Yale GHG Inventory

Yale University

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 2003-2008

Prepared by the Yale Office of Sustainability

The Yale Office of Sustainability is committed to advancing sustainability principles by fostering innovation, helping to streamline operations, and preparing tomorrow’s sustainability leaders. www.yale.edu/sustainability For further information about Yale University’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Committment go to: www.yale.edu/sustainability/climate

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Section 1

Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Section 2

Greenhouse Gas Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Section 3

Yale Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Main Emissions Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Energy Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Sinks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Emission Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section 4

Data and Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Energy Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 5

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Emissions by Source Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Energy Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Power Plant Fuel Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Electricity Purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Buildings not connected to Yale Power Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Transportation Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Emissions by Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Section 6

Progress to Date and Actions Going Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Section 7

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3

Executive Summary

T

his report is a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions inventory that details emissions primarily for the FY2003 to FY2008 time period with an emphasis on greenhouse gas reductions made after Yale’s reduction goal was set in 2005. The inventory includes emissions from Yale’s power plants, purchased electricity, non-power plant purchased fuel, staff and faculty air travel and commuting, and university vehicle fleet operations. It is the first update to the University’s initial greenhouse gas inventory analysis of emissions from calendar year 2002 completed in 2004.

addition to indirect emissions such as commuting and air travel. However, it is important to note that Yale’s greenhouse gas reduction commitment includes emissions from the University’s two on-campus power plants and purchased electricity2.

The findings from this report demonstrate that Yale decreased its emissions by 7.0% between FY2005 and FY2008, the period after establishing the University’s greenhouse gas reduction target (a 9.7% decrease between FY2003 and FY2008). This decrease in greenhouse gas emissions was achieved despite a 3.2% increase in campus size between FY2005 and Recognizing the need to respond to the consequences FY2008. Reductions in power plant emissions was of climate change with respect to energy production, the main driver of the FY2005-2008 decrease as the consumption and carbon emissions, Yale University University increased the efficiency of on-campus enis committed to the goal of reducing its greenhouses ergy production and distribution. gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020, a 43% reduction from 2005 levels1. This com- Emissions by source and their average contribution prehensive report inventories targeted emissions in to overall emissions for the FY2003-2008 time period are illustrated below in Summary Figure 1.

Summary Figure 1: Historic Emissions and Average Percentage by Category, FY2003-2008 Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases

University Fleet

Commuting

Air Travel

Electricity Purchases

Plants

350,000 300,000

mT CO2e

250,000 14.0%

200,000

5.1% 0.7%

0.6% 150,000

16.1%

100,000

63.5%

50,000 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

(percentages are the FY2003-2008 aggregate average percentage by category) 1 This is consistent with the Climate Change Action Plan adopted by the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. By comparison, the Kyoto Protocol prescribes a reduction to 7% 1990 levels by 2012.

2 Yale University operates two power plants, the Central Power Plant, a cogeneration facility that can supply 18 megawatts of electricity, 340,000 pounds per hour of steam and 14, 600 tons of chilled water to the Central and Science Campuses; and the Sterling Power Plant, a thermal energy facility that can supply 350,000 pounds per hour of steam and 19, 900 tons of chilled water to the Yale School of Medicine and the Yale-New Haven Hospital.

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008 Section 1 - Rationale Mitigating global climate change is recognized as one of the most pressing issues facing society today. As stated in the most recent Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific body charged with addressing the causes of climate change and evaluating its potential impacts, human activities are largely responsible for this challenge (IPCC, 2007). Specifically, human activities, mainly through fossil fuel consumption, have increased emissions of greenhouse gases, which have caused the planet to warm by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. As a result of these activities, average global temperatures have increased 0.74°C over the last 100 years with the average temperature increase for the 1956-2005 periods being twice as large as the average temperature increase for the 1905-1955 periods (IPCC, 2007).

These changes in average temperature pose serious threats to human, ecological, and environmental systems around the globe. One of the greatest challenges is the anticipated yet unknown causal relationships between global warming and human health. For example, global warming has been linked to rising sea levels due to melting snow, which increases the vulnerability of coastal communities (IPCC, 2007). Further, extreme weather events such as the number of hot days, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events have increased in frequency or intensity over the past fifty years (IPCC, 2007). Such events pose severe threats to the economic and environmental well-being of communities.

According to the IPCC, many negative consequences of climate change can be reduced, delayed or avoided through mitigation efforts (IPCC, 1990). Yet delaying action will only increase the chances of more severe and potentially irreversible impacts. Recognizing this, various mitigation plans are underway at the international, domestic and local levels. Internationally, 174 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement under the United Nations Framework

4 Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Developed countries set emissions reduction targets under the Protocol to be achieved in the years 2008-2012.

In total, the commitments will lead to a 5% reduction in emissions below 1990 baseline levels (UNFCC website).

To help meet the Kyoto commitments of member states, in 2005, the European Union (EU) established an emissions trading program, the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), whereby member states can trade emission allowances and credits to better ensure emission reduction targets are met3. While the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and currently does not have a country-wide emissions reduction mandate, various states have taken action to reduce in-state emissions.

In 2006, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 -The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates the state to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32, 2006). Further, in 2003, a consortium of nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states established a regional emissions cap-and-trade program, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Under RGGI, member states establish their own emissions reduction goals and participate in the cap-and-trade program to help achieve these goals.

Additionally, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers issued a Climate Change Action Plan in 2001 that established an emissions reduction target of 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 (New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, 2001).

In response to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers plan, Connecticut passed Public Act 04-252, An Act Concerning Climate Change, which codified Connecticut’s emission reduction targets, established a GHG reporting standards and required the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to conduct a GHG inventory for the state. Additionally, Connecticut developed its own Climate Change Action plan in 2005.

