
can be altered once again for specificity. Table 5 explains how these alterations
were made to the emissions calculator.
Results of FY 2010 Emissions Inventory
The College emitted 13,226 MT-eCO2 during FY 2010. The FY 2010
total is down from the FY 2008 total of 14,191 MT-eCO2 by 965 MT-eCO2. The
FY 2010 total is equivalent to about 9.5 MT-eCO2 emitted per student (1,388 full-
20
time and part-time students); this figure is down from about 11 MT-eCO2 per
student during FY 2008. As in FY 2008, purchased electricity accounted for the
highest proportion of campus emissions in FY 2010 at 6,543 MT-eCO2, or 49% of
total emissions. Natural gas was the next highest source of emissions at 2,636
MT-eCO2, or 20% of total emissions, followed by study abroad flights at 1,394
MT-eCO2, or 11% of total emissions. The next largest sources of emissions were
directly financed air travel (822 MT-eCO2, 6%), emissions associated with the
transportation and distribution of purchased electricity (647 MT-eCO2, 5%), solid
waste (416 MT-eCO2, 3%), faculty and staff commuting (332 MT-eCO2, 3%),
student commuting (311 MT-eCO2, 2%), and refrigerants (290 MT-eCO2, 2%),
which were not de minimus in FY 2010.
Paper purchasing, fleet vehicles,
personal mileage reimbursement, bus miles, wastewater, and fertilizer emissions
each accounted for 1% or less of total emissions; they are considered to be de
minimus (Table 6, Figures 1 & 2).
Discussion of Inventory Results
Comparing Emissions Inventories: Fiscal Years 2008 and 2010
The College emitted 7% less total greenhouse gas emissions in FY 2010
compared to FY 2008. This implies that the College’s total emissions decreased
by 3.5% each year from 2008 to 2010. In terms of emissions generated by
electricity consumption, the College generated 7.7% less emissions because the
custom fuel mix for FY 2010 was made up of 10% more renewable (wind-
21
generated) electricity compared to the custom fuel mix for FY 2008. In terms of
kWh of electricity consumed, the College used 2.2% less kWh in FY 2010
compared to FY 2008. Emissions from natural gas use increased by about 7%
from FY 2008 to FY 2010. While the College decreased its electricity use by
2.2% over the course of two years, the Climate Action Plan calls for a 2%
decrease in electricity and natural gas use per year. The College must significantly
lower its annual electricity and natural gas use in future inventories in order to
meet its Climate Action Plan goals.
Purchased electricity accounted for just under 50% of total emissions
during FY 2010. Since the initial FY 2008 inventory, the percent of electricity
whose carbon emissions were neutralized by renewable sources has increased
from 5% to 15%. In theory, this accounts for about a 10% decrease in MT-eCO2
of purchased electricity. Such an increase in renewable fuel reduced the college’s
total emissions by about 5%.
Emissions from refrigerants increased from 23 MT-eCO2 during FY 2008
to 290 MT-eCO2 during FY 2010. According to John Jennings, this increase was
due to a combination of several factors: leaks, equipment conversion, and the
phase out of older, less environmentally friendly refrigerants, like R-22. The
Physical Plant was forced to convert some existing units, such as the kitchen’s
walk-in freezer, over to new environmentally friendly refrigerants, such as HFC404a, since R-22 is being phased out. Extra stock of R-22 was purchased during
FY 2010 for use in other older equipment, as cost is a concern as the refrigerant
22
becomes less available.
An error in calculations during the FY 2008 study led to incorrect
emissions data on purchased paper. The same number of cases was purchased
during both inventory periods (600 cases @ 52 lbs. per case). However, the FY
2008 analysis mistakenly measured paper at 20 lbs. per ream with 10 reams per
case. When a ream of paper was measured for the FY 2010 inventory, it was
determined that a ream actually weighs 5.2 lbs. The FY 2008 emissions totals
were corrected for comparison to the FY 2010 results; tables and figures reflect
accurate paper purchasing data for both FY 2008 and FY 2010.
Considerations for Future Emissions Inventories
The construction of the Flats at Brocket Court, the Village on Grand, and
the IDEA Center will undoubtedly impact college emissions. Once these new
facilities are fully functioning, it would be useful to monitor their respective
energy consumption to determine their overall contribution to campus emissions.
The addition of these new buildings raises the question of how the College will
overcome the emissions due to increasing the campus’s size, and thus, its energy
demands. In terms of electricity use, there ought not to be concern for the longrun, as an increasing proportion of the College’s electricity will be generated by
renewable sources each year (as outlined in the Climate Action Plan), with 100%
of electricity to come from renewable sources beginning in 2015; electricity use
ultimately will not contribute to emissions for this reason. In terms of natural gas
23
use, the estimated increased demand of the larger campus can be determined
through some simple calculations. As of FY 2010, the College’s total building
space was 774,924 ft2. Once complete, the new housing units will add about
70,000 ft2 to the campus, and the IDEA Center will add about 100,000 ft2.
Altogether, these 170,000 ft2 account for nearly a 22% increase in total building
space. We can assume that all of the new buildings will be at least as energy
efficient as existing buildings, if not more efficient. Thus, it follows that a 22%
increase in building space ought to lead to approximately a 22% increase in total
natural gas use: nearly 11,000 MMBtu and 580 MT-eCO2. Natural gas accounts
for nearly 20% of the College’s total emissions; a 22% increase in natural gas use
due to the addition of these buildings will result in a 4% increase in total campus
emissions. Students who will live in the new housing units would have, in some
cases, commuted by car to campus, so this theoretical 4% increase in emissions
due to natural gas use may be partially offset by reduced student commuting.
The College began an on-campus composting program during FY 2010.
Compost was not incorporated into the FY 2010 emissions inventory, though it
would be instructive to add compost data to subsequent inventories to examine its
(minimal) impact on emissions reduction.
Recommendations for Future Inventory Protocol
Overall, the data collection process for the FY 2010 inventory was
straightforward albeit time-consuming. Because of the detail of the procedure
24
outlined by Rutledge in the initial emissions inventory for FY 2008, subsequent
inventories can be completed consistently and simply.
Future analysts ought to consult with John Jennings as well as
representatives from Champion Energy to determine the College’s exact custom
fuel mix. Further, as the percent of electricity generated by renewable sources
increases, future analysts must not enter kWh of REC’s into the calculator if the
REC’s are already accounted for in the custom fuel mix.
In order to increase precision for commuting data, future analysts could
consult the Campus Police Department, which holds records for each vehicle
registered to park legally on campus (vehicles with Austin College windshield
stickers). Perhaps Campus Police could release a spreadsheet to future analysts
containing the make and model of all the student, faculty, and staff vehicles on
file. A survey would still be necessary to consult campus community members
about their commuting distance and frequency, but a more precise representation
of the campus’s overall vehicle efficiency would be valuable. Future analysts
should also consider revising the commuting survey questions for clarification;
some students reported that they commute frequently in terms of trips home on
weekends. Thus, these students’ potentially long distance drives to and from
campus (for example, from Sherman to DFW and back once per week) could
skew commuting results. Future analysts ought to make sure that “commuting” is
understood to mean ≥ 3 trips to campus per week (the equivalent of a Monday,
Wednesday, Friday class schedule).
25
It would be helpful if notes on specific destinations were recorded for
directly financed air travel.
As mentioned, many flight destinations in the
purchasing card and voucher query records were ambiguous. Future analysts
ought to contact the purchasing representative(s) for flight data well in advance of
completing the inventory so that there is adequate time to compile the necessary
documents(s) and find the answers to any questions about ambiguous flight
destinations. If the purchasing representative(s) could list flights by destination
city, future inventories would have more precise air travel data.
Part 2: Analysis of Residence Hall Electricity Conservation Competition
The Idea
The idea to incorporate a “green” competition into life at Austin College
arose when students in the introductory course Environmental Studies 235
proposed that residence halls compete to reduce electricity use. The proposal was
born out of an assignment for students to come up with ways for the College to
reduce its carbon footprint in support of the PCC. Students were encouraged to
fine-tune the details of the competition rules and procedure in time for the first
annual competition to coincide with the spring 2010 official kick-off of “Austin
College. Thinking Green.” However, the planning crew felt that waiting until the
following fall was the best alternative for two reasons: first, the fall months
require little heating and cooling: factors that could create changes in electricity
26
consumption aside from the effects of residents’ behavior. Second, holding the
competition in the fall ensured that new freshmen could participate and become
accustomed to Austin College’s commitment to environmental stewardship during
their first months on campus.
The Goals of the Competition
First, the competition was meant to encourage a shift in residents’ attitude
toward energy use; it aimed to promote “green” behavior and education through
incentives and social engagement. It was a hands-on, stimulating means of
learning to recognize opportunities to save energy. Second, money and energy
were saved as a result of the competition. Last, Austin College can apply this
event to other buildings or departments; the competition and accompanying
educational value have potential to spread beyond residential life.
Following Examples
Planning for the residence hall electricity conservation competition at
Austin College was heavily influenced by similar programs on other college
campuses, including those at Harvard University, Duke University, and Oberlin
College: campuses whose large, successful competitions have led to significant
decreases in electricity consumption within residence halls.
Harvard’s Eco-Competition (Harvard University, 11 April 2011) runs
from November to March each year. Not only does the competition incorporate
27
residence halls, but it also allows labs, offices, and classrooms to participate. The
competition focuses on two areas: building operations and occupant education,
and winners are judged based on their success in both categories; standings are
released on a monthly basis. The competition is based on LEED standards for
Existing Buildings; categories include: energy use, bike racks, recycling
infrastructure and outreach, and green office purchasing. According to a March
2011 article in the Michigan Tech Lode (2011), Harvard has seen average annual
electricity reductions of 10% in residence halls during and after their
competitions.
Duke’s Eco-Olympics (Duke Environmental Alliance, 11 April 2011)
debuted in 2006. Like Harvard, the university’s residence hall competition begins
in November, but Duke’s competition period lasts only a month. Duke’s EcoOlympics consist of a series of environmentally themed events. Residence halls
are scored individually for each event based on residents’ participation. The hall
with the highest score across all events earns a party. Individual prizes, including
iPods, bicycles, camping supplies, and gift cards are also awarded during each
event. Events include the following:

Energy Reduction: Facilities Management uses past electricity data
to predict normal November consumption; the residence hall that
reduces the most below their prediction per person wins.

Recycling Rate: During the competition, residence hall trash is
sorted to determine what percentage of the trash should have been
28
recycled. Residence halls with the lowest rate of recyclables in
their waste score highest.

Online Impact Survey: Halls are scored according to the
percentage of residents who complete a survey on energy use
habits; participants are entered into drawings for prizes.

Eco
Film
Series:
Each
week
during
the
competition,
environmentally themed films are shown on campus. Participants
earn bonus points for their residence halls by viewing the films.
Individual prizes are given away during films.

Eco Trivia Night: This quiz is held during dinner in a campus
cafeteria.
Students can compete individually or in teams for
assorted prizes.

Recycle for the Children: After each home football game,
volunteers search Wallace Wade Stadium for left-behind bottles,
cans, and glasses. Duke Recycles donates the proceeds from the
sale of the materials to Duke Children's Hospital. Students who
volunteer after certain games earn bonus points for their halls and
have a chance to win a gift card.

