Page 1 of 25

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory

Fiscal Year 2010

Prepared by the Office of Sustainability for the

Environmental Advisory Council

Page 2 of 25

Environmental Advisory Council Members

Kyle Altmann Associate Professor, Physics Robert Buchholz Director of Physical Plant Brian Collins Associate Director of Residence Life for Community Building and Residential Education Elaine Durr Sustainability Coordinator Andrew Fischer Student Representative, Class of 2014 Michele Kleckner Senior Lecturer, Computing Sciences Brad Moore Associate Director of Planning, Design and Construction Management Alison Morrison-Shetlar Dean, Elon College, the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Biology Gary Palin Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Executive Director of the Doherty Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Lindsay Spiers Student Representative, Class of 2013 Gerald Whittington, Chair Senior Vice President for Business, Finance and Technology

Page 3 of 25

Acknowledgments

Elon University’s third annual greenhouse gas inventory was completed with the assistance of Benjamin

Stanley, sustainability intern for summer 2010, who collected and analyzed the data. In addition, the

inventory could not have been completed without the cooperation and assistance of those who

provided the necessary data, guidance throughout the process and assistance with data collection and

analysis. Listed alphabetically, they are:

Erin Andrews

Jeff Baisley

Kristin Barrier

Kim Bradsher

Kathryn Bennett

Loura Burnette

David Cooper

Keith Dimont

Cindy Duke

Jeanne Duvall

Andrea Edwards

Kelly Elliston

Christina Esters

Peter Felten

Tom Flood

Mary Gowan

Barbara Guy

Jeff Hendricks

Steven House

Paul Holt

Smith Jackson

Denard Jones

Taylor Jones

Ryan Kirk

Susan Klopman

Deirdre Lea

Susan Lindley

Michelle Martin

Ron Morgan

Alison Morrison-Shetlar

Louise Newton

Paul Parsons

Tim Peeples

Phyllis Phillips

Jim Piatt

Larry Rhodes

Celeste Richards

Elizabeth Rogers

Jan Schneider

Rob Springer

Benjamin Stanley

Paige Vignali

Kim Werr

Carolyn Whitley

Gerald Whittington

Kyle Wills

Mary Wise

Dave Worden

Greg Zaiser

Amanda Zamzes

Thank you for your assistance and support.

Page 4 of 25

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 5

Background ........................................................................................................ 9

Methodology ..................................................................................................... 9

Data and Analysis .............................................................................................. 10

GHG Emissions ................................................................................................... 15

Inventory Comparison ....................................................................................... 17

Summary ........................................................................................................... 20

Appendix

A. Comparison between 2008 and 2010 Commuter Habit Survey Results .... 23

Page 5 of 25

Executive Summary

The overarching goal of Elon University’s Sustainability Master Plan (2006-2007) is “to minimize our

impact on the global environment by establishing a carbon neutral university.” Calculating the

university’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or carbon footprint is one of the essential steps in

establishing a carbon neutral university. Elon’s first GHG inventory was conducted for fiscal year (FY)

2008 and serves as Elon’s baseline from which to measure reductions in emissions. A yearly GHG

inventory is needed to monitor progress toward Elon’s emission reduction goals.

The current version (Version 6.6) of the Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator was

used to calculate Elon’s emissions for FY 2010. This Calculator includes updated constants and emission

factors. As with previous versions of the Calculator, it includes all of the primary components of a GHG

inventory: Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions as well as offsets. The data collection process for FY 2010 was

conducted in the same way as the FY 2009 inventory.

Elon’s total GHG emissions for 2010 were 40,057 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCDE)

(Figure 1). The net GHG emissions for 2010 were 39,961 MTCDE due to an offset of 96 MTCDE for yard

waste composting. Elon’s net GHG emissions per full-time equivalent (FTE) student were 7.2

MTCDE/student and per building square foot (ft2) were 0.02 MTCDE/ft2 or 20.6 kg of carbon dioxide

equivalents (eCO2) per ft2.