3 The ETS is an emissions cap-and-trade program in which a maximum emissions level (the cap) is set below business-as-usual levels and participants are given flexibility in how to best meet their reduction targets. Participants are awarded emissions allowances and can earn credits by investing in measures to reduce emissions. Participants can then trade these allowances and credits to help achieve the emissions reduction target in a cost-effective manner.

5 The action plan consists of 55 recommended actions in five main focus areas: 1. transportation and land use, 2. residential, commercial and industrial energy use, 3. agriculture, forestry and waste, 4. electricity generation, and 5. education and outreach (CT Climate Change, 2005).

ment (ACUPCC). Through the ACUPCC more than 550 college and university leaders have committed their institutions to developing greenhouse gas reduction plans with the aim of achieving carbon neutrality.

Colleges and universities across the nation are developing climate action plans, either through the ACUPCC commitment or of their own accord, to guide their greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Universities and colleges recognize that they are in a unique position to play a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They have the opportunity to influence their operations, suppliers, students, staff and faculty to help mitigate the effects of climate change. In addition to reducing their own emissions, universities are also responsible for developing our next generation of leaders by providing them with the technical skills and resources to develop innovative solutions to this global challenge.

In addition to leadership initiatives at the state level, municipal governments across the country have made voluntary commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through programs such as Cities for Climate Protection and the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. Through ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection initiative more than 150 cities and towns in the U.S. have committed to adopting policies and implementing quantifiable measures to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement commits participating cities to meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets and urge state and federal governments to enact policies and legislation that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Over 11 cities and towns in the state Section 2 - Greenhouse Gas of Connecticut, including the city of New Haven, Inventory have committed to both of these initiatives as a way Background to address climate change at the local level.

A greenhouse gas inventory is a detailed accounting Recognizing the challenges presented by global of the six greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto warming, a growing number of universities have also Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), established programs to take responsibility for their nitrous oxide (N20), hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), emissions and devise reduction strategies. To assist perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride universities in these efforts, Clean Air-Cool Planet (SF6). The main sources of emissions at a universiintroduced the “Campus Climate Action Toolkit ty are typically from on-campus energy production, (CCAT).” The CCAT outlines five steps to creating purchased electricity, transportation, and refrigera campus climate action plan. The five steps include: ants. Activities from these sources are converted 1. Conducting a greenhouse gas emissions inventory; into emission quantities utilizing emissions factors.

2. Developing a greenhouse gas emission reduction Emission factors are a measure of the average emistarget and timetable; 3. Developing a campus action sions rate of a certain pollutant from a given activplan through collecting policies, programs and prac- ity. For example, CO2 emissions from on-campus tices that aim to or have had the effect of reducing energy generation are calculated by determining the greenhouse gas emissions reduction on campus; 4. amount of fuel used in the generation process and Implementing the developed climate action plan; 5. applying the appropriate emissions factor for the Institutionalizing climate protection throughout all fuel. constituencies of the university (faculty, staff, stuOnce activity data and appropriate emission facdents and administration). tors are collected, total GHG emissions in tons of Another recent driver in advancing university com- CO2-equivalent units are calculated. Greenhouse mitments for climate action has been the American gases differ in terms of their potential harm to the College & University Presidents Climate Commit- atmosphere (i.e. radiative forcing) and atmospheric

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008

6

lifespan. To account for these differences, emissions are standardized to CO2-equivalent units using global warming potential (GWP) factors, a ratio of the impacts of a unit of a given GHG to a unit of CO2.

munities and universities develop strategies for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. CA-CP has also developed an Excel-based emissions calculator specifically for universities.

Various inventory protocols exist to help organizations compile a greenhouse gas inventory. The IPCC publishes methodologies to assist countries in completing their national inventories. In addition, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) established the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, which has developed accounting and reporting standards to help companies monitor their greenhouse gas emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol has also developed Excel-based emissions calculators for a variety of sectors including office-based and services, cement manufacturing and wood processing.

Within the U.S., the non-profit organization Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) assists corporations, com-

Numerous universities, such as Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University, University of New Hampshire and Middlebury College are examples of institutions that have adopted the CA-CP calculator as their greenhouse gas inventory measurement tool. In an effort to consistently measure our emissions with other universities and to assist with future greenhouse gas inventory updates, Yale has chosen to utilize the Clean-Air Cool Planet calculator.

Methodology Based on guidance from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, emissions are divided into three categories called “scopes” depending on the university’s level

Table 1: Emission Scope Descriptions Scope Description

Relevant Activities

1

Direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the University

* Emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces and vehicles

2

Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat or steam consumed by the university.

* Electricity purchases from the local utility provider

3

Indirect emissions that are a consequence of the activi- * Activities such as the extraction and ties of the university, but occur from sources not owned production of purchased materials or controlled by the university. and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by the university, outsourced activities, waste disposal, employee commuting and employee related air travel.

Carbon Sequestra- Carbon removed from the atmosphere by biological * Carbon sequestration at Yale Meirs tion/Sinks sinks and stored in plant tissue. and Toumey Forests GHG Offsets

Discrete GHG reductions used to compensate for GHG emissions elsewhere, for example to meet a voluntary or mandatory GHG target or cap. Offsets are calculated relative to a baseline that represents a hypothetical scenario for what emissions would have been in the absence of the mitigation project that generates the offsets.

* Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) purchased through a retailer * Carbon offsets purchased through a retailer

Source: “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard,” WRI-WBCSD.