Best Motivator Award: Staff members are on the lookout for
residents who do the best job of encouraging their hall mates to
participate in the Eco-Olympics. The winner receives a dinner
with friends at a local museum.
29
The winning hall is announced as soon as the final energy numbers come in from
Facilities Management, which often takes a week after the close of the
competition. According to the Michigan Tech Lode (2011), since Duke’s initial
2006 competition the campus has seen an average electricity reduction of 24% in
residence halls during the competition period.
Oberlin College has incorporated real-time energy use tracking into its
residence hall competition. The college has partnered with Lucid Design Group
to create its own “Building Dashboard,” which allows public access to real-time
energy use data per residence hall and residence hall floor. Not only do students
have access to their hall’s/floor’s kWh consumption per person, but the figure can
be instantaneously converted to dollars, carbon, coal, and sulfur equivalent. This
helps put the residents’ daily “footprint” into perspective.
According to the
College’s Campus Resource Monitoring System website, “the premise of the
campus resource use feedback system is that providing residents with easily
interpretable real-time feedback on electricity and water consumption - and the
financial and environmental impact of this consumption - motivates and
empowers students to conserve resources” (Petersen et al.).
According to a 2005 study at Oberlin (Petersen et al.) the November 2005
competition successfully demonstrated that resource use feedback systems
motivate students to exhibit substantial short-term reductions in energy and water
use in residence halls. Key findings included:

On average, halls reduced electricity use by 32% during the competition.
30
The two halls with real-time feedback won with 56% reductions in
electricity during the competition period.

During the competition residents conserved 68,000 kWh and saved
$5,100.

The Campus Resource Modeling System website received 4,000 hits
during the competition, and the majority of hits came from computers
located in residence halls.

In a post-competition survey, residents reported developing resource
saving strategies that they intended to continue.
AC Unplugged
The first annual “AC Unplugged” residence hall electricity conservation
competition was launched in partnership with “Austin College. Thinking Green.”
It took place in the fall of 2010; weekly monitoring of the traditional residence
halls’ electricity use began on September 30 and culminated on October 28. The
month of October was chosen for the four-week competition period since
relatively little heating or cooling is necessary during that time; thus, a high
proportion of electricity may be expected to be due to use of lights and electrical
devices by residents.
Each hall’s goal was to reduce its October electricity consumption (kWh)
below its respective baseline October 2009 consumption. Successful halls earned
money that was donated to the charity of residents’ choice. Students and faculty
31
made weekly announcements in regards to competition standings during
lunchtime in the cafeteria. This communication, along with other marketing
techniques (Facebook standings updates, public “AC Unplugged” art display,
posters with “green” tips in residence halls, etc.), was meant to engage students in
the competition and encourage “green” behavior in the spirit of fun and friendly
rivalry.
The percent reduction in each hall’s October 2010 electricity use was
determined using the following procedure. Data on each hall’s total October
electricity consumption were obtained from the Physical Plant for 2005-2010, and
a spreadsheet of occupancy data was obtained from Student Life staff for 20052010. This time frame was used since measurements of electricity consumption
and hall occupancy were not readily available for years prior to 2005. Each hall’s
October electricity consumption was divided by its corresponding number of fall
semester occupants to yield measurements of electricity consumption per
occupant for each hall in October of 2005-2010. These measurements were then
divided by the number of days in the October billing period to determine
electricity consumption per occupant per day during the competition period. Note
that billing period data were available only for October of 2008-2010, so these
three years were used to determine the results of the October 2010 competition.
An average value of electricity consumption per occupant per day was calculated
using data from the years 2008 and 2009. October 2010 data were compared to
this average to determine the percent savings of electricity in October 2010 vs. the
32
average of October 2008 and 2009. Note that this procedure was not followed
during the actual competition; the results that were announced to the campus
community did not correct for occupancy or days in the October billing period
from year to year. The announced results compare October 2010 electricity
consumption only to that of October 2009; the procedure described above uses an
average of two previous years’ data to determine the results of the October 2010
competition.
Results & Discussion: the Initial Competition
Table 7 shows the announced results of the initial “AC Unplugged”
competition.
Table 8 breaks down the halls’ October 2005-2010 kWh
consumption according to kWh per occupant, and Table 9 uses kWh per occupant
data to determine updated competition standings based on kWh consumption per
occupant per day in the October billing period.
The announced results (Table 7) were not corrected for the halls’ variable
occupancies or the variable number of days in the October billing period from
year to year. This study’s calculations of kWh per occupant per day in each hall
demonstrate that the announced results were not determined with consideration to
important factors, especially considering that October 2009 and October 2010
electricity billing periods differ by two days. Further, the results presented in this
study compare the October 2010 competition data to an average of October 2008
33
and 2009 data, while the announced results only compared the October 2010
competition data to October 2009 data.
According to the calculations in this study, Clyce Hall took first place
(with a 9.6% reduction in electricity consumption (kWh) per occupant per day in
October 2010 when compared to an average of 2008 and 2009 data for each hall),
Dean Hall took second place (8.3% reduction), Baker Hall took third place (6.9%
reduction), and Caruth Hall took fourth place (6.2% reduction). Between the four
traditional residence halls, an average 7.8% reduction in electricity consumption
(kWh) per occupant per day in October 2010 was calculated (compared to the
average of 2008 and 2009 October consumption of each hall). Tables 8 & 9
present the calculations that led to the updated October 2010 competition
standings.
Figure 3 presents long-term trends in kWh per occupant in each residence
hall; each hall’s electricity consumption per occupant data has been fitted with a
linear trendline. Figure 4 breaks down kWh per occupant per day data for each
hall; this figure offers a visual representation of each hall’s relative decrease in
kWh consumption from October 2008 to October 2010 (years when data on the
number of days in the billing period were available).
Recommendations for Future Competitions
In order to enhance the equity of future competitions, the winning
residence hall ought to be determined based on the greatest average reduction in
34
kWh per occupant per day compared to a baseline value for each residence hall.
The baseline could be an average of kWh per occupant per day for the month of
October during the previous two-three years. Incorporating the “per day” factor
would ensure that the October electricity billing period, which tends to vary each
year, is accounted for. This factor was neglected in determining the announced
standings of the first annual competition; while there were 28 days in the October
2009 billing period, there were 30 days in the October 2010 billing period. The
extra two days included in the October 2010 billing period added almost 10%
more kWh to the competition period than were accounted for in October 2009.
This could overshadow the potential effects of residents’ “green” behavior. In
order to correct for this, divide kWh per occupant in each hall by the number of
days in the October billing period for the year in question, and compare this value
for each hall to an average kWh per occupant per day for previous years. This
electricity consumption per occupant per day judging procedure is a simple means
of correcting for each hall’s occupancy, varying billing periods, etc.
Increasing energy conservation awareness within the halls year-round may
encourage “green” behavior and energy savings even after the competition period
has ended. During my research, Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Michael
Imhoff shared information about Rice University’s “EcoRep” program. After
looking into the program, it could be a feasible, beneficial addition to the “Austin
College. Thinking Green.” résumé.
According to Rice University’s
sustainability website (Sustainability at Rice University, 11 April 2011), the Rice
35
“EcoRep” Program is a “student-led peer-to-peer environmental outreach network
based in the university's nine residential colleges. Each residential college is
served by one ‘EcoRep’ who leads a series of college-focused sustainability
initiatives
including:
utility conservation,
recycling,
and
environmental
education.” Austin College could incorporate a similar program into its residence
halls either through Student Life and the R.A.’s or through students employed by
the Center for Environmental Studies. “EcoReps” would participate in monthly
meetings with a faculty adviser in order to track the progress of each hall’s
“green” efforts. Further, the “EcoReps” could be in-charge of planning more
“events,” similar to those of Duke’s Eco-Olympics, to occur in conjunction with
the annual “AC Unplugged” competition.
If funding is available, it would be worth experimenting with real-time
energy (electricity + natural gas) and water use feedback, similar to that at Oberlin
College, in at least one of Austin College’s residence halls. A study comparing
residents’ energy conservation performance in the hall(s) with real-time feedback
compared to those without real-time feedback could be done by a student(s) in
order to determine the impact of the technology on residents’ behavior.
The effect of different weather on October electricity consumption from
year to year is unknown. Further study could determine if weather is a factor that
ought to be corrected for in calculations of the results of future competitions.
Finally, Austin College ought to include the College’s various other
residence halls in future competitions.
36
Conclusions
While the College emitted a total of 14,191 MT-eCO2 in FY 2008, it
decreased total emissions by 965 MT-eCO2 to 13,226 MT-eCO2 in FY 2010.
Neither electricity use nor natural gas use met the Climate Action Plan’s annual
goals of 2% reduction per year, respectively. Nevertheless, the college has still
progressed in its path to climate neutrality through the switch to a higher
percentage of electricity generated by renewable sources, the purchase of retail
offsets for January Term air travel, and conservation. While new buildings will
soon come online, the College’s annual increase in electricity generated by wind
will play a key role in lessening the potential emissions of the expanded campus.
The first annual “AC Unplugged” residence hall electricity conservation
competition was held in October of 2010, and it is evident in the halls’ average
7.8% decrease in October 2010 electricity consumption (kWh) compared to
previous years that there is potential for better conservation. In all, the College
reduced its carbon footprint by 7% between FY 2008 and FY 2010.
37
References
Bundy, Larry. “Fertilizer Grades: Determining Application Rates of Dry and
Liquid Fertilizer Materials.” 1991. 25 January 2011. University of
Wisconsin-Madison Dept. of Soil Science.
<http://www.hort.wisc.edu/cran/pubs_archive/proceedings/1991/ferbun.pd
f?>.
Clean Air-Cool Planet. “Climate Action Toolkit.” 2011. The Campus Carbon
Calculator™, Version 6.6. 25 January 2011.
< http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.php>.
DEFRA. "Methodology Paper for Transport Emission Factors." July 2008. 2008
Guidelines to Defra’s GHG Conversion Factors. 11 April 2011
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/passenger
transport.pdf>.
Duke University. Duke Eco-Olympics Rules of the Game Online.
<http://www.duke.edu/web/env_alliance/games/rules.html>. 7 April 2011.
Harvard University. FAS Eco-Competition Online.
<http://green.harvard.edu/fas/eco-competition>. 5 April 2011.
Hough, Ian, et al. "Campus Carbon Calculator User's Guide Vol. 6." 2008.
Climate Action Toolkit. Clean Air-Cool Planet. 25 January 2011
<http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.php>.
Imperial College. "Climate Change and the Future of Air Travel." 25 January
2005. Imperial College London. 11 April 2011.
38
<http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P5997.htm>.
“Michigan Tech Residence Halls Prepare for Green Campus Competition.
The Michigan Tech Lode. 17 March 2011.
Oberlin College. Campus Resource Monitoring System Online.
<http://cs.oberlin.edu/~envs/dashboard/index.php>. 7 April 2011.
Petersen, John E. et al. “Dormitory Residents Reduce Electricity Consumption
When Exposed to Real-Time Visual Feedback and Incentives.”
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Vol. 8:1. pp. 16-33.
Presidents’ Climate Commitment. About American College & University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment. 2011. 25 January 2011.
<http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/about.php>.
Rutledge, Jade E. “Austin College Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.” 2009.
Schulze, Peter C. “Austin College Climate Action Plan.” 2010.
TerraPass, Inc. TerraPass. 2004. 20 December 2010.