To facilitate a comparison across the three years a GHG inventory has been conducted, the FY 2008 and

FY 2009 inventories were updated using the v6.6 Calculator. See Figure 2 for the category breakdown by

metric tons of eCO2 for all three years. The primary differences between the updated FY 2008 and FY

2009 inventories and the emissions previously reported using the v6.4 Calculator are in Directly

Financed Travel, which primarily includes faculty and staff business travel, and Student Commuting.

These changes are the result of updating the methodology for data analysis used for these categories to

be more reflective of activity during the fiscal year.

Elon’s GHG emissions decreased 4.60% from FY 2008 to FY 2010 primarily from a decrease in energy

consumption and student commuting and fewer students studying abroad through Elon Programs. From

FY 2009 to FY 2010, emissions decreased slightly, 0.29%. Student Commuting decreased; however,

Directly Financed Travel increased.

Page 6 of 25

Figure 1: Emissions Percentage by Category

Natural Gas / Propane

10.9%

University Fleet2.1%

Refrigeration0.6%

Fertilizer0.1%

Purchased Electricity

40.1%

Student Commuting3.9%

Faculty/Staff Commuting

7.7%

Study Abroad18.9%

Directly Financed Travel9.1%

Solid Waste2.7%

Wastewater0.1%

T&D Losses4.0%

Page 7 of 25

Figure 2: Emissions by Category for FY 2008 – 2010

As illustrated in Figure 1, Purchased Electricity is the largest emissions category followed by Study

Abroad and Natural Gas/Propane. Campus energy consumption (Purchased Electricity, Natural

Gas/Propane and T&D Losses) accounts for 55% of the GHG emissions, which is expected given coal is

the source of a large portion of Elon’s purchased electricity. Strategies for energy conservation and

efficiency projects as well as renewable energy projects are included in Elon’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)

(Spring 2010).

Elon is ranked number one in the nation among masters – level universities for study abroad programs

by the Institute of International Education. Study abroad travel accounts for 18.9% of the GHG

emissions. However, reducing the number of students who study abroad is not an option given the

prestige and importance of this program. In fact, study abroad travel will likely increase in the future as

providing access to 100% of Elon students is a priority in The Elon Commitment strategic plan. Strategies

for reducing net emissions, such as offsets, from study abroad travel are included in Elon’s CAP.

Commuting and Directly Financed Travel account for a combined 20.7% of the GHG emissions. Strategies

for increasing the use of alternative transportation, such as walking, biking, carpooling and using the

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000M

etr

ic T

on

s o

f e

CO

2(M

TCD

E)

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

Page 8 of 25

Elon Bio-buses are included in the CAP. Web-conferencing and combining trips through scheduling could

also help reduce emissions from faculty and staff business travel

In addition to projects and programs that can be implemented to affect campus operations and

behavior, other strategies, mainly offsets, will also need to be considered to reach carbon neutrality. An

offset is a reduction of carbon dioxide or removal of carbon dioxide equivalent (eCO2) GHG emissions

that is used to counterbalance or compensate for (“offset”) emissions from other activities. There are

different options for investing in offsets such as purchasing offset credits (retail or wholesale) from

third-party providers with varying project types, investing in projects directly (without a third-party

provider) and developing projects independently. Offset options that seem more likely are purchasing

retail offset credits and investing in projects directly. However, utilizing offsets for all of Elon’s net GHG

emissions would not be an effective use of financial resources. The intention is to utilize offsets only

after reducing emissions on campus as much as possible.

The FY 2010 GHG inventory indicates progress toward the University’s goal of carbon neutrality as

identified in the Sustainability Master Plan. However, as noted in the CAP, the University’s planned

growth will prove challenging for continued emission reductions. Therefore, it is critical to continue

implementation of the strategies identified in the CAP to reduce emissions in the coming years. The CAP

will be revised as necessary to take new technologies, incentives and developments into consideration.