7 of control over the source activities. According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scope 1 encompasses direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the university and includes emissions from mobile combustion, stationary combustion, process emissions, and fugitive emissions. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from purchased electricity and purchased cogeneration for heating or chilled water.

Finally, Scope 3 quantifies indirect emissions from all other sources that occur as result of university operations but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the university. Examples include commuter travel, business travel, embodied energy in purchased products and services, and off-campus waste disposal. The emissions scope categories are summarized below in Table 1.

growth, availability of clean and renewable energy technologies, local, regional, national and international greenhouse gas reduction initiatives and opportunities to promote energy conservation, the Yale Energy Task Force recommended setting an aggressive target for reducing Yale’s greenhouse gas emissions. Following a thorough review, the University’s Officers adopted the recommendation to set a campus-wide goal to reduce Yale’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10% below our 1990 levels by the year 20204. Yale’s greenhouse gas reduction goal includes emissions from the University’s two on-campus power plants and purchased electricity.

In adopting this goal, Yale became one of the first universities in the country to commit to a fifteenyear strategic energy and greenhouse gas reduction plan, which seeks to reduce the carbon footprint of a major private university through a combination of energy conservation, renewable and clean energy technologies sited on campus and direct participation in off-campus renewable energy projects.

Further, a greenhouse gas inventory ‘credits’ users for activities that reduce emissions. Examples include forest sinks, offset purchases, and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) purchases. Sinks and offset purchases are investments in activities such as tree planting that sequester carbon. RECs are certificates for electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar which are purchased This report is an update to the initial greenhouse gas inventory and details emissions primarily for through an electricity provider. the FY2003 to FY2008 time period with an emSection 3 - Yale Overview phasis on greenhouse gas reductions made after Yale’s reduction goal was set in 2005. Emissions Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Commitment data gathered as part of the initial greenhouse gas In 2004, under the guidance of the Yale School of inventory for calendar year 2002 were also taken Forestry and Environmental Studies, the Yale Cliinto account; however, as noted by the YCI, the mate Initiative, a student-initiated study, completed results of the initial inventory were “best estimates” Yale University’s first greenhouse gas inventory and were estimated to be within a range of 227,458 using emissions data from calendar year 2002 (YCI, to 360,542 MTCO2e(YCI, 2005). Further, it is 2005). These “best estimate” findings provided the important to note, as illustrated in Table 4, the total basis for establishing a greenhouse gas target and MTCO2e emissions data from FY2002 appears as supporting strategy development. an outlier when compared to data collected from FY2003-2008. This may be a result of converting In the fall of 2004 the Yale Energy Task Force, a calendar year data to fiscal year, reporting errors, university-wide committee with staff, faculty and assumptions made in cases of incomplete data, and student representation, was convened to develop assumptions in emissions factors reported in the a set of recommendations to guide the University literature. towards a comprehensive energy policy leading to reduced energy demand, production and greenMain Emissions Activities house gas emissions. After taking into account Though not evenly divided, Yale’s direct and indirect Yale’s daily energy demands, projected institutional emissions generally result from energy provisions 4 This is consistent with Climate Change Action Plan adopted by the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008 and transportation. Additionally, Yale owns and operates two research forests located in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont that serve as sinks for greenhouse gas inventory purposes. Each of these emissions sources are described briefly below.

8

Myers and Toumey Forests, which comprise over 4,000 hectares in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont. As these forests are used for educational purposes, primarily by the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, we include carbon sequestration from these forests as an offset in the inventory.

Energy Provision The forests are inventoried every 10 years and as the The main emissions from energy provision result inventory has not been conducted since the initial from onsite generation of electricity, steam, and greenhouse gas inventory was completed, we used chilled water, purchased electricity, and remaining fuel offset amounts from the initial inventory in this uppurchases for buildings not connected to Yale power date. As reported in the initial inventory, Yale forests plants. Yale owns and operates two power plants annually sequester 6,291 mT of CO2e. on campus, Central Power Plant and Sterling Power Plant. Central Power Plant is a co-generation facil- Emission Classification ity that provides electricity, steam heating, and chilled As previously described, the CA-CP calculator groups water to buildings on the main campus. Sterling emissions activities by the level of university control Power Plant is a heating plant that supplies the Yale over the activity and not by source category. In acMedical School with steam heating and chilled water. cordance with the CA-CP calculator, Yale’s emissions Presently, the power plants use natural gas as the pri- can be categorized as follows: mary fuel source and typically use No. 2 distillate fuel Scope 1: emissions from on-campus power plants, as a secondary fuel. The plants previously used No. 6 university vehicle fleet operation and campus shuttleresidual fuel oil as a secondary fuel but discontinued busses use in FY2005. To supplement onsite electricity gen- Scope 2: emissions from electricity purchases eration, the University also purchases electricity from Scope 35: emissions from employee commuting and United Illuminating Company (UI), the electric util- air travel. ity company serving New Haven. Yale’s greenhouse Offsets/Sinks: carbon sequestration at Yale-Myers gas commitment set in 2005 only included reductions and Toumey Forests from these emissions categories.

Before presenting results of Yale’s GHG inventory, Transportation the following section provides an overview of data Transportation emissions result from commuting, sources and relevant calculations made to organize air travel, and university vehicle fleet operations. At input data for the CA-CP calculator. Yale’s emissions present, the university fleet includes 440 university- are then presented both by scope category and by owned vehicles compared to 366 vehicles in 2002. emissions category (i.e. energy provision and transAdditionally, the university owns 22 buses in which portation). the New Haven Bus Company is contracted to operate the campus shuttle service. The shuttle service Section 4 - Data and Calculations is the largest emissions source for the vehicle fleet consuming approximately 7,000 gallons of fuel per Input data was gathered for the period FY2002-2008. month. Starting in FY2006, the shuttles began oper- Nearly all university departments had historic data for ating on a 20% biodiesel blend (B-20). Yale Shuttles four or five fiscal years (i.e. FY2004-2008 or FY2005currently use 20% Biodiesel mixed with Ultra Low 2008). Data for missing years was interpolated.

Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), and employ additional particEnergy Provision ulate-reduction technology.

Data Requirements: To calculate emissions from enSinks ergy provision, the following data was required: Yale owns and manages two research forests, Yale• Power plant fuel consumption 5 Scope 3 emissions are not currently included in Yale’s greenhouse gas commitment

9 • Electricity purchases from UI • Non-power plant fuel purchases

• Percent of • Percent of per sons) • Percent of • Percent of muter rail

Fuel consumption data for power plants (i.e. amounts of fuel burned) was provided by Systems Engineering, Office of Facilities for years FY2002-2008.

UI electricity purchase data was also provided by Systems Engineering, Office of Facilities for FY20042008. Data FY2003 was interpolated using the implied FY2002-2004 growth rate. Data on FY20042008 non-power plant fuel purchases (diesel fuel and natural gas) was also provided by Systems Engineering, Office of Facilities. Data from FY2003 was interpolated.

staff and faculty driving alone staff and faculty carpooling (2+ staff and faculty riding the bus staff and faculty riding com-

The Yale University Procurement department provided fuel purchase data for all fleet vehicles aside from the university shuttles for the period FY20042008. FY2003 fuel purchases were interpolated. The University only has data on fuel expenditures and not consumption quantities for the Yale Shuttles, as these vehicles are owned by Yale, but operated by the New Haven Bus Company. Shuttle fuel usage for FY2006 through FY2008 is estimated to be approxiTransportation Data Requirements: To calculate data from transporta- mately 7,000 gallons per month. Monthly fuel usage for FY2004 was approximately 6,000 gallons and tion, the following data was required: FY2005 usage was roughly 6,500 gallons per month.

• Fuel purchases for the university fleet (veUnfortunately, shuttle fuel usage was not reported hicles and shuttles) in the initial greenhouse gas inventory and there• Air miles traveled fore, FY2004 fuel usage was used for FY2003. As • Average commuter miles per trip the university shuttles are the largest source of fuel • Average commuter distance consumption for the university fleet, these estimates • Average commuter trips per week were utilized for this inventory.

• Average commuter weeks per year Figure 2: Emissions from Energy Provision and Campus Area, FY2002-2008 273,000

11,650 Energy Provision

Area

11,600

268,000

11,550 263,000 11,500 258,000

253,000

11,400 11,350

248,000

11,300 243,000 11,250 238,000

11,200

233,000

11,150 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

sq ft (1000s)

mT CO2e

11,450

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008

10

At the present time, the University contracts with two vendors to assist faculty and staff in arranging airline travel: Orbitz Business Travel and World Trek travel.

Data on miles booked for FY2007 and FY2008 were provided through these two services. These 35.6 million miles represented approximately 50% of university travel6. Assuming similar travel habits amongst faculty and staff that did not book travel through these services, total FY2008 miles would have been just over 71 million miles. Data for FY2002 was obtained from the initial greenhouse gas inventory and intermediate years were interpolated based on the implied FY2002-2008 growth rate.

and FY2008 was estimated using data on employee zip codes provided by a commuter survey conducted by the Sustainable Transportation Systems Office.

Using this data, an average commuting distance was calculated. Data on zip codes was not available for previous years nor was it reported in the initial greenhouse gas report. Therefore, an average of FY2007 and FY2008 estimated round trip commute of 19.9 miles per day was used for all years prior to FY2007.

Percentages of commuters traveling alone, by bus or by commuter rail were obtained using a transportation survey conducted by the Sustainable Transportation Office. This data was not available prior to FY2007 thus percentages for FY2002-2006 were interpolated The average daily commuting distance for FY2007 based on the implied FY2002-2008 growth rate.

Table 2: Energy Provision Emissions per Square Foot and per Capita, FY2003-20087 Year

Area(1)

FY

sq ft

Population(2) Change Change Energy from 2003 from 2003 Provision Emissions # % % mT CO2e

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

11,210,174 11,230,518 11,265,114 11,479,521 11,505,680 11,625,600

22,211 22,627 22,600 22,985 23,166 24,527

.2% .5% 2.4% 2.6% 3.7%

1.9% 1.8% 3.5% 4.3% 10.4%

268,541 264,649 260,752 244,982 245,205 242,500

Emissions per Area

Emissions per Capita

Lb CO2/ sq ft 52.89 52.89 50.69 46.28 46.28 46.28

mT CO2e/ capita

12.09 11.70 11.54 10.66 10.58 9.89

Table 3: Emissions Percentage by Source Activity, FY2003-2008

Energy Provision Year

Plants

Electricity Purchases

FY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% 67.7% 67.4% 66.0% 60.1% 60.4% 58.4%

Average 63.5%

Transportation University Emissions Total % 81.9% 81.3% 81.0% 79.7% 79.4% 77.3%

Air Travel

Commuting

% 13.8% 13..5% 14.6% 19.2% 18.7% 17.5%

Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases % 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 1.4%

% 12.6% 13.0% 13.1% 14.1% 14.3% 17.3%

% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.5% 4.6%

University University Fleet Emissions Total % % 0.7% 18.1% 0.7% 18.7% 0.7% 19.0% 0.8% 20.3% 0.7% 20.6% 0.7% 22.7%

16.1%

0.6%

80.2%

14.0%

5.1%

0.7%

19.8%

6 The University Director of Travel Services provided data on miles for FY2008 7 (1) Area of total buildings on Yale’s New Haven campus that are served by the Central Power Plant, Sterling Power Plant, or an electrical vault passing through these plants and are owned by Yale. (2) Population is the sum of students, faculty, and staff.