<http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/#air>.
U.S. Dept. of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy EPA Fuel Economy. 2011.
27 December 2010. <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm>.
39
Tables
Table 1: Calculator Data and Source of Data
Institutional Data
Budgets
Operating Budget
Energy Budget
Population Size
Full Time Students
Part-Time Students
Summer School
Students
Faculty
Staff
Physical Size
Physical Size of
Campus Buildings
Physical Size of
Research Space
Scope 1 Emissions
Fuels Used on Campus
Natural Gas
Gasoline Fleet
Sources
Total expenditures for fiscal
year (dollars).
Monetary sum the school
spends on providing energy
(electricity and natural gas)
to on-campus buildings
(dollars).
Board Minutes;
Sheryl Bradshaw
Account Availability
Report; Ellen Miles
Population of full time
students.
Population of part-time
students.
Population of summer school
students.
Faculty population.
Staff population.
Judy Wheaton
Size of all on campus
buildings (ft2).
Size of research space (ft2).
Mike Imhoff
Fuel used for heating, hot
water, and cooking
(MMBtu).
Gasoline used for collegeowned vehicles including
physical plant, police,
biology vans, and staff
vehicles (gallons). Personal
miles put on fleet vehicles
not included.
John Jennings
Judy Wheaton
Judy Wheaton
Judy Wheaton
Keith Larey
Mike Imhoff
Linda Welch
(physical plant
purchased gasoline),
Gail Lewis (personal
miles on college
vehicles), Jeannean
Smith (mileage of
college vehicles),
Sandy Beach
40
(mileage of biology
vans)
Refrigerants and Chemicals
Various Refrigerants
Refrigerants that escaped
when maintaining equipment
(lbs).
Fertilizer
Amount of Fertilizer
Amount of Fertilizer (lbs).
% Nitrogen
% nitrogen in fertilizer. If
different % nitrogen for
different fertilizer types, take
weighted average of %
nitrogen.
Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased Electricity
Custom Fuel Mix
John Jennings
John Jennings
John Jennings
Amount of electricity and the John Jennings
fuel mix (coal, natural gas,
nuclear, and renewable
energy sources) used by oncampus buildings (kWh).
Exact fuel mix of electric
John Jennings
utility. % coal, natural gas,
nuclear, renewable, and
purchased by unknown grid
sources.
Scope 3 Emissions
Commuting
Student Automobile
Fuel Efficiency
% Students Drive
Personal Vehicle
% Students that Carpool
Student Trips per Week
Commuting behavior was used to calculate gallons of
gasoline used by commuters per year.
Average mpg of student
Online survey of
vehicles driven to campus.
students
Average from car year, make
and model. EPA mpg
averages were used
(www.fueleconomy.gov).
% of students that drive
Online survey of
personal vehicles to campus. students
% of students that drive
Online survey of
personal vehicles that
students
carpool to campus.
Carpooling is defined as two
or more passengers.
Average trips per week
Online survey of
41
Student Weeks per Year
Student Miles per Trip
Faculty Automobile
Fuel Efficiency
% Faculty Drive
Personal Vehicle
% Faculty that Carpool
Faculty Trips per Week
Faculty Weeks per Year
Faculty Miles per Trip
Staff Automobile Fuel
Efficiency
% Staff Drive Personal
Vehicle
% Staff that Carpool
Staff Trips per Week
Staff Weeks per Year
students commuted.
Average weeks per year
students commuted.
Average distance per round
trip that students commuted
(miles).
Average mpg of faculty
vehicles driven to campus.
Average from car year, make
and model. EPA mpg
averages were used
(www.fueleconomy.gov).
% of faculty that drive
personal vehicles to campus.
% of faculty that drive
personal vehicles that
carpool to campus.
Carpooling is defined as two
or more passengers.
Average trips per week
faculty commuted.
Average weeks per year
faculty commuted.
Average distance per round
trip that faculty commuted
(miles).
Average mpg of staff
vehicles driven to campus.
Average from car year, make
and model. EPA mpg
averages were used
(www.fueleconomy.gov).
% of staff that drive personal
vehicles to campus.
% of staff that drive personal
vehicles that carpool to
campus. Carpooling is
defined as two or more
passengers.
Average trips per week staff
commuted.
Average weeks per year staff
commuted.
students
Online survey of
students
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of
faculty
Online survey of staff
Online survey of staff
Online survey of staff
Online survey of staff
Online survey of staff
42
Staff Miles per Trip
Average distance per round
trip that staff commuted
(miles).
Directly Financed Air Travel
Faculty/Staff Directly
Total distance of faculty/staff
Financed Air Travel
plane travel that the school
wholly or partially finances
in the fiscal year (miles).
Student Directly
Financed Air Travel
Total distance of student
plane travel that the school
wholly or partially finances
in the fiscal year (miles).
Only athletic teams in this
figure.
Other Directly Financed Travel
Bus Travel
Charter bus distance from
fiscal year (miles). Only
athletic teams in this figure.
Mileage
Distance driven on personal
Reimbursements for
vehicles that the college
Personal Vehicle Use
reimbursed (miles). The IRS
mileage rates were used to
calculate mileage (IRS
Standard Mileage Rates,
2008).
Study Abroad Travel
Study Abroad Air
Travel
Waste
Solid Waste
Online survey of staff
Ellen Miles (all air
travel for staff and
faculty, except study
abroad; found in
Purchasing Card
records and Voucher
Query records),
Sandra Miller
(coaching staff
athletics flights)
Sandra Miller
(student athletic
flights)
Sandra Miller, Jade
Rutledge
Ellen Miles
Total distance of semester
and yearlong study abroad
flights and January term
flights per fiscal year (miles).
Valerie Roberts
(semester and year
long trips) Margie
Norman (January
Term; CSOC and
NSOC)
Solid waste sent to the
landfill from Austin College
trash receptacles. Measured
Solid Waste
Supervisor for the
City of Sherman
43
in short tons (2,000 lbs).
Wastewater
Purchased Materials
Office Paper
Offsets
Offsets With
Additionality: High end
Retail Offsets
Water sent to the city
wastewater treatment plant
(gallons).
(number of
receptacles and
frequency of pick
ups) and the Texoma
Area Solid Waste
Authority, Inc.
(landfill type), Jade
Rutledge
Linda Welch, Jade
Rutledge
Amount of office paper used
per year (lbs).
Jeannean Smith
Purchased offsets for January
Term air miles; enter only
total offset miles into “Study
Abroad Air Miles” to
determine total MT-eCO2
offset; enter MT-eCO2 offset
into “High End Retail
Offsets” (Additionality).
Total January Term
flight miles from
Valerie Roberts and
Margie Norman
44
Table 2: Calculator Data and Corresponding Input
Page/Column(s)
Input Page
Input_InflAdj
CustFuelMix
Input_Commuter
Input
Data to Input
Operating budget
Energy budget
Net purchased (%)
Coal (%)
Natural gas (%)
Nuclear (%)
Renewable (%)
Students % personal
vehicle
Students % carpool
Students trips per week
Students weeks per
year
Students miles per trip
Faculty % Personal
Vehicle
Faculty % carpool
Faculty trips per week
Faculty weeks per year
Faculty miles per trip
Staff % Personal
Vehicle
Staff % carpool
Staff trips per week
Staff weeks per year
Staff miles per trip
Full-time students
Part-time students
Summerschool students
Faculty
Staff
Total building (sq. ft.)
Total research building
(sq. ft.)
Natural gas (MMBtu)
Gasoline fleet (gallons)
Column in
CACP
Calculator
C
E
D
E
F
I
M
E
F
G
H
I
AT
AU
AV
AW
AX
BZ
CA
CB
CC
CD
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
AF
AP
45
Diesel fleet (gallons)
HFC-134a (lbs.)
HFC-404a (lbs.)
HCFC-22 (lbs.)
Other refrigerants (lbs.)
Synthetic fertilizer
(lbs.)
% Nitrogen
Organic fertilizer (lbs.)
% Nitrogen
Purchased electricity
(kWh)
Directly financed
faculty/staff air miles
Directly financed
student air miles
Directly financed bus
miles
Personal mileage
reimbursement
Study abroad air miles
Solid waste no CH4
recovery (short tons)
Wastewater aerobic
(gallons)
Paper 0% recycled
(lbs.)
Paper 100% recycled
(lbs.)
Offsets (High End
Retail Offsets With
Additionality)
AQ
AZ
BA
BB
BC
BF
BG
BH
BI
BR
CC
CD
CG
CI
CJ
CM
CQ
CT
CX
DA
46
Table 3: Sample of Athletics Travel Data from Sandra Miller
Baseball
2/2, 2010
2/12 - 2/142010
3/2, 2010
Destination
Cedar Hill, Texas
San Antonio, TX
Marshall, TX
Jackson,
3/5 - 3/7, 2010 Mississipppi
3/19 - 3/21,
2010
Georgetown, TX
3/30, 2010
Tyler, TX
4/1-4/3, 2010 Conway, Arkansas
4/13, 2010
Longview, TX
Irving, TX
4/18, 2010
CANCELED
4/21 - 4/25,
Memphis,
2010
Tennessee
Mileage
150.468
Method of
travel
Bus/mid-size
Travel
Party
26
622.592
344
Bus/mid-size
Bus/mid-size
26
26
767.18
Bus/mid-size
26
434.588
234.684
514.096
268.958
Bus/mid-size
Bus/mid-size
Bus/mid-size
Bus/mid-size
26
26
26
26
776.142
Bus/ 57-pass
26
47
Table 4: Rutledge’s Solid waste Calculations
Trash
Containers
Apartments
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Physical
Plant
Physical
Plant
Physical
Plant Roll
Off
Cubic
Yards
6
4
4
Per
week
2
6
5
Per
year
104
312
260
Cubic
yards per
year
624
1248
1040
8
6
312
2496
112.33
Aug-05
8
5
260
2080
93.61
Aug-05
30
2 per
month 12
360
Total tons
per year at
100% full:
Total tons
per year at
90% full:
Total tons
per year at
80% full:
16.20
Aug-05
Tons
per year
28.08
56.17
46.80
Date
started
Sep-05
Sep-05
Sep-05
353
318
283
48
Table 5: Summary of Alterations to the Calculator
Alteration to CACP
Calculator
Student, faculty, and staff
personal vehicle mileage
altered to represent
campus
commuting habits based
on
survey results; vehicle
mileages averaged and
entered for FY 2010;
same
procedure used in
Rutledge's FY 2008
inventory
Study abroad air miles
kg CO2/mile multiplied
by 0.64
to represent smaller
proportion of
emissions for long
(overseas)
flights as opposed to
domestic
flights; take-off and
landing
portions of flights yield
highest
emissions; directly
financed
faculty/staff air travel not
multiplied by 0.64;
majority of these
flights assumed to be
domestic
kg CO2/mile for all air
miles
Multiplied by 2 (instead
of 2.8) to reflect best
estimate of radiative
forcing index (RFI)
Input Page on CACP
Calculator
Column(s) in CACP
Calculator
Input_Commuter
D, AS, BY
EF_CO2
BF
EF_Transportation
BN
49
Table 6: Emissions Sources by MT-eCO2 and % of Total: FY
2008 vs. 2010
Emissions Sources
Purchased Electricity
Natural Gas
Study Abroad Flights
Directly Financed Air
Travel
Trans./Dist. Of
Purchased Energy
Student Commuting
Faculty/Staff
Commuting
Solid Waste
Paper Purchasing
Fleet Vehicles
Mileage
Reimbursement/Bus
Miles
Refrigerants
Wastewater
Fertilizer
JanTerm Flight
Purchased Offsets
Total Emissions
FY2008
MTeCO2
7082
2466
1598
FY
2008 %
50%
17%
11%
FY2010
MTeCO2
6543
2636
1394
FY
2010 %
49%
20%
11%
875
6%
822
6%
701
438
5%
3%
647
311
5%
2%
384
416
37
121
3%
3%
0%
1%
332
416
37
105
3%
3%
0%
1%
28
23
13
9
0%
0%
0%
0%
44
290
13
8
0%
2%
0%
0%
100%
-372
13226
-3%
100%
0
14191
50
Table 7: Announced Results of First Annual “AC Unplugged”
Competition
Residence
Hall
Dean
Baker
Caruth
Clyce
% Change
of
Electricity
Use from
Oct. 2009
-17.3%
-13.8%
-12.1%
-4.7%
Total
kWh of
Electricity
Saved
6,155
3,092
3,487
533
13,267
51
Table 8: Raw Occupancy and kWh per Occupant Data for Each
Residence Hall 2005-2010
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Days in
Oct.