A GHG inventory will continue to be conducted yearly to monitor progress toward Elon’s emission

reduction goals.

Page 9 of 25

Background

The overarching goal of Elon University’s Sustainability Master Plan completed in the spring of 2007 is

“to minimize our impact on the global environment by establishing a carbon neutral university.” This

goal requires the elimination of net carbon emissions or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The

recommended timeframe for this goal is within the next 30 years from 2007, so by 2037. As a primary

step toward this goal, Elon’s first GHG inventory was conducted for fiscal year (FY) 2008. FY 2008 serves

as Elon’s baseline from which to measure reductions in emissions. This initial inventory guided the

creation of Elon’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Spring 2010) or roadmap for carrying out projects to reduce

emissions. To monitor progress toward Elon’s emission reduction goals, a GHG inventory is conducted

yearly.

What follows is an explanation of the methodology used to conduct the FY 2010 GHG inventory, the

calculated amount of emissions from each source, a comparison between the FY 2008, FY 2009 and FY

2010 inventories and a summary of Elon’s GHG emissions for FY 2010.

Methodology

As with the previous GHG inventories, the Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator was

used to calculate Elon’s GHG emissions. The current version of the Calculator was used, Version 6.6. Like

the previous versions of the Calculator, the Clean Air-Cool Planet v6.6 Calculator analyzes the

university’s GHG emissions including Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions as well as offsets and provides the total

amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (eCO2).

Scope 1 is direct emissions, such as production of electricity on campus and university vehicles.

Scope 2 emissions come from imported sources of energy, i.e., purchased electricity or steam.

Scope 3 is all other indirect sources of emissions, such as business travel, commuter travel and

solid waste generation.

An offset is a reduction of carbon dioxide or removal of carbon dioxide equivalent (eCO2) GHG

emissions that is used to counterbalance or compensate for (“offset”) emissions from other

activities.

The v6.6 Calculator includes updated constants and emission factors based on the most current data

available when the Calculator was developed. As with previous inventories, the boundaries for Elon’s FY

2010 GHG inventory are all directly financed emissions and directly encouraged emissions such as study

abroad. Scope 3 upstream emissions, such as paper purchasing, are not included at this time.

The data collection process for the FY 2010 inventory was conducted in the same way as the FY 2009

inventory. The list of contact people created as a result of the FY 2008 and FY 2009 inventories was

used. Each person was contacted via email and asked to provide the relevant information. Overall, this

process went well because the contact people knew what to expect based on previous years. A few

personnel changes occurred, which resulted in a new contact person for some categories. The

methodology used for FY 2009 was replicated for FY 2010 with a few changes in methodology for data

analysis as noted below.

Page 10 of 25

The methodology for two categories – Directly Financed Travel and Commuter Travel – was slightly

modified in an effort to be more reflective of activity during the fiscal year. Directly Financed Travel

includes faculty and staff business travel and athletic team travel; however, faculty and staff business

travel makes up the majority of the emissions in this category. The methodology used to determine

flight miles from dollars spent on flights was revised. In previous inventories $0.25 per mile was used as

recommended by the Implementation Guide of the American College and University Presidents Climate

Commitment. This factor was revised based on the most recent calendar year data on flight costs from

the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Security and Exchange Commission. The methodology

used to determine gallons of gasoline from dollars spent on gasoline was revised. In previous inventories

the average annual price for unleaded fuel for used to determine the fiscal year average. This was

revised to be more reflective of fuel prices throughout the fiscal year by using the monthly average price

for all grades of fuel and calculating an average based on the months in the fiscal year. These revised

methodologies were applied to the previous year’s inventories to enable more accurate year to year

comparisons.