11 For comparison purposes, it is often customary to scale emissions by campus population and area.

Yale’s energy provision emissions per square foot Overview In FY2008, Yale emitted 242,500 metric tons (mT) and per capita are shown in Table 2. Yale’s emisof CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases from energy sions per square foot decreased slightly between provisions. Energy provision emissions are the result FY2003 and FY2008, dropping from 52.89 Lb CO2/ of power plant operations and electricity purchases sq. ft to 46.28 Lb CO2e/sq. ft., while emissions per and are considered Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, capita decreased from approximately 12.09 to 9.89 respectively. Additionally, Yale has provided annual mT CO2e/capita over the same time period. As disupdates of emissions from energy provision since cussed above, the campus area increased by approximately 3.7% over this time period while the campus FY2005. population increased by 10.4%. These data are sumNet emissions decreased 9.7% between FY2003 and marized in Table 2.

FY2008 and by 7% between FY2005 and FY2008, the period after establishing the University’s official Emissions from energy provision accounted for the greenhouse gas reduction target. This achievement is vast majority of the total University’s emissions, conparticularly remarkable because the campus area has tributing on average over 80% of total emissions per expanded 3.7% between FY2003 and FY2008 and year compared to transportation emissions account3.2% between FY2005 and FY2008. Much of this ing for 20% per year on average. Emissions from growth includes energy intensive laboratory build- power plants were the largest single source of emisings. Emissions from energy provision and campus sions followed by electricity purchases, and air travel. area from FY2003-2008 are presented below in Fig- These activities accounted for approximately 64%, 16%, and 14% of annual emissions on average. The ure 2.

Section 5 - Results

Figure 3: Emissions by Source, FY2003-2007 Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases

University Fleet

Commuting

Air Travel

Electricity Purchases

Plants

250,000

200,000

mT CO2e

150,000

100,000

50,000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008

12

breakdown of emissions by source activity is sum- Table 4: Emissions by Category and Percent Reductions from 2005 Levels, FY2002-2008 marized in Table 3.

Since establishing its emissions reduction target in FY2005, Yale reduced emissions from energy provision, the activities included in the commitment, by roughly 7% from approximately 260,000 metric tons mT CO2e in FY2005 to 242,500 mT CO2e in FY2008 (Table 4). Although much of the transportation data was interpolated and is not included in the University’s greenhouse gas reduction goal, it is worthy to note that over the same time period, best estimates on transportation emissions show an increase of 20%. Emissions by source category and the percentage reductions from FY2005 levels are summarized in Table 4.

As shown in Figure 3 emission reductions from FY2003-2008 were largely the result of reducing emissions from the campus power plants. Yale substituted cleaning burning fuel sources over this time period, which primarily accounts for these emission reductions8. Emissions from electricity purchases increased slightly over this time period as Yale increased its purchases of electricity as described in more detail below.

Energy Provision Year FY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Transportation

EmisChange Emissions from 2005 sions MT CO2e % MT CO2e 237,815 57,160 268,541 59,174 264,649 60,801 260,752 60,969 244,982 -6.0% 62,369 245,205 -6.0% 63,496 242,500 -7.0% 72,497

Change from 2005 %

2.3% 4.1% 18.9%

Emissions by Source Categories This section provides a brief overview of emissions by energy provision and transportation.

Energy Provision Emissions from energy provision include emissions from campus power plants, electricity energy purchases from UI, and remaining fuel purchases by individual buildings. Total emissions from energy provision were approximately 242,500 mT CO2e in FY2008, a decline of roughly 7% from FY2005 levels (Table 4).

Table 5: Energy Provision Emissions: Amount and Distribution, FY2003-2008 Distribution Percentage

Emissions Year

Plants

FY

mT CO2e 221,938 219,327 212,388 184,861 186,433 186,666

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Electricity Non-Power Purchases Plant Fuel Purchases mT CO2e mT CO2e 45,101 43,829 47,029 59,033 57,701 55,809

1,502 1,493 1,335 1,088 1,071 4,5799

Total

Plants

Electricity Purchases

Building Fuel Purchases

Total

mT CO2e 268,541 264,649 260,752 244,982 245,205 247,054 Average

%

%

%

%

82.6% 82.9% 81.5% 75.5% 76.0% 76% 79.1%

16.8% 16.6% 18.0% 24.1% 23.5% 23.0% 20.2%

0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 2.0% 0.7%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -

8 Yale power plants changed from using #6 residual fuel to #2 distillate fuel oil to natural gas. The biggest reduction in emissions is a result of switching to natural gas.

9 Beginning FY2008, emissions from non-power plant fuel purchases were excluded from Yale’s greenhouse gas reduction calculations in order to keep the University’s scope of emissions consistent with previous years.

13 Figure 4: Energy Provision Emissions, FY2003-2008 Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases

Electricity Purchases

2004

2006

Plants

250,000

mT CO2e

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

-

2003

2005

Emissions from power plants have been the largest emissions source for energy provision, accounting for nearly 79% of annual energy provision emissions on average. Electricity purchases have historically been the second largest category contributing nearly 20% of annual energy provision emissions, on average. Emissions from building fuel purchases have been small, accounting for less than 1% of energy provision emissions on average.