Billing
Period
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
28
30
Caruth
kWh for
October
Billing
Period
34655
37000
36294
32080
32023
31892
Caruth Fall
Semester
Occupancy
150
151
150
145
146
149
Caruth
kWh/Occupant
231
245
242
221
219
214
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Days in
Oct.
Billing
Period
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
28
30
Clyce
kWh for
October
Billing
Period
19264
15296
16768
14400
14336
12220
Clyce Fall
Semester
Occupancy
126
123
116
120
120
109
Clyce
kWh/Occupant
153
124
145
120
119
112
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Days in
Oct.
Billing
Period
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
28
30
Dean
kWh for
October
Billing
Period
40966
41338
44914
39280
41542
39226
Dean Fall
Semester
Occupancy
230
221
220
203
232
222
Dean
kWh/Occupant
178
187
204
193
179
177
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Days in
Oct.
Billing
Period
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
28
30
Baker
kWh for
October
Billing
Period
32320
32640
30976
23040
24768
24384
Baker Fall
Semester
Occupancy
141
141
141
116
140
135
Baker
kWh/Occupant
229
231
220
199
177
181
Caruth
kWh/
Occupant
Day
7.375
7.833
7.135
Clyce kWh/
Occupant
Day
4.000
4.267
3.737
Dean kWh/
Occupant
Day
6.450
6.395
5.890
Baker kWh/
Occupant
Day
6.621
6.318
6.021
52
Table 9: kWh/Occupant Day Data per Residence Hall with
Updated Competition Standings
Residence
Hall
Caruth
Clyce
Dean
Baker
kWh/Occupant kWh/Occupant
Day
Day
kWh/Occupant
Day
Oct. 2008
7.375
4.000
6.450
6.621
Oct. 2009
7.833
4.267
6.395
6.318
Oct. 2010
7.135
3.737
5.890
6.021
% Electricity
(kWh) Saved
6.2%
9.6%
8.3%
6.9%
Updated
Standings
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
kWh/Occupan
t Day
Avg. 2008 &
2009
7.604
4.134
6.423
6.470
kWh/Occupant
Day
Residence
Hall
Caruth
Clyce
Dean
Baker
Avg. - 2010
0.469
0.397
0.533
0.449
53
Figures
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Emissions Sources By Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent:
Fiscal Year 2008 Vs. 2010
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
FY2008
FY2010
2000
1000
0
y
g
g
g
el
te
ty
er zer ets
es iles nts
as hts
n
n
n
rg
ci
G
cl
ti
ti
at
av
s
as asi
a
g
e
i
l
r
i
i li
M
u
u
r
ff
T
W
e
h
Fl
En
e h us
ra
ew ert
m
m
O
g
c
r
t
d
i
u
i
V
r
d
i
l
d
s
m
m
d
F
t
r
l
B
A
t
a
u
e
E
o
o
a
o
/
o
ef Wa
P
se
C
C
d
N
S
d
ee nt
as
R
f
t
br
ha
ce ch
er
e
Fl
se
n
A
af
c
n
p
a
e
r
t
r
a
a
d
u
u
em
P
dy in
ch
P
/S
P
tu
rs
F
f
tu
t
ur
S
ty
u
l
O
h
S
y
P
b
tl
ig
t.
cu
m
Fl
is
ec
ei
Fa
D
ir
R
m
/
D
r
e
s.
Te
ag
an
n
e
r
l
a
i
T
J
M
-1000
i
tr
ec
Figure 1: This graph compares metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions for FY
2008 and FY 2010.
54
ir
u
rc
ha
se
d
El
e
-10%
S
tu
ct
ri
N
ci
at
d
ec
ty
y
u
n
t
A
r
ly
s.
a
br
/D
lG
Fi
oa
na
is
as
d
t.
n
Fl
ce
O
ig
f
d
P
h
A
u
ts
ir
rc
Tr
h
S
as
a
t
Fa
u
ve
ed
d
cu
l
en
En
lt
t
e
y/
C
r
om
gy
St
af
m
f
u
C
t
in
om
g
m
M
u
S
t
ile
ol
in
P
ap
id
g
ag
er
W
e
R
as
P
ei
ur
te
m
ch
bu
Fl
as
ee
rs
in
t
em
g
V
eh
en
ic
t/
le
B
s
us
M
R
Ja
ef
ile
n
ri
s
Te
ge
rm
ra
W
n
a
Fl
ts
st
ig
ew
h
t
a
P
te
u
Fe
r
rc
rt
h
as
ili
ze
ed
r
O
ff
se
ts
Tr
a
D
P
% of Total
Emissions Sources By % of Total Emissions:
Fiscal Year 2008 Vs. 2010
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
FY 2008
FY 2010
10%
0%
Figure 2: This graph compares each emissions source by percent of total campus
emissions for FY 2008 and FY 2010.
55
Long-Term Trends for kWh Per Residence Hall Occupant:
October 2005-2010
275
= August 2008 Operational Change
250
225
Caruth kWh/Occupant
kWh/Occupant
200
175
Clyce kWh/Occupant
150
Dean kWh/Occupant
125
Baker kWh/Occupant
100
Linear (Caruth
kWh/Occupant)
75
Linear (Baker
kWh/Occupant)
50
25
Linear (Dean
kWh/Occupant)
0
Linear (Clyce
kWh/Occupant)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Figure 3: This graph shows electricity consumption (kWh/occupant) in each
residence hall for the month of October during 2005-2010. The solid vertical line
represents the timing of major operational changes in all halls.
56
kWh Per Occupant Day for October of 2008, 2009, and 2010
9.000
8.000
kWh/Occupant Day
7.000
6.000
5.000
Oct. 2008
Oct. 2009
Oct. 2010
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Caruth
Clyce
Dean
Baker
Residence Hall
Figure 4: This graph illustrates the kWh per occupant per day for each residence
hall based on October electricity billing periods from October 2008-2010. Note
that Clyce’s efficiency is significantly better than the other halls before the initial
competition period (Clyce’s 4 kWh/occupant day to other halls’ 6+ kWh/occupant
day). Reasons for such better operation are unclear as of yet.
57
Appendices
Appendix 1: Commuting Survey
Below are the survey questions used for the fiscal year 2010 emissions inventory;
composed on Surveymonkey.com:
1. Are you a student, staff, or faculty member?
2. If a student, are you full or part time?
3. If an employee, are you employed full time or part time?
4. Do you live on or off campus?
5. Do you drive to campus on a regular basis? (not counting commuting to
and from home before a semester or during break).
6. What is the year, make, and model of the vehicle that you most often
drive to campus?
7. How many miles one-way is your commute to campus? If you don’t
know
this
number,
then
you
can
use
Mapquest
(http://www.mapquest.com/) to find the distance from your home
address to campus.
8. Approximately how many round trips do you make per week?
9. Approximately how many weeks per year do you drive to campus?
10. Do you regularly carpool to campus? If you live with another Austin
College member and you usually drive together, this is considered
carpooling.
58
11. If you answered yes to the carpool question, do you drive a personal
vehicle or are you a passenger in someone else’s vehicle?
59
Appendix 2: Commuting Raw Survey Data and Vehicle MPG
Class.
Vehicle Info.
Commute
Year, Make, Model
MPG
Miles
Trips/
Weeks/
(one-way)
Week
Year
Carpool?
Regularly?
Student
Yes
2007 Honda Civic Hybrid
42
5
10
28
Student
Yes
2005 VW Jetta
24
35
3
35
Student
Yes
2000 Ford Mustang
18
8
8
36
Student
Yes
2000 Honda Civic
27
5.64
7
34
Student
Yes
2003 Chevrolet Impala
22
6
6
35
Student
Yes
2007 BMW 335i
21
2
7
12
Student
Yes
2003 Mitsubishi Outlander
20
11
8
30
Student
Yes
2001 VW
21
20
6
35
Student
Yes
22
5
7
25
Student
Yes
1995 Suzuki Sidekick
1996 Chevrolet Silverado 2500
4x4
17
1
10
42
Student
Yes
1997 Honda Civic
30
1
4
25
Student
Yes
2005 Toyota Corolla
29
0.5
10
Student
Yes
2010 Nissan Altima
23
1.3
4
35
Student
Yes
1998 Ford Escort
25
2
4
9
Student
Yes
2008 Mazda 3
26
5
5
Student
Yes
2005 Chevrolet Malibu
23
9
5
Student
Yes
2005 Ford Focus
25
25
6
16
Student
Yes
2001 Acura MDX
17
4.2
6
40
Student
Yes
1999 Honda Accord
23
1.5
20
30
Student
Yes
2003 VW Jetta
24
10
7
28
Student
Yes
2000 Ford Mustang
18
8
7
36
Student
Yes
2004 Honda Civic
30
108
Student
Yes
2003 GMC Sierra Z71 Truck
14
0.5
4
20
Student
Yes
2010 Nissan Sentra
27
2
9
35
Student
Yes
2006 Hyundai Sonata
24
0.57
20
25
Student
Yes
2009 Honda Civic Sedan
28
12
10
35
Student
Yes
2006 Mazda 3
26
1
10
35
Student
Yes
2002 Chevy Blazer
15
1
6
35
Student
Yes
2004 Chevy Suburban
14
0.2
5
52
8
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
my
not
not
not
not
not
my
not
not
my
my
my
my
not
my
not
not
60
Student
Yes
30
2005 Dodge Neon SXT
25
0.5
6
35
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Averages
23.33
9.73
7.33
30
8 do carpool
Student
No
1996 Buick Regal
21
86
0
Student
No
2000 Pontiac G3
29
75
1
12
Student
No
1998 Honda Accord
23
80
1
1
Student
No
2004 Ford Escape
19
45
1
Student
No
ML320
20
30
1
6
Student
No
2001 Hyundai Santa Fe
18
55.98
1
1
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
1999 Subaru Outback
Student
No
2009 Toyota Camry SE
Student
No
Student
No
2003 ford focus svt
0.3
0
0
Student
No
2008 Toyota Corolla CE
60
0
9
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
1195 Jeep Wrangler
Student
No
2005 Honda Accord
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
0
Student
No
0
2
Student
No
0
4
Student
No
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
0
1
10
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
my
not
not
not
No; I do not
carpool.
2005 Honda Civic
500
7
3
0
2
60
10
2003 nisson
0.3
0
2
1999 Chevy Tahoe
106
0
18
2002 Nissan Xterra
364
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No;
I do not
61
carpool.
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2005 Dodge Neon
50
0
6
2002 Honda CRV
300
1
8
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
Student
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2000 Dodge Stratus
Student
No
2000 Honda
60
1
10
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2002 Hyndai Santa Fe
330
1
6
Student
No
2004 Honda CRV
Student
No
Student
No
2003 ford focus
Student
No
2003 Toyota Tundra
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2006 Nissan Murano
Student
No
1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
1999 Mazda Millenia
0
90
0.5
1
6
0
0
1
5
353.55
0
2
348.61
0
1995 Honda Civic
two
trip
day
ford focus
2008 Nissan sentra
250
1
10
0
0
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No;
I do not
62
carpool.
Student
No
Student
No
1996 Mercury Grand Marquis
Student
No
1998 Honda Accord
80
Student
No
2008 Honda Fit Sport
240
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2010 Nissan Altima Coupe
Student
No
2002 Kia Spectra
Student
No
2005 Scion tC
Student
No
2007 Ford Focus SES
Student
No
2004 Honda Civic
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
If I drove I would carpool.
Student
No
2001 Jeep Cheroke
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2002 Honda Accord
Student
No
1999 Toyota Corolla
Student
No
2003 Saturn Ion
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2004 Honda CR-V
30
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
325
Yes; I am a
passenge.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
0.5
26
170
0
6
320
0
0
2
71.21
0
4
63
1
10
2010 Ford Escape
0
0
0
60
0
3
2004 Ford Mustand
100
0
8
2001 Buick
160
l0
4
66
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
2007 Chevy Cobalt
2000 Pontiac Grand Am
1
0.1
0
1
0
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
do not
do not
do not
do not
do not
do not
do not
63
Student
No
2000 Ford Focus
Student
No
2010 Honda Accord Sedan
75
1
10
Student
No
1996 Honda Civic
60
0
4
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
5
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
2004 Ford F-150
Student
No
2007 kia rio
Student
No
2001 Porsche Boxster
Student
No
2006 Honda Accord
Student
No
BMW X3
Student
No
Student
No
Student
No
Pontiac Grand Prix
0
2
Student
No
I ride my bike
0.8
10
Student
No
2006 Ford Mustang, Stampede
19
72
1
12
Student
No
1997 Ford Mustang
21
60
1
6
Student
No
2007 VW Beatle
23
300
0
3
Student
No
2006
52
2
28
Student
No
1994 Mercury Grand Marquis
18
430
Student
No
1966 Ford Mustang
16
137.6
1
30
Student
No
1999 Toyota Solara
23
47
1
15
Student
No
2004 Honda Accord Coupe
24
140
1
15
Student
No
1993 Subaru Impreza
23
95
1
15
Student
2004 Pontiac GrandAm
1
2005 Nissan Altima
50.23
1
Honda Odyssey
68
0
1999 Honda Accord
2.2
3
45
1
3
20
200
1
2
1
do not
do not
do not
do not
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
my
do not
do not
do not
do not
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
64
Student
No
2008 Acura tsx
23
50
1
52
Student
No
1998 Toyota 4-Runner
16
50
2
35
Student
No
Honda Accord
27
60
1
25
Student
No
1998 Honda Civic
28
75
1
52
Student
No
2001 Honda CRV
21
65
1
26
Student
No
2009 Hyndui Elantra
28
37.53
1
27
Student
No
2007 Toyota Corolla
29
76
1
18
Student
No
2007 Hyundai Sonata
24
143
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
not
not
not
my
not
not
not
34 do carpool
Faculty
Yes
2005 Ford Taurus
20
37.5
5
50
Faculty
Yes
2008 Honda CRV
23
0.5
4
40
Faculty
Yes
2006 Honda Civic
30
50
5
60
Faculty
Yes
2003 Mazda 6
22
3
6
28
Faculty
Yes
2007 Mazda 3
26
9
5
48
Faculty
Yes
1998 Toyota Camry
23
3
10
48
Faculty
Yes
1982 Ford F150
12
2.1
6
40
Faculty
Yes
2005 Buick Lacrosse
20
3
10
40
Faculty
Yes
2006 Hyundai Santa Fe
18
1.5
7
45
Faculty
Yes
50
35
5
42
Faculty
Yes
2010 Toyota Prius
1999 Chevrolet
pickup
15
1.7
5
40
Faculty
Yes
2006 Toyota Camry
25
3.5
8
47
Faculty
Yes
2010 Toyota Prius
50
35
5
40
Faculty
Yes
2001 Ford Escort
26
3.4
5
20
Faculty
Yes
2007 Ford Escape
20
6
6
50
Faculty
Yes
2004 Saturn Ion
24
4
5
44
Faculty
Yes
1991 Jeep Wrangler
17
4
10
40
Faculty
Yes
29
2.5
10
49
Faculty
Yes
1992 Honda Civic
1996 Ford F-150 Pickup (5.0
L)
13
25
5
48
Faculty
Yes
1998 Toyota Corolla
28
4.5
5
37
Faculty
Yes
2006 BMW 325i
21
4
4
28
Faculty
Yes
2007 Honda Civic
29
3
5
30
Faculty
Yes
1999 Ford Ranger
16
2.5
5
40
Faculty
Yes
1996 Toyota P/U
16
3
10
40
Silverado
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
not
not
not
not
my
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
my
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
65
Faculty
Yes
2010 Toyota Camry
26
5
4
40
Faculty
Yes
2010 Dodge Ram 3500
15
10
6
30
Faculty
Yes
2008 Honda Accord
24
35
5
35
Faculty
Yes
2007 Chrysler Sebring
22
2.2
8
40
Faculty
Yes
2003
4.4
5
49
Faculty
Yes
2003 Honda Accord
25
12
2
16
Faculty
Yes
2008 Ford Fusion
23
4
5
40
Faculty
Yes
2000 Ford F-150 Quad Cab
14
9
6
45
Faculty
Yes
2007 Toyota Prius
46
4.3
5
49
Faculty
Yes
2004 Nissan Altima
23
42.5
5
50
Faculty
Yes
2003 Jeep Wrangler
17
2
3
28
Faculty
Yes
1999 Honda Civic
35.8
7
7
51
Faculty
Yes
2008 Mitsubishi Lancer
24
10
6
32
Faculty
Yes
2001 Mercury Sable
20
6
5
Faculty
Yes
1999 Toyota Corolla
28
0.5
5
34
Faculty
Yes
2007 Toyota Corolla
29
2.2
5
38
Faculty
Yes
2010 VW Jetta
25
50
5
42
Faculty
Yes
2010 Honda Insight
41
2.5
5
35
Faculty
Yes
2003 Toyota Corolla
28
1
6
48
Faculty
Yes
2007 Hyudai Entourage
18
2.2
9
45
Faculty
Yes
2004 Mazda 3i
26
9
6
45
Faculty
Yes
2002 Honda Civic
30
40
5
47
Faculty
Yes
2002 Honda Odyssey
19
2
5
50
Faculty
Yes
1998 Olds Intrigue
21
3
10
40
Faculty
Yes
Honda Civic
29
30
4
30
Faculty
Yes
1997 Toyota Corolla
26
4
5
48
Faculty
Yes
2001 Saturn
26
0.5
5
48
Faculty
Yes
2010 Genesis Coupe
23
30
5
33
Faculty
Yes
2009 Toyota Prius
46
3
7
45
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Averages
25.05
10.94
5.85
40.9
7 do carpool
1
0
0
4.2; I bike.
7
53
Faculty
No
Faculty
No
Faculty
No
I do not have one.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes;
I
am
a
66
passenger.
Faculty
No
1992 Honda civic hatchback
40
0.5;
I
bike/walk
6
48
4
No; I do not
carpool.
1 does carpool
Staff
Yes
1982 Honda Goldwing
40
1
4
50
Staff
Yes
2007 Ford Taurus
20
55
1
49
Staff
Yes
2008 Ford Fusion
23
3
6
50
Staff
Yes
2009 Ford Escape
21
10
5
21
Staff
Yes
2004 Chevy Tahoe
15
7
5
45
Staff
Yes
2010 Toyota Highlander
20
6
5
28
Staff
Yes
2002 Chevrolet Tahoe
14
4
8
48
Staff
Yes
2004 Nissan Xterra
16
7
6
40
Staff
Yes
2009 Nissan Sentra
27
20
5
48
Staff
Yes
2006 Ford F150
14
10.1
5.5
48
Staff
Yes
2009 Chev HHR
24
76
Staff
Yes
2010 Ford Explorer
16
2
10
52
Staff
Yes
2000 Honda Accord
23
1.2
6
40
Staff
Yes
2000 Honda Odyssey
19
15
5
40
Staff
Yes
2007 Honda Accord
25
3.58
5
50
Staff
Yes
2006 Lincoln Navigator
13
29
2.5
35
Staff
Yes
2000 Buick LaSabre
20
3.65
5
48
Staff
Yes
2002 Ford Tauraus
21
17
5
47
Staff
Yes
2009 Dodge Caliber
24
10
5
48
Staff
Yes
1999 Toyota truck
18
7
5
47
Staff
Yes
2007 Chevy Colorado
17
15
7
42
Staff
Yes
2001 Toyota Camry
24
2.3
10
48
Staff
Yes
2005 Ford F150
16.5
19.26
5
50
Staff
Yes
2010 Dodge pickup
15
12
5
50
Staff
Yes
2009 Hyundi Santa Fe
19
2.5
5
46
Staff
Yes
2005 Chevrolet Silverado
13
0.9
5
50
Staff
Yes
2007 Toyota Yaris
31
4.6
10
46
Staff
Yes
2011 Toyota Yaris
31
2
8
40
Staff
Yes
2007 Kia Sorento
17
17
5
49
Staff
Yes
2000 Ford Contour
23
25
5
49
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I am a
passenger.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
Yes; I drive my
vehicle.
No; I do not
carpool.
67
Staff
Yes
2007 Honda Accord
25
20
5
50
Staff
Yes
2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
16
18
5
48
Staff
Yes
2010 Honda Insight
41
5
5
32
Staff
Yes
2002 Ford Expedition
13
3
5
48
Staff
Yes
1999 Acura TL
20
2
6
50
Staff
Yes
2008 Dodge Durango
15
6
5
52
Staff
Yes
2007 Dodge Diesel
14
10
4
52
Staff
Yes
2006 Ford Taurus
20
3
5
49
Staff
Yes
1998 Dodge Dakota
15
12
5
50
Staff
Yes
2004 Honda Accord
24
3.2
8
48
Staff
Yes
2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee
16
12
6
48
Staff
Yes
2006 Kia Optima
25
14
3
44
Staff
Yes
21
10
10
50
Staff
Yes
2006 Ford Escape
2008 Pontiac G6 2005 Toyota
Camry
22
12
7
52
Staff
Yes
2006 Mazda Tribute
20
1.5
7
47
Staff
Yes
2002 Ford Thunderbird
17
3.11
5
48
Staff
Yes
1990 BMW 525I
18
2
2
52
Staff
Yes
2006 Ford Taurus
20
56
4
50
Staff
Yes
2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee
16
3.06
8
44
Staff
Yes
2006 Toyota Avalon
23
1.5
10
49
Staff
Yes
2004 Hyundai Sonata
22
6
6
49
Staff
Yes
2008 Ford Taurus
19
30
2
50
Staff
Yes
2002 Chevy pickup
15
13
Staff
Yes
24
45
5
41
Staff
Yes
2005 Honda Accord
2001 Volkswagon or 2006
Hummer
20
15
5
47
Staff
Yes
2007 Ford Taurus
20
3.3
6
48
Staff
Yes
2008 Ford Edge
18
15
6
45
Staff
Yes
1997 Cadillac Seville
18
20
5
49
Staff
Yes
2005 Honda Pilot
17
6
5
43
Staff
Yes
2004 Ford Escape
18
17
5
52
Staff
Yes
2007 Toyota Yaris
31
3
10
48
Staff
Yes
2007 Honda Accord
25
2
15
44
Staff
Yes
2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer
16
20
5
49
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
my
not
not
68
Staff
Yes
2007 Ford Taurus
20
7
5
48
Staff
Yes
2007 Jeep Wrangler
16
10
5
48
Staff
Yes
1998 Ford Ranger
16
2.5
7
47
Staff
Yes
2008 Suzuki Reno Hatchback
22
3.3
7
50
Staff
Yes
2007 Ford Edge
18
3
8
50
Staff
Yes
2008 Toyota Yaris
31
4.7
10
50
Staff
Yes
2003 Ford Mustang
20
10
5
50
Staff
Yes
2004 Ford 4 door Escape
18
0.9
7
48
Staff
Yes
Honda Civic
29
10
5
46
Staff
Yes
2007 Ford Focus
26
3
15
50
Staff
Yes
2007 Ford Tarus
20
10
5
50
Staff
Yes
2008 Pontiac G5
26
11
5
52
Staff
Yes
2002 Toyota Avalon
22
20
6
40
Staff
Yes
2006 Honda Civic
30
50
5
32
Staff
Yes
2009 Hyundai Santa fe
19
25
6
49
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Yes; I drive
vehicle.
No; I do
carpool.
No; I do
carpool.
Averages
20.73
12.19
5.99
46.67
6 do carpool
0
0
22
0
walking
distance;
do
not
drive
to
campus
0
0
78
Staff
No
2010 ford fusion
Staff
No
1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse
Staff
No
Staff
No
2002 Oldsmobile Alero
24
0.25
1
48
Staff
No
2010 Ford Edge
19
0
0
0
Staff
No
1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse
23
Staff
No
0
0
0
Staff
No
2002 Nissan Frontier Pickup
8
15
11
5
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
No; I
carpool.
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
my
not
not
do not
do not
do not
do not
No; I do not
carpool.
No; I do not
carpool.
None
Note: Only carpoolers who noted that they commute frequently were incorporated into commuter input sheet. Vehicle
MPG was recorded only if the respondent commuted regularly; otherwise vehicle information was disregarded. Four
duplicate responses were deleted from the data pool.
173 student responses
57 faculty responses
86 staff responses
316 total responses analyzed
69
Appendix 3: Faculty/Staff Air Miles Raw Data
Flight Notes Provided by Ellen Miles
Airfare/Car Rental ReimbýRT DC/DFW
Airfare Reimbursementý9/15 DFW-Indianapolisý9/18 Columbus,
OH-DFW
DFW-NY/Mar 27-Apr 4/ModelýUN/DEPOSIT DUE ASAP
GO Fellow Airfare ReimburýThailand
Travel AdvanceüTo Ann Arbor MIýPre-Payment for
PurchaseüOrder PT3068
Airfare ReimbursementýRT Burbank/DFW
New Faculty HousingýRT NYC/DFW
DFW/MN; Chicago/üSt Louis; KC/Dallas; üSt Loius/KC;
MN/Chicago
Grapevine/St.Louis/Sherma
Austin Airfare Reimbursemýattend conference
Austin/NITLE Conference
APA Convention, Anaheim
POD Conference/Houstoný10/28-11/1/09
NITLE WkshpýOntario, California
Oslo, Norway ConferenceýPresent Paper 6/14-21/10
Plane ticket to Ghana
NY/London Airfare/Th Tick
AAS Convention ExpensesýPHiladelphia
Houston Gold 8/13
NY On The Road 10/11-14
Atlanta Event 3/8/10
Houston Gold
ISA Conf/Nashville
Philadelphia: Music Conv
Atlanta, GA Orchestra Dir
San Antonio, Conf
New Brunswick, NJ
Planetary Sc MtgýPuerto Rico
Div Planetary Sc ConferenýPuerto Rico 10/5-11/9
Expenses
8/2-8/09ýPOrtland,
San
Rafael,
LA,ýDenver,
Albuquerque
Expenses 4/4-10/10ýAlbuquerque
Expenses 11/30-12/6/10ýMexico CIty
Expenses 6/21-7/20/09ýAirfare to Milwaukee
Expenses 7/27-8/6/09ýPlano/Illinois/Wisconsin
El Paso trip expenses
ISA South ConferenceýNashville
Houston/Taiwan For Min Mt
Kolymbari, Crete
Austin/NITLE Conference
Alumni Events/CIC MtgýNYC/DC
Corpus Christi & El Paso
Alumni Event/NCAA MtgýHouston Airfare
Alumni Event/VisitsýDallas/NY/DC
Houston/LA/Alum Events
LA: alumni/prospect meal
Date Processed
3/23/10
Mileage
2338
7/29/09
2/9/10
5/10/10
1686
2776
17986
8/13/09
3/24/10
2/24/10
1972
2455
2776
8/19/09
5/6/10
10/2/09
10/12/09
1/14/10
6/27/10
8/31/09
3/11/10
4/29/10
11/4/09
4/6/10
8/18/09
10/22/09
3/25/10
5/6/10
11/3/09
11/6/09
2/23/10
11/3/09
4/21/10
8/11/09
12/1/09
2150
1101
380
380
2462
449
2370
9671
12800
12249
2599
449
2776
1459
449
1260
2599
1459
494
2738
4325
4325
8/28/09
5/26/10
5/26/10
7/28/09
8/12/09
10/7/09
11/6/09
12/10/09
10/12/09
10/5/09
10/7/09
10/12/09
10/19/09
10/26/09
11/4/09
11/17/09
18132
1134
1876
1706
1706
1099
1260
15400
12471
380
2785
1809
449
2785
2832
2462
70
AGB/NCAA Conf/LA AlumniýFt. Myers/Atlanta Airfare
Naples ; Atlanta; Austin
NAICU Mtg 1/31-2/3/10ýAirfare DFW-Atlanta-DFWýand to DC
ICUT Mtg/Alumni EventýAustin/Atlanta Airfare
Mellon Mtg/APCU Pres ConfýNYC, Charlotte
Lubbock/Houston-events
WGC/Donor Visits/Dallas üAustin/Houston Misc ExpenýAirfare
Refund
Austin WGC 5/25-27/10
Visits/Annapolis Group MtýNY/Annapolis 6/17-29/10
Airfare ReimbursementýMexico City/DFW/Mex Cit
Travel Expensesýfrom Charlottesville, VA
GO Fellow Airfare ReimburýRT DFW/Thailand
Airfare ReimbursementýRT Houston/DFW
GO Fellow Airfare Reimbýto Moldova
Airfare Baltimore/Wshngtn
New Brunswick, NJ
SLSA Conference/Atlanta
Amer Lit Assoc ConferenceýSan Francisco 5/27-30/10
Psychonomics ConferenceýBoston 11/19-22/9
Houston Airfare Reimburse
Houston Visits/Alumni Eve
Austin/ICUT Mtg AirfareýRT DFW/Austin
Math Assoc MtgýPortland, OR
Lubbock, TAAHP
San Diego/Amer Hist Assoc
OAH Convention/DCý4/6/10
BOT Mtg ExpensesýAirfare from DC
Sherman from DCA & return
AC Board Mtg, DC & return
BOT Mtg 6/3/10ýRT DC/DFW
Building ConsultationýHouston/Dallas
Chicago Airfare Reimburse
Lubbock, observe Reynolds
Lubbock, observe stud/tch
Nat Hazards Res MtgýBoulder, CO
Airfare ReimbursementýDFW-Charlotte NC
Conference/San Antonio
New Orleans, Natl Evac Co
NYC Research Trip
College Art Assc ConferenýChicago
Italy/Renass Society Mtgý4/6-11/10
Research ExpensesýLondon/Glasgow/Oxfordý6/12-22/10
Expenses 8/12-8/14ýAustin/Houston/WacoýDallas
Exp Rpt: Orlando, Dallas
TX, CO, & NM expenses
AMUN Airfare ReimburseýChicago/Seattle/Dallas
Airfare to Malta for Confý7/7-11/09
Chicago, IL March 1-6
Knoxville, TN Airfare ReiýBarrett Memorial Lectur
ATE Registration/AirfareýDFW-Chicago
12/15/09
1/28/10
2/3/10
3/11/10
3/25/10
4/13/10
3479
2569
3797
1622
2862
963
5/3/10
6/3/10
6/30/10
11/19/09
7/21/09
6/2/10
6/16/10
6/27/10
4/8/10
5/4/10
12/3/09
6/27/10
12/1/09
7/15/09
11/4/09
4/1/10
8/31/09
3/4/10
1/20/10
4/23/10
9/2/09
11/10/09
3/4/10
6/8/10
11/5/09
12/7/09
3/12/10
4/27/10
7/2/09
8/11/09
11/3/09
1/12/10
11/4/09
3/9/10
5/17/10
6/27/10
8/20/09
9/18/09
11/30/09
11/4/09
7/4/09
1/11/10
6/27/10
2/3/10
555
380
2776
1876
2207
17986
449
11954
2383
2738
1459
2920
3116
449
449
380
3225
562
2335
2338
2338
2338
2338
2338
449
1594
562
562
1281
1868
494
895
2776
1594
10899
9546
449
1964
1556
4182
11894
1594
1540
1594
71
Houston, St Tchn Supervsr
J Penado Airfare ReimbýRT Houston/DFW
Chicago, ATE
Albuquerque, NM Conferencý2/24-28/10
Minding Animals ConferencýNewcastle, Australia
Hume Society Conf/Canada Halifax NS
NYC Hotel/Airfare Reimbur
Atlanta/SACS Convention
Conference Airfare ReimbuýDFW to Louisville
Lessac Conference/MSý1/7-10ýDFW-Jackson MS
Airfare ReimbursementýLouisville KY-DFW
Lecture ExpensesýKnoxville, TN 5/17/10
Joint Math Mtg/San Franciý1/12-15/10
Cincinnati, OH, research
FASEB Conference ExpenseýRT DFW/Houston
AATF Conference/San Jose
Tunisia/SIT Visitý11/6-11/9
Toronto, CA, French Conf
THECB Registration/Airfarýto Austin
TN Hotel/Airfare ReimbuýNashville Conference
State Historian ExpensesýBryan, TX 11/12-14/9
SPSSI ConferenceýNew Orleans 6/24-27/10
Attend Wkshp Kansas City,ý6/14-17/10
Yassine/Merchant AirfareýAMUN Chicago-DFW
Travel AdvanceýMUN NYC Travel AdvanceüOrder PT3159
Houston Airfare/Expenses
Texas Presbyterian FoundaýMtg in Houston/Austin
DFW-San AntonioýAustin-Love; DFW-Corpusý-DFW-ElPasoDFW
Alumni Event/Visits in NY
San Francisco Conferences
Hume Society ConferenceýHalifax, Nova Scotia, Can
Scottish Philosophy ConfýPrinceton, NJ 3/11-14/10
Cognitive Dev ConferenceýSan Antonio
Tchng Psych ConferenceýRT DFW/NY
Whittier College Conferený5/23-24/10
Mellon Grant ResearchýDFW/Milwaukee, WI
Natl Undrergrad Rsch ConfýMissoula, MT 4/15/10
Relocation ExpensesýFrom Atlanta
ACTFL Conference/San Dieg
AAS Annual ConventionýPhildelphia
Airfare for Asile YassineýDFW to Beirut
Airfare for Andrew Kurialýto India
R Dodd Airfare ReimburseýRT Austin/Cambodia
Trisha Patel Expensesýfor Kenya GO Fellowship
Conference Reg/Airfareýto Columbus, GA
T Knapp GO Fellow AirfareýPeru
S Murphy Airfare ReimbursýRT DFW/India
Airfare ReimbursementýRT Bangladesh/DFW
Development Mtg/Austin
Houston--Development call
3/12/10
4/23/10
3/11/10
3/11/10
9/16/09
12/1/09
7/20/09
12/14/09
9/7/09
12/9/09
11/4/09
6/9/10
6/11/10
4/8/10
6/25/10
7/9/09
3/11/10
4/13/10
7/8/09
7/29/09
12/1/09
6/27/10
6/22/10
2/1/10
4/15/10
7/15/09
7/28/09
449
449
1594
1134
17023
3929
2776
1459
1463
814
1463
1540
2920
1621
449
2868
11427
2396
380
1260
328
895
921
3188
2776
449
449
9/3/09
9/23/09
8/25/09
12/14/09
5/26/10
11/4/09
4/2/10
5/27/10
11/6/09
4/23/10
9/1/09
12/16/09
4/6/10
12/10/09
7/27/09
6/22/10
7/2/09
7/15/09
5/12/10
5/10/10
2/23/10
8/20/09
10/12/09
1890
2776
2920
3929
2738
494
2776
2462
1706
2636
1459
2335
2599
13775
18487
18075
17474
1406
6736
18487
16969
380
449
72
San Antonio 12/4/9
Atlanta-developmental cal
Development/Houston
Houston--Development
Bolivar, MO Develop Mtgý4/22/10
Nashville--Developmnt BOT
ISBL Conference 6/30-7/4ýAirfare DFW-Ireland-Rome
Present Paper in Rome
AIA/APA Mtg/ CaliforniaýDFW-Santa Anna
Airfare to Mexico
Expenses
9/4-11/9ýDallas/Irving/ArlingtonýAirfareDFW/SanAntonio
Expenses 9/13-17/09ýDFW/WaxahachieýCorpus Christi Airfare
Expenses 10/13-23/9ýDallas/Garland/ShermanýDallas/LA Airfare
Dallas/Houston Airfare
Whitesboro,Houston,Sherma
LA travel expenses
McAllen Airfare Reimbuse
Sherman, Atlanta, Dallas
Expenses 3/8-11/10ýAtlanta/Charlotte/Raleigh
Sherman/Houston expenses
Poetry Anthology/Houston
Miami/ Conference 5/4-9
Washington DC, Osgood Ctr
ISA South ConferenceýNashville, TN 10/16-18/9
Travel AdvanceýMUN NYC Travel AdvanceüOrder PT3160
Present Paper at ConferenýPhiladelphia Airfare
Present Paper at ConferenýState College, PA 5/19/10
Present Paper at ConferenýSan Francisco, CA 5/27
Research Airfare ReimbýDFW-SanFrancisco
Nashville Conference
PSC Conference/Nashville
Salem, VA; All-Star game
Assessment Conf Reg/AirfaýRT DFW/Baltimore
DC Airfare ReimbursementýAttend Conference
Reimburse Vietnam Airfareýfor Summer Intern
Philadelphia, PA--present
Univ NM Spanish ConferencýAlbuquerque, NM
Expenses
7/19-7/25/9ýSherman/Dallas/ArlingtonýAirfareBaltimore
Expenses 7/12-7/18/9ýAirfare-Austin
Dallas/BirminghüAtlanta/Raleigh/Nashville
Expenses 5/16-22/10ýSherman/Orlando
Expenses 5/23-29/10ýBethesda/PA/NJ/NY/BostonýDallas
Airfare for Ent. ConferenýIndianapolis, IN
Houston Visits/Hass Event
Atlanta Airfare
Philadelphia Conference
DFW-Rome Airfare for ýISBL Conference
Toronto Conference Airfar
Plane ticket to New York
12/7/09
3/11/10
4/6/10
4/12/10
4/23/10
5/6/10
7/4/09
8/5/09
12/10/09
4/14/10
494
1459
449
449
728
1260
11254
11224
2402
1876
9/16/09
9/21/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
11/10/09
11/18/09
12/16/09
2/23/10
3/12/10
4/13/10
10/19/09
5/17/10
1/28/10
9/28/09
4/27/10
10/20/09
6/9/10
6/9/10
7/4/09
9/16/09
12/15/09
3/26/10
4/1/10
4/13/10
7/4/09
4/12/10
3/24/10
494
710
2462
449
449
2462
939
1459
2016
449
449
2239
2338
1260
2776
2599
2599
2920
2920
1260
1260
2019
2428
2338
18061
2599
1134
8/28/09
8/28/09
9/17/09
6/23/10
6/23/10
9/23/09
10/28/09
10/29/09
3/30/10
7/4/09
9/9/09
2/23/10
2428
380
2118
1964
3159
1522
449
1459
2599
11224
2396
2776
73
Airfare ReimbursementýDFW-Atlanta one way
Sept 23/Oklahoma City toýBaltimore/Nan Davis
#HJWGGQýMATT KROVýWASHINGTON, DC
I. Healy ýDallas-Hoston
I. Healy Houston 9/8/9
I. Healy - Albany NY
Oct 15/Ingrid Healy/üDC-DFWýService Fee
Oct.8/Bill Edgette/Austin
Oct 13/DFW-NYC/I.Healy
Merida-Yucatan-Mexico/ýJanTerm 2010/J.Pierce
Airfare/Hawaii/Jane White ýJan 7-10 2010/Conference
Airfare Dallas to Austin
DFW-Orlando,FL/Feb. 24/ýNan Davis/recruitment
AIRFAREüTIM MILLERICK üFT. LAUDERDALE 4/5-8üSACS
VISIT
AIRFARE
TIM
MILLERICKýBOSTON
ACPA
CONVENTIONý3/18-24
DFW-DC/Mar 27-31/J.Howard
DFW-Washington Reagan
Airfare-Dallas to Austin
C. Bean ýRT DFW/Houston
Airfare/Wkshp MealýAirfare for Conference inýChicago
Greece,Turkey,Italy
SIT Conference/Vermont
Budapest,Istanbul,Siracus
Indianapolis, NAC Conf
Forum on Ed Abroad Confýin Charlotte NC
Spain, Conf & site visits
Central College MtgýRT DFW/DesMoines
Kansas City, MO
Research/Baltimore/NewarkýNY
Houston Send Off Party
Expenses 9/13-17/09ýOn the Road EventsýDallas, ElPaso, Corpus
Ch
Airfare ReimbursementýWashington DC On the RoadýEvent
Airfare ReimbursementýDFW-LAX "On the RoadýEvent"
LA On the Road Eventý11/1-2/9
Asia Week Airfare ReimbýRT Newark/DFW
GO Fellow Airfare Reimb (Ecuador)
Cash AdvanceýTo Clear FA09 Advance
Cash AdvanceýTo Clear FA09 Advance
Expenses 3/28-4/7/10ýDallas/Sherman
Sr Conf EvaluatorýAirfare Reimbursement??
Georgetown/Airfare Reimbuý8/14 DFW-Houston
Dallas GOLD, On the RoadýEvents Austin, San Antonio
Dallas 10/30/09
Airfare Reimbursement
Expenses 7/26-8/1/9
Expenses 10/25-31/09ýLeonard/Boerne/ShermanýSan Antonio
Airfare
Dallas/Sherman expenses
Airfare Reimbursement
5/18/10
7/4/09
8/5/09
9/7/09
9/21/09
9/28/09
10/12/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
11/30/09
12/18/09
1/19/10
2/11/10
730
2353
2338
449
449
2863
2338
380
2776
1885
7551
380
1957
3/16/10
2234
3/16/10
4/1/10
4/8/10
4/21/10
6/23/10
9/9/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
12/2/09
2/9/10
3/2/10
3/4/10
3/24/10
5/4/10
7/15/09
9/2/09
3116
2338
2379
380
449
1594
13042
3014
12952
1522
1868
9903
1249
921
2583
449
9/24/09
10/2/09
10/28/09
11/6/09
3/19/10
5/7/10
10/7/09
10/7/09
4/8/10
5/7/10
7/29/09
9/24/09
11/9/09
10/28/09
8/28/09
1505
2338
2462
2462
2738
5826
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
449
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
11/6/09
4/21/10
5/12/10
494
*3311.89
*3311.89
74
Marie Jacquet Airfareýfor Summer Institute from Paris
Airfare & performance (from Chicago)
Reimbursement for ExpenseýAirfare, Parking, Mileage Providence
RI
Travel AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PT3157
Travel AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PT3186
Reimbursement
IA VP Candidate Expenses
Premier of Composition/MD Baltimore
Cash AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PCA466
Student Tchr Supervision
campus visit--airfare
Australia/Review StudyýAbroad Programs 7/2009
Travel AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PT3146
Area coordinator candidat
Candidate travel expenses
Cash AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PCA465
Travel AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PT3151
Travel expenses
Airline ticket-Thy Nguyen
Flat fee for airfareýReimbursement for out-of-üpocket expenses
Cash AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PCA477
Travel AdvanceýAMUN Travel AdvanceüOrder PT3107
Cash AdvanceýPre-Payment for PurchaseüOrder PCA510
SD Conference/Paper Rapid City
Candidate travel expenses
Musical Festival Airfare
Airfare for conference
VP Candidate Expenses
Advance payment for ýairfare
Tricia Sheffield's visit NY LaGuardia
I Healy
Sherman to Nacogdoches
7/4/09
1/28/10
9866
1594
3/16/10
5/20/10
6/30/10
3/11/10
4/6/10
12/15/09
9/17/09
5/25/10
10/27/09
6/9/10
4/14/10
5/5/10
4/1/10
12/22/09
3/31/10
4/21/10
4/27/10
2/9/10
12/9/09
12/9/09
4/23/10
10/21/09
4/1/10
7/4/09
2/10/10
6/9/10
12/3/09
1/25/10
11/25/09
9/4/09
3051
12933
10500
*3311.89
*3311.89
2428
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
1670
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
*3311.89
2771
*3311.89
408
907457.37
Total Miles:
Athletics Staff
Air Miles:
Total Fac/Staff
Direct. Fin. Air:
75714
983171
Notes: 3311.89 is the average mileage of all known flight destinations.
Mileages listed with * were ambiguous and were assumed to be the
average mileage. All flight mileages were summed. Athletics staff
air miles were added tot the "Total Miles" figure above.
"Total Miles" plus "Athletics Staff Air Miles" equal the total amt.
of faculty/staff directly financed air travel.
75
Appendix 4: Athletics Air Travel Calculations Summary
Players
Staff
Destination
Mileage
Students/miles
Staff/miles
15
1
Colorado Springs, Colorado
1184
17760
1184
15
1
Atlanta, Georgia
1459
21885
1459
12
4
Colorado Springs, Colorado
1184
14208
4736
12
4
Atlanta, Georgia
1459
17508
5836
52
11
Indianapolis, Indiana
1522
79144
16742
52
11
Nashville, Tennessee
1260
65520
13860
52
11
1522
79144
16742
21
1
Indianapolis, Indiana
Louisville, KY / Indianapolis ,
IN
1493
31353
1493
21
1
Colorado Springs, Colorado
1184
24864
1184
21
1
596
12516
596
21
1
From Birmingham, Alabama
Louisville, KY / Indianapolis,
IN
1493
31353
1493
21
1
From Birmingham, Alabama
596
12516
596
18
1
Louisville, Kentucky
1463
26334
1463
15
2
Indianapolis, Indiana
1522
22830
3044
15
2
Colorado Springs, Colorado
1184
17760
2368
15
2
Atlanta, Georgia
1459
21885
Sum of
Players Miles:
2918
Sum of
Staff
Miles:
496,580
75,714
76
Appendix 5: Study Abroad Air Travel for Semester and Yearlong
Programs during Fall 2009 & Spring 2010
Spring 2010 Study Abroad
Destination City
Round Trip Mileage
Barcelona
10361
Sevilla
9879
S. Africa (used Durban)
18778
Barcelona
10361
Barcelona
10361
China (used Hangzhou)
14874
Barcelona
10361
Prague
10666
Paris
9866
Granada
10099
Barcelona
10361
Westminster (used London)
9473
Mexico (used Oaxaca)
2198
Christchurch
15498
Aix en Provence (used Marseille)
10478
Edinburgh
9001
Australia (used Brisbane)
16603
Xalapa (used Veracruz)
1901
Athens
12471
Cordoba
9848
Geneva
10346
London (LSE)
9473
Paris
9866
Florence
10945
Mainz (used Frankfurt)
10253
Rome
11209
Sum
275530
Fall 2009 Study Abroad
Destination City
Round Trip Mileage
Sevilla
9879
Beijing
13906
St. Andrews (used Edinburgh)
9001
Guanajuato (used Leon)
1732
James Cook (used Townsville)
16831
Santander (used Vitoria)
9824
Valparaiso (used Santiago)
9768
Oman (used Muscat)
16406
77
James Cook (used Townsville)
16831
Tokyo
12889
Wellington
15159
Paris
9866
Brussels
9888
Nantes
9648
Limerick (used Shannon)
8747
Granada
10099
Tanzania (used Kilimanjaro)
17678
Manchester
9223
Sevilla
9879
Brussels
9888
Cork
8822
Johannesburg
18288
Madrid
9903
Paris
9866
Taipei
15400
Tokyo
12889
Costa Rica (used San Jose)
3559
Paris
9866
Switzerland (used Geneva)
10346
London
9473
Buenos Aires
10575
Manchester
9223
Paris
9866
Otago (used Dunedin)
15843
Chile (used Santiago)
9768
London
9473
Paris
9866
Latin America (used Buenos Aires)*
10575
London
9473
Sevilla*
9879
Argentina (used Buenos Aires)
10575
Brazil (used Belem)
7892
Florence
10945
Sum
469507
Note: Each column represent's only one student's term(s) abroad.
* = Studied abroad for academic year; multi-country;
listed under spring 2010 and fall 2009
Sum of FY 2010 student study
abroad air miles
(Sum of Spring 2010 and Fall 2009
miles)
745,037
78
Appendix 6: Study Abroad Air Travel for January Term 2010
Travel Courses (International and Domestic)
Destination
# Participants
Offsets Paid?
DC/London/Paris
25
250,350
Madrid
13
128,739
Tokyo
23
Paris
25
246,625
Athens
27
336,717
Edinburgh
25
225,025
Casablanca
30
Quito
28
Yes
144,508
Johannesburg
16
Yes
299,472
Guatemala City
16
San Jose, Costa Rica
21
Yes
74,739
Berlin
14
Yes
145,838
Vienna
39
429,663
Merida Merida, Yucatan
4
7,540
Tokyo
1
12,882
Tokyo
1
12,882
Honoloulou
1
7,551
Liberia, Costa Rica
1
3,409
Bombay
1
17,555
Reykjavik
1
7,466
Milan
1
10,792
Takapuna
1
14,884
Burma
1
17,763
Burma
1
17,763
Burma
1
NYC
20
Yes
55,420
DC
12
Yes
28,056
Milwaukee, WI
1
1,706
Ethete, WY
1
1,871
Grayling (Lansing), MI
1
1,921
Aberdeen (Seattle), WA
1
3,313
Twisp (Seattle), WA
1
3,313
Brooklyn (NY JFK), NY
1
2,776
Kansas City
1
921
Yes
Miles * # Participants
296,286
299,190
42,528
17,763
Total JT 2010 Air Miles:
3,167,227
Note: The far left column includes all travel JanTerm courses,
including NSOC's and CSOC's, for which air travel was confirmed or
highly likely.
79
Appendix 7: Copies of Calculator Input Worksheets
Below are copies of sections of the calculator input worksheets complete with
emissions sources data as they were entered for the FY 2010 emissions inventory.
Budget Information
Fiscal Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Budget
Operating Budget
$
$27,702,370.00
$29,367,302.00
$24,996,353.00
$26,265,302.00
$27,358,911.00
$29,981,686.00
$31,082,334.00
$31,816,401.00
$33,045,437.00
$35,104,640.00
$39,140,536.00
$41,710,021.00
$42,598,608.00
$44,778,689.00
Research Dollars
$
Energy Budget
$
$597,132.79
$648,297.94
$664,510.82
$691,199.81
$1,101,777.46
$1,215,176.76
$1,092,613.40
$1,161,635.66
$1,264,561.78
$1,455,907.11
$1,007,693.80
$1,615,763.68
$1,634,964.00
$1,730,599.00
80
Institutional Data
Physical
Size
Population
Fiscal Year
Staff
Total
Building
Space
Total
Research
Building
Space
#
#
Square feet
Square feet
662,033
21,000
85
147
662,033
21,000
662,033
21,000
662,033
21,000
662,033
21,000
662,033
21,000
662,033
21,000
662,033
21,000
662,033
640,124
721,224
721,224
721,224
721,224
767,424
750,924
750,924
750,924
774,924
774,924
774,924
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
Full Time
Students
PartTime
Students
Summer
School
Students
Faculty
#
#
#
1990
1,188
15
1991
1,129
16
81
1992
1,098
9
83
1993
1,118
10
110
1994
1,044
9
1995
1,035
10
111
1996
1,083
14
127
1997
1,141
13
126
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1,193
1,279
1,278
1,300
1,307
1,345
1,357
1,358
1,344
1,326
1,283
1,327
1,380
16
16
7
8
16
16
9
12
10
13
15
13
8
115
87
112
129
182
185
181
165
183
147
147
150
128
103
103
102
149
175
197
106
208
99
104
116
112
114
109
112
125
126
124
224
200
210
206
214
219
216
196
149
157
81
Scope 1 Sources: Natural Gas, Gasoline/Diesel Fleet, Refrigerants, Fertilizer
Natural
Gas
Gasoline
Fleet
Refrigerants
&
Chemicals
Diesel
HFCFleet
134a
MMBtu
Gallons
Gallons
50,350
48,779
37,993
45,239
46,602
13,525
49,818
10,860
University
Fleet
Fiscal
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Pounds
HFC404a
HCFC22
Other
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
4
744
27
30
90
180
3
Fertilizer Application
Synthetic
% Nitrogen
Organic
%
Nitrogen
Pounds
%
Pounds
%
8,200
26.40%
6,350
28.40%
275
10.00%
82
Scope 2 Sources: Purchased Electricity
--Scope
2
Emissions Sources
--Purchased
Electricity, Steam,
and Chilled Water
Fiscal Year
Electricity
Steam
Chilled Water
CLICK TO SET
eGRID
SUBREGION
CLICK TO
SET FUEL
MIX
CLICK TO
SET FUEL
MIX
kWh
MMBtu
MMBtu
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
13,718,036
13,411,774
Custom Fuel Mix Input Page
Fiscal
Year
2008
2009
2010
Total
Electricity
Purchased
(kWh)
13,718,036.0
0.0
13,411,774.0
Net
Purchased
Coal
Natural
Gas
Nuclear
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Renewable
(wind,
solar)
(%)
9.45%
33.60%
39.90%
12.05%
5.00%
4.00%
32.00%
38.00%
11.00%
15.00%
Total
Percentage
(%)
100.00%
0.00%
100.00%
83
Scope 3 Sources: Directly Financed Outsourced Travel & Study Abroad
Travel
Directly
Financed
Outsourced
Travel
Fiscal
Year
Study
Abroad
Travel
Air Travel
Faculty
Staff
Miles
/
Students
Bus
Personal
Mileage
Reimbursement
Air
Miles
Miles
Miles
Miles
1997
88,349
1998
104,502
1999
61,339
2000
67,638
2001
58,391
3,772,149
2002
67,725
2,733,457
2003
61,686
4,194,577
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2,812,927
3,626,052
3,470,191
4,024,220
4,483,480
3,912,264
1,014,875
1,141,150
1,044,516
24,803
327,387
531,231
24,868
61,261
44,803
55,457
61,307
58,430
983,171
496,580
24,868
97,694
Scope 3 Sources Cont’d: Solid Waste & Wastewater
Fiscal
Year
Solid
Waste
Incinerated
Waste (not
used for
on-campus
power)
Wastewater
Landfilled
Waste
Mass Burn
No CH4
Recovery
Short Tons
Short
Tons
Septic
System
Gallons
Central
Treatment
System
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Digestion
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
2006
353
2007
353
2008
353
27,173,745
353
27,173,745
2009
2010
84
Scope 3 Sources Cont’d: Paper Purchasing
Paper
Uncoated
Freesheet
Uncoated
Freesheet
Uncoated
Freesheet
Uncoated
Freesheet
0% Recycled
25% Recycled
50% Recycled
75% Recycled
lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
Uncoated
Freesheet
100%
Recycled
lbs
24,960
6,240
24,960
6,240
Commuting Input Worksheet (Only Student Section Shown)
Students
Personal
Vehicle /
Carpool
Fiscal
Year
2008
2009
2010
Students
Automobile
Fuel
Efficiency
%
Personal
Vehicle
%
Carpool
Trips /
Week
Weeks /
Year
Miles /
Trip
#
MPG
%
%
#
#
#
1,291
1,334
1,384
24.04
22.10
23.30
26%
6%
7.00
38
12
25%
5%
7.33
30
10
Offsets with Additionality
--- Offsets --Offsets
with
Additionality
Fiscal Year
On-campus
Composting
Short
Compost
2008
2009
2010
Tons
Forest
Preservation
Retail
Offsets
(High
End)
Retail
Offsets
(Low End)
MT eCO2
MT eCO2
MT eCO2
372
85