Commuter Travel includes faculty, staff and student commuting travel to and from campus. For FY 2010,

a new commuter habit survey was conducted and another Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

analysis was done to identify changes in commuter habits and travel distances. The commuter habit

survey was created and distributed with the assistance of Institutional Research. The questions and

format were modified from the survey conducted in 2008. The primary change was that only off campus

students answered questions about regular commuting to and from campus. (To allow comparisons, the

data inputs from the 2008 survey were revised to only include off campus students.) Questions

answered by on campus students provide valuable information regarding transportation habits and use

of alternative transportation and inform program development. The results of the commuter habit

survey were used to determine the average mileage traveled, number of trips per week and what

percentage travel by various methods (car, bus and carpool).

A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis was done by an Elon student and faculty member using

faculty and staff anonymous addresses to generate an average one-way travel mileage (for faculty and

staff) for the Elon campus, the Law School campus and the campuses combined. In 2008, the Elon

campus was used as the travel destination for all faculty and staff combined.

Data and Analysis

The following is a summary of the data:

Institutional Information o Operating and energy budget o Student enrollment o Square footage o Faculty and staff population

Scope 1 o Natural gas purchase records (therms)

o Propane purchase records (gallons)

Page 11 of 25

o Gasoline purchase records for university tanks (gallons)

o Fuelman card gasoline purchase records (gallons)

o Off-road diesel purchase records (gallons)

o Biodiesel purchase records (gallons)

o Fertilizer application records (pounds)

o Refrigerant usage records (pounds)

Scope 2 o Electricity purchase records (kilowatt hours)

Scope 3 o Athletic team charter bus and air travel records (destinations) o Solid waste records (tons)

o Wastewater records (gallons)

o Study abroad records (number of students in each program, flight information)

o Faculty and staff travel

Destinations and/or mileage from some departments/divisions

Procurement card records for gasoline purchases (dollars)

Procurement card records for airfare purchases (dollars)

Airfare object code report (dollars)

o Commuter travel GIS analysis of faculty and staff anonymous addresses to determine an average

mileage Commuter habit survey results

o Transmission and distribution (T&D) losses of purchased electricity Determined in the Calculator from the amount of electricity purchased

Offset o Yard waste composting (tons)

Most of this data was provided in the form needed to enter it into the CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator. A few categories required a unit conversion or other analysis to arrive at the correct unit or information needed. They are as follows:

Natural gas purchase records – therms were converted to MMBtu.

Procurement card records for gasoline purchases – dollars spent were converted to gallons using an average price for all grades of gasoline in conventional areas of $2.67 derived from the Energy Information Association’s national averages for the months during FY 2010. For faculty and staff travel, miles traveled was the input required for the Calculator, so the estimated usage in gallons was converted to miles using the average fuel efficiency referenced in the Calculator, 22.10 miles per gallon.

Study abroad records – the air miles for each Elon program were determined using an online air mileage calculator tool, www.milecalc.com. The Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) was used as the origination airport when more specific information was not available. The number of air miles for each program was multiplied by the number of students in each program. The air miles for all programs were totaled by term (fall, winter, spring and summer).

Athletic team travel and faculty and staff travel – when destinations were provided, www.milecalc.com was used to determine air miles and Google Maps or www.mapquest.com was used to determine vehicle miles as appropriate.

Page 12 of 25

Procurement card records for airfare purchases – dollars spent were converted to air miles using $0.1158 per mile based on flight cost data for 2009 from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Security and Exchange Commission.

Airfare object code report – dollars spent were converted to air miles using $0.1158 per mile. This information was only used when information was not available through departmental travel records and/or procurement card purchase records.

The GIS analysis used for the commuter travel category was more involved. It was conducted by an Elon

student, Taylor Jones (Public Administration Major, GIS Minor), and an Elon faculty member, Ryan Kirk

(Geography and Environmental Studies), in the fall of 2010. Anonymous faculty and staff addresses as of

September 2, 2010 (October 21, 2010 for Law School faculty and staff) were provided by Deirdre Lea in

Human Resources. For the GIS analysis, commuting distances were calculated as the shortest travel

route from the nearest road for each residence to the edge of the Elon campus property or as the

shortest road distance to the intersection nearest the Law School campus as appropriate. Given this, all

campus addresses were given a distance of zero. The mean travel distance to the Elon campus is 13.3

miles, and the median distance is 8.0 miles (Figure 3). The mean travel distance to the Law School

campus is 11.0 miles, and the median distance is 6.0 miles (Figure 4). For both campuses, 40.4% of

faculty and staff live within 5 miles, 59.4% within 10 miles, 82.1% within 25 miles and 97.8% within 50

miles. For comparison purposes, the GIS analysis conducted in 2008 indicated a mean travel distance of

12.6 miles and median distance of 6.7 miles. It showed that 42% of faculty and staff lived within 5 miles,

58% within 10 miles, 83% within 25 miles and 98% within 50 miles. The 2008 analysis used the Elon

campus as the destination for all addresses.

Page 13 of 25

Figure 3: Elon Campus Faculty and Staff Commutershed

Page 14 of 25

Figure 4: Law School Campus Faculty and Staff Commutershed

The commuter habit survey was created and the results analyzed with the assistance of Rob Springer,

Director of Institutional Research, in the fall of 2010. An email was sent to all faculty, staff and students

that briefly explained the purpose of the survey and provided a link to complete the survey online. The

survey results are as follows:

Off Campus Students, N = 515

o 90% commute by car at least once a week with an average of 4.4 trips/week

o 7.6 miles is the average roundtrip by car

o 19% commute by bus at least once a week with an average of 5.2 trips/week

Page 15 of 25

o 3.3 miles is the average roundtrip by bus

o 50% of students carpool at least one day a week with an average of 2.9 trips/week

o 65% of students bike or walk to campus at least once a week

Faculty, N = 173

o 99% commute by car at least once a week with an average of 4.4 trips/week

o 34.4 miles is the average roundtrip by car

o 13% of faculty carpool at least one day a week with an average of 2.8 trips/week

o 9% of faculty bike or walk to campus at least once a week

Staff, N = 210

o 99% commute by car at least once a week with an average of 5.7 trips/week

o 22.8 miles is the average roundtrip by car

o 13% of staff carpool at least one day a week with an average of 3.5 trips/week

o 1% of staff bike or walk to campus at least once a week

The survey results indicated that no faculty and staff are taking the bus. The average one-way travel

distance for faculty of 17.2 miles is close to the travel distance determined with the GIS analysis of 17.8

miles. Similarly, the average one-way travel distance for staff of 11.4 miles is close to the travel distance

determined with the GIS analysis of 10 miles. The travel distances determined for faculty and staff with

the GIS analysis were used in the Calculator.

A comparison between the 2008 and 2010 survey results indicates some changes in commuting habits

(see Appendix A). Those changes include an increase in faculty and staff commuting by car and the

average roundtrip mileage of their commute, a decrease in the number of trips off campus students

make, a decrease in the average roundtrip mileage for off campus students, an increase in off campus

students utilizing the bus, an increase in staff carpooling, no faculty and staff taking the bus, an increase

in off campus students biking and walking and a decrease in faculty and staff biking and walking.

GHG Emissions

The metric for measuring GHG or carbon emissions is metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCDE)

or metric tons of eCO2. Elon’s total GHG emissions for 2010 were 40,057 metric tons of carbon dioxide

equivalents (MTCDE). The net GHG emissions for 2010 were 39,961 MTCDE due to an offset of 96

MTCDE for yard waste composting. Per full-time equivalent (FTE) student net emissions were 7.2

MTCDE/student and per building square foot (ft2) were 0.02 MTCDE/ft2 or 20.6 kg of carbon dioxide

equivalents (eCO2) per ft2. See Table 1 for the category breakdown by metric tons of eCO2 and Figure 1

for a percentage breakdown by category.