2007

2008

chases have increased. Further, emissions from non-power plant fuel purchases increased slightly in FY2008. These changes are a result of three main factors: 1. Changes in the power plant fuel mix 2. Changes in electricity purchases 3. A reassessment of emissions from off campus buildings that are not connected to the Yale Power Plants.

As shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, emissions from Power Plant Fuel Mix power plants have decreased over the FY2003-2008 The reductions in power plant emissions shown in time period while emissions from electricity pur- Figure 4 did not result from reduced power plant Table 6: Power Plant Fuel Usage, FY2003-2008 Quantity FY

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Gas

#6 Residual Fuel MMBTU MMBTU 2,329,684 531,748 2,671,732 592,685 3,272,874 0 3,065,927 0 3,443,061 0 3,473,488 0

% Distribution #2 Diesel Fuel Oil MMBTU 779,692 429,512 536,858 309,386 56,885 44,907

TOTAL MMBTU 3,641,124 3,693,929 3,809,732 3,375,314 3,499,946 3,518,395

FY

Gas

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% 63.9% 72.3% 85.9% 90.8% 98.3% 98.7%

#6 Residual Fuel % 14.6% 16.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

#2 Diesel Fuel % 21.4% 11.6% 14.0% 9.1% 1.6% 1.3%

TOTAL % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008 operation but rather from a transition to lower emitting fuel sources. As shown below in Table 6, total fuel inputs remained relatively constant at the power plants over the FY2003-2008 time period. However, in 2004, Yale discontinued using #6 residual fuel oil at the campus power plants and substituted to #2 distillate fuel oil. Diesel fuel is cleaner burning than residual fuel and results in lower emissions. Further, in recent years, facilities managers have transitioned to using natural gas as the dominant fuel source at the power plants with natural gas accounting for over 98% of power plant fuel inputs in 2008 (see Figure 5). Natural gas has lower emissions than #2 distillate fuel oil and this strategy helps explain the reductions in power plant emissions shown above in Figure 4.

Power plant fuel use is summarized below in Table 6 Electricity Purchases As shown in Table 7, electricity purchases increased steadily after FY2004. This is due to a number of factors including campus growth, turbine planned/ unplanned downtime, and economics. It is also important to note that the emissions factor from the

14 grid is higher than the emissions factor for on campus generation because the Central Power Plant is a co-generation facility, which has lower emissions than the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) average.

Buildings not connected to Yale Power Plants As shown in Table 5, non-power plant fuel purchases increased by almost 2% in FY2008. This increase was due to a comprehensive reassessment of on and off campus buildings not connected to Yale Power Plants. This reassessment increased the number of buildings included in the inventory as compared to the buildings that were included in Yale’s 2005 GHG reduction commitment. A more accurately defined scope of emissions from building fuel purchases not connected to Yale power-plants results in an increase in measured MTCO2e emissions.

Moving forward, these emissions will continue to be reported in Yale’s comprehensive greenhouse gas inventory, but will not be included in the greenhouse gas reduction goal in order to keep the University’s scope of emissions consistent with previous years.

Figure 5: Power Plant Fuel Source by %, FY2003-2008 % Natural Gas

% #6 Residual Fuel

% #2 Diesel Fuel

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

10 As described in Section 4 above, commuting emissions consist only of personal vehicle driving due to data availability.

15 Transportation Emissions Emissions from air travel, university vehicle fleet fuel consumption, and commuting10 comprise transportation emissions. As described in Section 4, a larger portion of transportation data was based on estimations than was the case with energy provision emissions as gathering transportation data is a more challenging task than energy provision data. However, based on interviews with transportation staff members and internal validity checks, we believe these estimates are an accurate approximation of the main transportation activities of Yale’s faculty and staff.

Air travel has historically been the largest source of transportation emissions, contributing over 70% of annual total transport emissions, on average. Commuting represented approximately 26% of annual transportation emissions followed by university fleet fuel consumption, roughly 4%. Transportation emissions estimates are presented in Table 8 and Figure 6.

Table 7: Historic Electricity Purchases, FY2003-2008 Electricity Purchases FY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

According to our estimates, total transportation emissions in FY2008 were nearly 72,500 mT CO2e, an increase of nearly 23% from FY2003 levels. This increase was largely due to increased air travel. However, university fleet emissions also increased primarily because of expanded Yale shuttle service.

The Yale shuttle has increased both in terms of service area and service hours over this six-year period.

This should be regarded positively as expanded shuttle services may reduce number of personal vehicles on campus.

kWh 101,046,101 98,196,492 105,364,000 132,259,672 129,274,600 133,834,000

Figure 6: Transportation Emissions, FY2003-2008 Figure 6: Transportation Emissions, FY2003-2008 University Fleet

Commuting

Air Travel

60,000

50,000

mT CO2e

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

-

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008

16

Table 8: Transportation Emissions: Amount and Distribution, FY2003-2008 Emissions Year FY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Air Travel mT CO2e 41,137 42,268 42,265 43,246 44,178 55,361

Commuting

Distribution Percentage

mT CO2e

University Fleet mT CO2e

15,872 16,308 16,307 16,685 17,045 14,859

2, 166 2,225 2, 398 2,438 2,272 2,278

Total mT CO2e 59,174 60,801 60969 62,369 63,496 72,497 Average

Emissions by Scope This section presents emissions as summarized by scope category. This complies with standard reporting procedures utilized by other universities.