Page 16 of 25

Category Metric Tons of eCO2

Scope 1

Natural Gas / Propane 4350.8

University Fleet 830.6

Refrigeration 258.9

Fertilizer 51.9

Scope 2

Purchased Electricity 16053.3

Scope 3

Student Commuting 1542.3

Faculty/Staff Commuting 3064.8

Study Abroad 7587.7

Directly Financed Travel 3642.2

Solid Waste 1064.3

Wastewater 22.8

T&D Losses 1587.7

Total Amount 40057.3

Offsets for yard composting 96.2

Net Amount 39961.1

Table 1: Emissions by Category

Page 17 of 25

Figure 1: Emissions Percentage by Category

Inventory Comparison

To provide a better comparison between the three GHG inventories that have been conducted – FY

2008, 2009 and 2010 – the GHG emissions for FY 2008 and FY 2009 were updated using the v6.6

Calculator and the revised methodologies noted in the Methodology and Data and Analysis sections. See

Table 2 and Figure 2 for the category breakdown by metric tons of eCO2 for all three years.

Natural Gas / Propane

10.9%

University Fleet2.1%

Refrigeration0.6%

Fertilizer0.1%

Purchased Electricity

40.1%

Student Commuting3.9%

Faculty/Staff Commuting

7.7%

Study Abroad18.9%

Directly Financed Travel9.1%

Solid Waste2.7%

Wastewater0.1%

T&D Losses4.0%

Page 18 of 25

Category 2008 Metric Tons of eCO2 2009 Metric Tons of eCO2 2010 Metric Tons of eCO2

Scope 1

Natural Gas / Propane 4641.7 4385.7 4350.8

University Fleet 767.6 809.7 830.6

Refrigeration 336.3 279.9 258.9

Fertilizer 51.8 44.5 51.9

Scope 2

Purchased Electricity 16769.2 16080.4 16053.3

Scope 3

Student Commuting 2257 2411.3 1542.3

Faculty/Staff Commuting 2935.4 3151 3064.8

Study Abroad 8649.6 7828.6 7587.7

Directly Financed Travel 2984.4 2514.2 3642.2

Solid Waste 847.4 1033.6 1064.3

Wastewater 25.4 23.8 22.8

T&D Losses 1658.5 1590.4 1587.7

Total Amount 41924.3 40153.1 40057.3

Offsets for yard composting 34.6 76.9 96.2

Net Amount 41889.7 40076.2 39961.1

Table 2: Emissions by Category for FY 2008 - 2010

Page 19 of 25

Figure 2: Emissions by Category for FY 2008 – 2010

The primary differences between the updated FY 2008 and FY 2009 inventories and the emissions

previously reported using the v6.4 Calculator are in Directly Financed Travel, which primarily includes

faculty and staff business travel, and Student Commuting. As previously noted, the methodologies for

these two categories were revised to be more reflective of activity during the fiscal year.

Elon’s GHG emissions decreased 4.60% from FY 2008 to FY 2010 primarily from a decrease in energy

consumption and student commuting and fewer students studying abroad through Elon Programs. From

FY 2009 to FY 2010, emissions decreased only slightly, 0.29%. Student Commuting decreased; however,

Directly Financed Travel increased. The change in Student Commuting is due to the new commuter habit

survey that was conducted, which indicated that student commuting patterns changed. Faculty and staff

commuting patterns also changed but not as much. An increase in faculty and staff business travel is the

primary cause for the increase in Directly Financed Travel, which could be the result of improved data

collection and/or more actual travel. Emissions from energy consumption also decreased slightly from

FY 2009 to FY 2010 due to continued efforts to improve energy efficiency and conservation on campus.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000M

etr

ic T

on

s o

f e

CO

2(M

TCD

E)

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

Page 20 of 25

Summary

As illustrated in Figure 1, Purchased Electricity is the largest emissions category followed by Study

Abroad and Natural Gas/Propane. Campus energy consumption (Purchased Electricity, Natural

Gas/Propane and T&D losses) accounts for 55% of the GHG emissions, which is expected given coal is

the source of a large portion of Elon’s purchased electricity. Elon used slightly over 31 million kWh of

electricity in FY 2010, more than 800,000 therms of natural gas and 1,550 gallons of propane. Natural

gas and propane are used for heating and burn cleaner than coal. Reductions in direct emissions from

energy consumption will likely come from continued campus energy conservation and efficiency

projects as identified in the CAP. Installations of renewable energy such as solar thermal and geothermal

will also contribute to reductions in emissions from energy consumption. A geothermal system is

currently being installed to provide the primary source of heating and cooling for three new residence

halls and two existing residence halls. Grant funding was also awarded for solar thermal installations to

provide domestic hot water to a dining hall and at least two residence halls. Construction will begin in

2011. Additional renewable energy installations, including solar photovoltaic panels, will be considered

as appropriate and applicable as retrofits to existing facilities and/or a part of new facilities.

Elon is ranked number one in the nation among masters – level universities for study abroad programs

by the Institute of International Education. About 71% of Elon students study abroad at least once

during their time at the university. In FY 2010, 973 students studied abroad with an Elon sponsored

program. This was down from 1,056 in FY 2009. Study abroad travel accounts for 18.9% of Elon’s FY

2010 GHG emissions. Reducing the number of students who study abroad is not an option given the

prestige and importance of this program. In fact, the number of students studying abroad will likely

increase in the future as providing access to study abroad to 100% of Elon students is a priority in The

Elon Commitment strategic plan. Strategies for reducing net emissions, such as offsets, from study

abroad travel are included in Elon’s CAP.

Faculty/Staff Commuting and Student Commuting account for 11.6% of Elon’s GHG emissions. Based on

the survey results (see Appendix A), 90% of students commute by car at least once a week, 50% carpool

at least one day a week and 19% commute by bus at least once a week for a total of approximately

3,930,015 commute miles in FY 2010. Faculty and staff commuted approximately 7,585,678 miles in FY

2010 based on no bus use and 99% of faculty and staff commuting by car at least once a week with 13%

of faculty and staff carpooling at least one day a week. Options to decrease these emissions involve

carpooling, walking, riding a bike and utilizing the Elon Bio-buses. Programs and/or incentives for

increasing the use of these alternative methods of transportation are included in the CAP.

The GHG emissions from Directly Financed Travel amount to 9.1% of the total and include faculty and

staff business travel and athletic team travel. This may also be a difficult number to reduce in that travel

is a necessary part of many university employees’ jobs and essential to Elon’s athletic teams. Potential

ways to decrease net GHG emissions from travel include continuing and increasing the use of hybrid and

other alternative fueled vehicles; encouraging carpooling, web conferencing and taking the Amtrak train

when appropriate; and utilizing travel offsets. Combining trips through scheduling is another option to

reduce travel emissions. All of these strategies are included in the CAP.

Page 21 of 25

Categories that contribute a small amount (2.7% or less) to the total GHG emissions include Solid Waste,

the University Fleet, Refrigeration, Fertilizer and Wastewater. The recycling program at Elon has

expanded in recent years and yard and food waste composting programs have been put in-place. These

efforts will continue along with efforts to decrease the amount of disposable materials used on campus

and increase material reuse. These strategies should continue to keep Solid Waste a small portion of

Elon’s GHG emissions. Approximately 903 tons of solid waste were sent to a landfill in FY 2010.

University Fleet vehicles and equipment used 74,235 gallons of gasoline, 2,766 gallons of diesel and

17,616 gallons of biodiesel (B20) in FY 2010. Elon’s fleet is not large and includes several hybrid vehicles

as well as biodiesel and electric vehicles all of which emit fewer GHG emissions than traditional gasoline

or diesel fueled vehicles. The electric vehicles’ emissions are included in the purchased electricity

category. The use of alternative fuel vehicles will continue and increase.

Refrigeration emissions are less than 1% of the total emissions and result from unintentional leaks from

malfunctioning chillers. In FY 2010, 388 pounds of refrigerant had to be replaced due to leaks. These

leaks do not have a large impact on the university’s GHG emissions; however, they are detrimental to

the environment. The systems in place to identify and fix these leaks will continue and expand as

appropriate with the ultimate goal of no unintentional leaks.

Fertilizer and Wastewater are the smallest categories, both with 0.1% of the total emissions. Fertilizer

application is carefully monitored to ensure that only what is needed is applied. This will continue along

with an increase in organic fertilizer (where practical) to keep the fertilizer category a small portion of

Elon’s GHG emissions. Several steps have already been taken to conserve water on campus. These

initiatives will continue and should keep Wastewater a small contributor to Elon’s GHG emissions.

In addition to the projects and programs that can take place on campus, additional strategies, mainly

offsets, will need to be considered to reduce Elon’s net GHG emissions. Elon already has some offsets

(96 MTCDE) in the form of yard waste composting. Approximately 250 tons of yard waste were

composted in FY 2010.

Additional offsets will need to be explored to reach the goal of carbon neutrality. There are different

options for investing in offsets such as purchasing offset credits (retail or wholesale) from third-party

providers, investing in projects directly (without a third-party provider) and developing projects

independently. There are also several types of offset projects: fossil fuel reduction, carbon

sequestration, methane capture for combustion or energy production and industrial gas destruction.

Offset options that seem more likely are purchasing retail offset credits and investing in projects

directly. However, utilizing offsets for all of Elon’s net GHG emissions would not be an effective use of

financial resources. The intention is to utilize offsets only after reducing emissions on campus as much

as possible.

The FY 2010 GHG inventory indicates progress toward the goal of carbon neutrality as identified in the

Sustainability Master Plan and the near-term interim emission reduction targets for net emissions

identified in the CAP. The first target is a 5% reduction from FY 2008 by 2015. Thus far, the reduction

from FY 2008 is 4.60%. However, as noted in the CAP, the University’s planned growth will prove

Page 22 of 25

challenging for continued emission reductions. Therefore, it is critical to continue implementation of the

strategies identified in the CAP to reduce emissions in the coming years. The CAP is a living, flexible

document that will be revised as technology, research and incentives develop. A GHG inventory will

continue to be conducted yearly to monitor progress toward Elon’s interim reduction goals and

overarching goal of carbon neutrality.

Page 23 of 25

Appendix A

Comparison between 2008 and 2010 Commuter Habit Survey Results

90%96% 95%90%

99% 99%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Off-Campus Students Faculty Staff

Pe

rce

nta

ge b

y C

ar

Commute by car at least once a week

2008

2010

8.4

31.8

20.5

7.6

34.4

22.8

0

10

20

30

40

Off-Campus Students Faculty Staff

Ro

un

dtr

ip M

iles

Average miles roundtrip by car

2008

2010

5.7 trips/wk

4.4 trips/wk

4.4 trips/wk

6.5 trips/wk

5.6 trips/wk

7.2 trips/wk

Page 24 of 25

15%

0.6% 0.8%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Off-Campus Students Faculty Staff

Pe

rce

nta

ge b

y B

us

Commute by bus at least once a week

2008

2010

50%

14%10%

50%

13% 13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Off-Campus Students Faculty Staff

Pe

rce

nta

ge b

y C

arp

oo

l

Carpool at least once a week

2008

2010

2.9 trips/wk

2.8 trips/wk

3.5 trips/wk

5.2 trips/wk

4.3 trips/wk

2.3 trips/wk

3 trips/wk 3

trips/wk

5 trips/wk

2.5 trips/wk

Page 25 of 25

57%

13%6.5%

65%

9% 1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Off-Campus Students Faculty Staff

Pe

rce

nta

ge t

hat

Bik

e o

r W

alk

Bike or walk at least once a week

2008

2010