Air Travel %

Commuters

Total

%

University Fleet %

69.5% 69.5 69.3% 69.3% 69.6% 76.4% 70.4%

26.8% 26.8% 26.7% 26.8% 26.8% 20.5% 25.9%

3.7% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% 3.6% 3.1% 3.7%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -

%

Yale’s Scope 2 and 3 emissions, both indirect emissions categories, have each contributed on average roughly 16% and 18%, respectively (see Table 9).

Scope 2 emissions are electricity purchases and have increased in each period between FY2004-2006 but decreased in FY2007 and FY2008. Overall, electricity purchases have increased by over 23% between FY2003 and FY2008. Yale’s Scope 3 emissions, which include emissions from commuting and air travel, have increased in each year under consideration, increasing a total of 25% in the FY2003-2008 time period.

Yale University’s Scope 1 emissions include power plant emissions and emissions from the university vehicle fleet. Of these two activities, only emissions from power plant operations were included in the University’s initial greenhouse gas reduction target.

As outlined in Table 9, Scope 1 emissions represent the largest share of emissions, accounting for approximately 65.5% of the University’s annual emissions, on average. Scope 1 emissions have been steadily Emissions by scope category and their distribution declining since FY2003 and between FY2003-2008, are presented in Table 9 and Figure 7 Scope 1 emissions decreased by nearly 16%. This was largely the result of decreased power plant emissions as described previously.

Table 9: Emissions by Scope Category: Amount and Distribution, FY2003-2008

Emissions Year FY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scope 1 mT CO2e 189,893 221,938 219,327 212,388 184,861 186,433 186,666

Scope 2 mT CO2e 46,410 45,101 43,829 47,029 59,033 57,701 55,809

Distribution Percentage Scope 3 mT CO2e 54,862 57,008 58,577 58,571 59,931 61,224 70,220

Total mT CO2e 291,164 324,048 321,733 317,988 303,825 305,358 312,694 Average

Scope 1 % 65.2% 68.5% 68.2% 66.8% 60.8% 61.1% 59.7% 64.3%

Scope 2 % 15.9% 13.9% 13.6% 14.8% 19.4% 18.9% 17.8% 16.3%

Scope 3 % 18.8% 17.6% 18.2% 18.4% 19.7% 20.0% 22.5% 19.3%

Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0% -

17 Figure 7: Scope Category Emissions, FY2003-2007 Scope 3

Scope 2

Scope 1

250,000

mT CO2e

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

-

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) to students, installation of a 40 kW photovoltaic system at the Divinity School and a 250 kW fuel cell at the Environmental Science Center, reducing the air change rate in labs, window As detailed above, Yale has successfully reduced replacement at two large buildings, and achieving its greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels; the LEED Gold and Silver for two full laboratory renobaseline year the university set to measure progress vations at the Medical School. A more detailed detowards its greenhouse gas reduction target. These scription of Yale’s emission reduction initiatives are reductions stem largely from transitioning to lower outlined in Table 10 below. emitting fuel sources, investments in emissions reductions strategies, energy conservation initiatives and Though we currently do not include transportation educational programs that inform the campus com- emissions in our annual emissions updates, the Unimunity about the significance of climate change. versity has instituted a number of transportation related programs that will ultimately lead to greenIn terms of investments on campus, Yale has underhouse gas emission reduction. One such program is taken activities in the following areas: the car-sharing program through Zipcar, Inc.11 which • Energy conservation began in the fall of 2007 and has shared-use cars on • Sustainable building design and construction campus. The Zipcar program enables the hourly use • Campus energy production and distribution of cars for students, faculty, and staff to meet their • Renewable energy technologies transportation needs without bringing a personal ve• Alternative fuels hicle to campus. After just six months, student park• Promotion of sustainable commuting ing pass renewal requests declined by 5%. modes Examples of some of Yale’s recent activities include To further involve the campus community in adthe distribution of 5,000 energy efficient compact dressing climate change, the university initiated the Section 6 - Progress to Date and Actions Going Forward

11 Zipcar is the world’s largest car sharing and car club provider http://www.zipcar.com/index

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008

18

Table 10: Summary of Yale’s Emission Reduction Initiatives Conservation Projects HVAC Recommissioning of 90 Buildings (all DDC type) Building Temperature Standardization (DDC Buildings) Lighting Occupancy Sensors in 85+ Buildings High Efficiency Filters in all HVAC Units Rescheduling of Lab “Occupied” Hours Lab Rebalance & Air Change Red’n 15-9 (6 Buildings) Sensible Heat Recovery Retrofits in Labs Window Replacement Var. Buildings Programmable Thermostats in Smaller Buildings Demand Ventilation (CO2 Sensors & VFDs)

Yale Energy Pledge in 2006 whereby students committed to taking actions to reduce personal energy consumption. Over 2,500 students signed the pledge which also supported the temperature reduction program. Further, by reducing energy consumption in the residential colleges by 10% in 2006 and 2007, Yale purchased 10,000 MWh of renewable energy certificates (RECs) to offset student electricity use.

As stated previously, Yale’s current greenhouse gas reduction target includes emissions from the University’s two power plants and purchased electricity; however, emissions from the University fleet, commuting and air travel are under analysis and debate for future inclusion in the University’s reduction target. As more accurate methodologies for accounting for scope 3 emissions are developed Yale may consider expanding its emission reduction target to include this wider scope.

Section 7 - Conclusion

MTCO2e Avoided 19,000 9,500 5,000 2,500 1,500 1,000 1,500 1,000 500 500

efficiency in existing buildings, sustainable standards for new construction and large renovations, increased efficiency of on-campus energy production and distribution and the introduction of renewable energy projects.

As power plant operations represent the single largest source of emissions, nearly two-thirds of emissions, the University’s achievement is commendable however additional improvements in the future will be necessary for Yale to both meet its reduction goal and serve as a leader in shaping and promoting sustainable development. Anticipating the need to further reduce emissions from campus power plants, Yale’s future initiatives include converting the Sterling Power Plant to a cogeneration facility. This will result in a reduction of approximately 10,000 to 20,000 MTC02e, a significant reduction in power plant operations.

Yale’s reduction strategy into the future also includes implementing measures that reduce building energy demand and consumption, increased building envelope performance, and additional efficiencies in building systems. Yale also plans to increase its onsite renewable energy generation through the installation of solar photovoltaic and thermal systems, geothermal, fuel cells and micro-wind turbines.

The results of this inventory show that Yale decreased its emissions by almost 9% between FY2003 and FY2007 and by 7% between FY2005 and FY2008, the period after establishing the University’s greenhouse gas reduction target. This reduction clearly demonstrates that the University is making a concerted effort to deliver on its ambitious goal to re- This inventory reveals that emissions from the secduce its greenhouse gas emissions 10% below 1990 ond and third largest categories, electricity purchases levels by 2020. and air travel, increased steadily over this period. The Much of this reduction can be attributed to reduc- university has less control over these emissions cating emissions from campus power plants through the egories compared to power plant emissions as the transition to lower emitting fuel sources, improved university has little impact on United Illuminating

19 Company’s fuel purchase decisions and cannot directly influence the travel decisions of the university community. However, while Yale does not currently include commuting and travel related emissions in its greenhouse gas reduction goal, Yale can promote policies to reduce the number of trips taken while simultaneously investing in information technologies such as video conferencing and telecommuting to facilitate a reduction in travel related emissions. Further, the university may be able to design incentive programs to ‘reward’ staff and faculty for carpooling, taking public transportation or living within walking distance of campus. Incentives to reduce the commuter vehicle contribution to greenhouse gas emissions are currently in development.

Yale’s actions since the first greenhouse gas inventory clearly underscore the university’s commitment towards promoting a more sustainable environmental future for the campus. Yet, significant challenges remain for continuing this progress, especially with long-term plans for expansion. Yale should see this as an opportunity for developing innovative solutions for sustainable growth by encouraging a broad section of the university community to participate in this debate.

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008

20

GLOSSARY CO2-equivalent – The universal unit of measurement to indicate the global warming potential (GWP) of each of the six greenhouse gases; expressed in terms of the GWP of one unit of carbon dioxide. It is used to evaluate releasing (or avoiding releasing) different greenhouse gases against a common basis.

Emissions Factors - a measure of the average emissions rate of a certain pollutant from a given activity.

European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - The ETS is an emissions capand-trade program in which a maximum emissions level (the cap) is set below business-as-usual levels and participants are given flexibility in how to best meet their reduction targets. Participants are awarded emissions allowances and can earn credits by investing in measures to reduce emissions. Participants can then trade these allowances and credits to help achieve the emissions reduction target in a cost-effective manner.

Greenhouse gas emissions – Those gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride, that are transparent to solar (short-wave) radiation but opaque to long-wave (infrared) radiation, thus preventing long-wave radiant energy from leaving Earth’s atmosphere. The net effect is a trapping of absorbed radiation and a tendency to warm the planet’s surface.

Greenhouse gas inventory – A quantified list of an organization’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Offsets - Offsets are discrete GHG reductions used to compensate for GHG emissions elsewhere, for example to meet a voluntary or mandatory GHG target or cap. Offsets are calculated relative to a baseline that represents a hypothetical scenario for what emissions would have been in the absence of the mitigation project that generates the offsets. To avoid double counting, the reduction giving rise to the offset must occur at sources or sinks not included in the target or cap for which it is used.

Global warming potential (GWP) - An index used to compare the relative radiative forcing of different gases without directly calculating the changes in atmospheric concentrations. GWPs are calculated as the ratio of the radiative forcing that would result from the emission of one kilogram of a greenhouse gas to that from the emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a fixed period of time, such as 100 years.

Greenhouse Gas Protocol - The most widely used international accounting tool for government and business leaders to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol was developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Comprised of an international body of climate change scientists, the IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. (www.ipcc.ch)

21 GLOSSARY Kyoto Protocol – The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) - RGGI is a cooperative effort by ten Northeast and MidAtlantic States to limit greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI is the first mandatory, market-based CO2 emissions reduction program in the United States. These ten states will cap CO2 emissions from the power sector, and then require a 10 percent reduction in these emissions by 2018.

Renewable Energy - Energy resources that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include: biomass, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action.

Renewable Energy Credits - Tradable environmental commodities which represent proof that 1 megawatthour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

Scope - Defines the operational boundaries in relation to indirect and direct GHG emissions.

22 REFERENCES Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). (2006). The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Available at: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm.

Connecticut Climate Action. (2005). Action Plan 2005: Executive Summary. Available at: http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_001.pdf.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1990). Impacts Assessment of Climate Change – Report of Working Group II. W.J.McG Tegart, G.W.Sheldon, D.C.Griffiths (Eds). Australian Government Publishing. Canberra, Australia.

IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Solomon, S.D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. (2001). Climate Change Action Plan 2001. Available at: http://www.negc.org/documents/NEG-ECP%20CCAP.PDF. World Resources Institute-World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI-WBCSD). (2004).

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Reporting and Accounting Standard. Revised Edition. WRI. Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf.

Yale Climate Initiative (YCI). (2005). Inventory and Analysis of Yale University’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Working Paper Number 7. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Yale Office of Sustainability. (2007). Yale’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy: Creating a Sustainable Future. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/sustainability/greenhouse9_112.pdf.

Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper