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

This report is a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions inventory that details emissions pri-

marily for the FY2003 to FY2008 time period with an emphasis on greenhouse gas reductions made af-ter Yale’s reduction goal was set in 2005. The in-ventory 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 up-date to the University’s initial greenhouse gas inven-tory analysis of emissions from calendar year 2002 completed in 2004.

Recognizing the need to respond to the consequences of climate change with respect to energy production, consumption and carbon emissions, Yale University is committed to the goal of reducing its greenhouses gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020, a 43% reduction from 2005 levels1. This com-prehensive report inventories targeted emissions in

addition to indirect emissions such as commuting and air travel. However, it is important to note that Yale’s greenhouse gas reduction commitment in-cludes emissions from the University’s two on-cam-pus 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 Uni-versity’s greenhouse gas reduction target (a 9.7% de-crease between FY2003 and FY2008). This decrease in greenhouse gas emissions was achieved despite a 3.2% increase in campus size between FY2005 and FY2008. Reductions in power plant emissions was the main driver of the FY2005-2008 decrease as the University increased the efficiency of on-campus en-ergy production and distribution.

Emissions by source and their average contribution to overall emissions for the FY2003-2008 time period are illustrated below in Summary Figure 1.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

mT

CO

2e

Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases University Fleet Commuting Air Travel Electricity Purchases Plants

(percentages are the FY2003-2008 aggregate average percentage by category)

63.5%16.1%

14.0%5.1%

0.6%

0.7%

Summary Figure 1: Historic Emissions and Average Percentage by Category, FY2003-2008

1 This is consistent with the Climate Change Action Plan adopted by the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. By compari-son, 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.

Executive Summary

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2003-2008 4

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 address-ing the causes of climate change and evaluating its potential impacts, human activities are largely respon-sible for this challenge (IPCC, 2007). Specifically, hu-man activities, mainly through fossil fuel consump-tion, 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 tem-perature 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 sys-tems around the globe. One of the greatest challeng-es is the anticipated yet unknown causal relationships between global warming and human health. For ex-ample, global warming has been linked to rising sea levels due to melting snow, which increases the vul-nerability of coastal communities (IPCC, 2007). Fur-ther, 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-be-ing of communities.

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

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Devel-oped 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 allow-ances 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 coun-try-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 lev-els by 2020 (AB 32, 2006). Further, in 2003, a con-sortium 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 East-ern Canadian Premiers issued a Climate Change Ac-tion Plan in 2001 that established an emissions reduc-tion 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 re-duction targets, established a GHG reporting stan-dards and required the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to conduct a GHG inven-tory for the state. Additionally, Connecticut devel-oped 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 par-ticipants 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 Cli-mate Change, 2005).

In addition to leadership initiatives at the state lev-el, municipal governments across the country have made voluntary commitments to reduce their green-house 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 en-act policies and legislation that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Over 11 cities and towns in the state of Connecticut, including the city of New Haven, have committed to both of these initiatives as a way to address climate change at the local level.

Recognizing the challenges presented by global warming, a growing number of universities have also established programs to take responsibility for their emissions and devise reduction strategies. To assist universities in these efforts, Clean Air-Cool Planet introduced the “Campus Climate Action Toolkit (CCAT).” The CCAT outlines five steps to creating a campus climate action plan. The five steps include: 1. Conducting a greenhouse gas emissions inventory; 2. Developing a greenhouse gas emission reduction target and timetable; 3. Developing a campus action plan through collecting policies, programs and prac-tices that aim to or have had the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions reduction on campus; 4. Implementing the developed climate action plan; 5. Institutionalizing climate protection throughout all constituencies of the university (faculty, staff, stu-dents and administration).

Another recent driver in advancing university com-mitments for climate action has been the American College & University Presidents Climate Commit-

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

Colleges and universities across the nation are devel-oping climate action plans, either through the ACUP-CC commitment or of their own accord, to guide their greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Universi-ties and colleges recognize that they are in a unique position to play a leadership role in reducing green-house 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 innova-tive solutions to this global challenge.

Section 2 - Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Background A greenhouse gas inventory is a detailed accounting of the six greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The main sources of emissions at a universi-ty are typically from on-campus energy production, purchased electricity, transportation, and refriger-ants. Activities from these sources are converted into emission quantities utilizing emissions factors. Emission factors are a measure of the average emis-sions rate of a certain pollutant from a given activ-ity. For example, CO2 emissions from on-campus energy generation are calculated by determining the amount of fuel used in the generation process and applying the appropriate emissions factor for the fuel.

Once activity data and appropriate emission fac-tors are collected, total GHG emissions in tons of CO2-equivalent units are calculated. Greenhouse gases differ in terms of their potential harm to the atmosphere (i.e. radiative forcing) and atmospheric


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

Various inventory protocols exist to help organiza-tions compile a greenhouse gas inventory. The IPCC publishes methodologies to assist countries in com-pleting their national inventories. In addition, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Busi-ness Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) established the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, which has developed accounting and reporting stan-dards 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 ser-vices, cement manufacturing and wood processing. Within the U.S., the non-profit organization Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) assists corporations, com-

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

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

MethodologyBased on guidance from the Greenhouse Gas Pro-tocol, emissions are divided into three categories called “scopes” depending on the university’s level

Scope Description Relevant Activities1 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-ties of the university, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the university.

* Activities such as the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activi-ties in vehicles not owned or con-trolled by the university, outsourced activities, waste disposal, employee commuting and employee related air travel.

Carbon Sequestra-tion/Sinks

Carbon removed from the atmosphere by biological sinks and stored in plant tissue.

* Carbon sequestration at Yale Meirs 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 hypo-thetical 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.

Table 1: Emission Scope Descriptions

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 mo-bile 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 com-muter 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.

Further, a greenhouse gas inventory ‘credits’ users for activities that reduce emissions. Examples in-clude 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 certifi-cates for electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar which are purchased through an electricity provider.

Section 3 - Yale Overview

Greenhouse Gas Inventory & CommitmentIn 2004, under the guidance of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, the Yale Cli-mate Initiative, a student-initiated study, completed Yale University’s first greenhouse gas inventory using emissions data from calendar year 2002 (YCI, 2005). These “best estimate” findings provided the basis for establishing a greenhouse gas target and supporting strategy development.

In the fall of 2004 the Yale Energy Task Force, a university-wide committee with staff, faculty and student representation, was convened to develop a set of recommendations to guide the University towards a comprehensive energy policy leading to reduced energy demand, production and green-house gas emissions. After taking into account Yale’s daily energy demands, projected institutional

growth, availability of clean and renewable energy technologies, local, regional, national and inter-national 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 Uni-versity’s Officers adopted the recommendation to set a campus-wide goal to reduce Yale’s green-house gas emissions by 10% below our 1990 levels by the year 20204. Yale’s greenhouse gas reduction goal includes emissions from the Univer-sity’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 fifteen-year 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 participa-tion in off-campus renewable energy projects.

This report is an update to the initial greenhouse gas inventory and details emissions primarily for the FY2003 to FY2008 time period with an em-phasis on greenhouse gas reductions made after Yale’s reduction goal was set in 2005. Emissions data gathered as part of the initial greenhouse gas inventory for calendar year 2002 were also taken into account; however, as noted by the YCI, the results of the initial inventory were “best estimates” and were estimated to be within a range of 227,458 to 360,542 MTCO2e(YCI, 2005). Further, it is important to note, as illustrated in Table 4, the total MTCO2e emissions data from FY2002 appears as an outlier when compared to data collected from FY2003-2008. This may be a result of converting calendar year data to fiscal year, reporting errors, assumptions made in cases of incomplete data, and assumptions in emissions factors reported in the literature.

Main Emissions ActivitiesThough not evenly divided, Yale’s direct and indirect 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.


and transportation. Additionally, Yale owns and op-erates 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.

Energy ProvisionThe main emissions from energy provision result from onsite generation of electricity, steam, and chilled water, purchased electricity, and remaining fuel purchases for buildings not connected to Yale power plants. Yale owns and operates two power plants on campus, Central Power Plant and Sterling Power Plant. Central Power Plant is a co-generation facil-ity that provides electricity, steam heating, and chilled water to buildings on the main campus. Sterling Power Plant is a heating plant that supplies the Yale Medical School with steam heating and chilled water. Presently, the power plants use natural gas as the pri-mary fuel source and typically use No. 2 distillate fuel as a secondary fuel. The plants previously used No. 6 residual fuel oil as a secondary fuel but discontinued use in FY2005. To supplement onsite electricity gen-eration, the University also purchases electricity from United Illuminating Company (UI), the electric util-ity company serving New Haven. Yale’s greenhouse gas commitment set in 2005 only included reductions from these emissions categories.

TransportationTransportation emissions result from commuting, air travel, and university vehicle fleet operations. At present, the university fleet includes 440 university-owned vehicles compared to 366 vehicles in 2002. Additionally, the university owns 22 buses in which the New Haven Bus Company is contracted to oper-ate the campus shuttle service. The shuttle service is the largest emissions source for the vehicle fleet consuming approximately 7,000 gallons of fuel per month. Starting in FY2006, the shuttles began oper-ating on a 20% biodiesel blend (B-20). Yale Shuttles currently use 20% Biodiesel mixed with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), and employ additional partic-ulate-reduction technology.

SinksYale owns and manages two research forests, Yale-

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 sequestra-tion from these forests as an offset in the inventory. The forests are inventoried every 10 years and as the inventory has not been conducted since the initial greenhouse gas inventory was completed, we used offset amounts from the initial inventory in this up-date. As reported in the initial inventory, Yale forests annually sequester 6,291 mT of CO2e.

Emission ClassificationAs previously described, the CA-CP calculator groups emissions activities by the level of university control over the activity and not by source category. In ac-cordance with the CA-CP calculator, Yale’s emissions can be categorized as follows:

Scope 1: emissions from on-campus power plants, university vehicle fleet operation and campus shuttle-bussesScope 2: emissions from electricity purchasesScope 35: emissions from employee commuting and air travel.Offsets/Sinks: carbon sequestration at Yale-Myers and Toumey Forests

Before presenting results of Yale’s GHG inventory, the following section provides an overview of data sources and relevant calculations made to organize input data for the CA-CP calculator. Yale’s emissions are then presented both by scope category and by emissions category (i.e. energy provision and trans-portation).

Section 4 - Data and Calculations

Input data was gathered for the period FY2002-2008. Nearly all university departments had historic data for four or five fiscal years (i.e. FY2004-2008 or FY2005-2008). Data for missing years was interpolated.

Energy ProvisionData Requirements: To calculate emissions from en-ergy provision, the following data was required:

• 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

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

UI electricity purchase data was also provided by Sys-tems Engineering, Office of Facilities for FY2004-2008. Data FY2003 was interpolated using the implied FY2002-2004 growth rate. Data on FY2004-2008 non-power plant fuel purchases (diesel fuel and natural gas) was also provided by Systems Engineer-ing, Office of Facilities. Data from FY2003 was in-terpolated.

TransportationData Requirements: To calculate data from transporta-tion, the following data was required:

• Fuel purchases for the university fleet (ve-hicles and shuttles)• Air miles traveled• Average commuter miles per trip• Average commuter distance • Average commuter trips per week• Average commuter weeks per year

• Percent of staff and faculty driving alone• Percent of staff and faculty carpooling (2+ per sons)• Percent of staff and faculty riding the bus• Percent of staff and faculty riding com-muter rail

The Yale University Procurement department pro-vided fuel purchase data for all fleet vehicles aside from the university shuttles for the period FY2004-2008. 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 approxi-mately 7,000 gallons per month. Monthly fuel us-age for FY2004 was approximately 6,000 gallons and FY2005 usage was roughly 6,500 gallons per month. Unfortunately, shuttle fuel usage was not reported in the initial greenhouse gas inventory and there-fore, FY2004 fuel usage was used for FY2003. As the university shuttles are the largest source of fuel consumption for the university fleet, these estimates were utilized for this inventory.

Figure 2: Emissions from Energy Provision and Campus Area, FY2002-2008

233,000

238,000

243,000

248,000

253,000

258,000

263,000

268,000

273,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

mT

CO

2e

11,150

11,200

11,250

11,300

11,350

11,400

11,450

11,500

11,550

11,600

11,650

sq ft

(100

0s)

Energy Provision Area


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 mil-lion miles represented approximately 50% of univer-sity 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 ob-tained from the initial greenhouse gas inventory and intermediate years were interpolated based on the implied FY2002-2008 growth rate.

The average daily commuting distance for FY2007

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 green-house 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 based on the implied FY2002-2008 growth rate.

Year Area(1) Population(2) Change from 2003

Change from 2003

Energy Provision Emissions

Emissions per Area

Emissions per Capita

FY sq ft # % % mT CO2e Lb CO2/ sq ft

mT CO2e/ capita

2003 11,210,174 22,211 268,541 52.89 12.092004 11,230,518 22,627 .2% 1.9% 264,649 52.89 11.702005 11,265,114 22,600 .5% 1.8% 260,752 50.69 11.542006 11,479,521 22,985 2.4% 3.5% 244,982 46.28 10.662007 11,505,680 23,166 2.6% 4.3% 245,205 46.28 10.582008 11,625,600 24,527 3.7% 10.4% 242,500 46.28 9.89

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.

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

Energy Provision Transportation

Year Plants Electricity Purchases

Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases

University Emissions Total

Air Travel

Comm-uting

University Fleet

University Emissions Total

FY % % % % % % % %2003 67.7% 13.8% 0.5% 81.9% 12.6% 4.8% 0.7% 18.1%2004 67.4% 13..5% 0.5% 81.3% 13.0% 5.0% 0.7% 18.7%2005 66.0% 14.6% 0.4% 81.0% 13.1% 5.1% 0.7% 19.0%2006 60.1% 19.2% 0.4% 79.7% 14.1% 5.4% 0.8% 20.3%2007 60.4% 18.7% 0.3% 79.4% 14.3% 5.5% 0.7% 20.6%2008 58.4% 17.5% 1.4% 77.3% 17.3% 4.6% 0.7% 22.7%

Average 63.5% 16.1% 0.6% 80.2% 14.0% 5.1% 0.7% 19.8%

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

6 The University Director of Travel Services provided data on miles for FY2008

11

Section 5 - Results

OverviewIn FY2008, Yale emitted 242,500 metric tons (mT) of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases from energy provisions. Energy provision emissions are the result of power plant operations and electricity purchases and are considered Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, respectively. Additionally, Yale has provided annual updates of emissions from energy provision since FY2005.

Net emissions decreased 9.7% between FY2003 and FY2008 and by 7% between FY2005 and FY2008, the period after establishing the University’s official greenhouse gas reduction target. This achievement is particularly remarkable because the campus area has expanded 3.7% between FY2003 and FY2008 and 3.2% between FY2005 and FY2008. Much of this growth includes energy intensive laboratory build-ings. Emissions from energy provision and campus area from FY2003-2008 are presented below in Fig-ure 2.

For comparison purposes, it is often customary to scale emissions by campus population and area. Yale’s energy provision emissions per square foot and per capita are shown in Table 2. Yale’s emis-sions per square foot decreased slightly between FY2003 and FY2008, dropping from 52.89 Lb CO2/sq. ft to 46.28 Lb CO2e/sq. ft., while emissions per capita decreased from approximately 12.09 to 9.89 mT CO2e/capita over the same time period. As dis-cussed above, the campus area increased by approxi-mately 3.7% over this time period while the campus population increased by 10.4%. These data are sum-marized in Table 2.

Emissions from energy provision accounted for the vast majority of the total University’s emissions, con-tributing on average over 80% of total emissions per year compared to transportation emissions account-ing for 20% per year on average. Emissions from power plants were the largest single source of emis-sions followed by electricity purchases, and air travel. These activities accounted for approximately 64%, 16%, and 14% of annual emissions on average. The

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

mT

CO

2e

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases University Fleet Commuting Air Travel Electricity Purchases Plants

Figure 3: Emissions by Source, FY2003-2007


breakdown of emissions by source activity is sum-marized in Table 3.

Since establishing its emissions reduction target in FY2005, Yale reduced emissions from energy pro-vision, 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 transpor-tation 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 in-crease 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 sub-stituted cleaning burning fuel sources over this time period, which primarily accounts for these emission reductions8. Emissions from electricity purchases in-creased slightly over this time period as Yale increased its purchases of electricity as described in more detail below.

Table 4: Emissions by Category and Percent Reduc-tions from 2005 Levels, FY2002-2008 Energy Provision Transportation

Year Emis-sions

Change from 2005

Emis-sions

Change from 2005

FY MT CO2e % MT CO2e

%

2002 237,815 57,1602003 268,541 59,1742004 264,649 60,8012005 260,752 60,9692006 244,982 -6.0% 62,369 2.3%2007 245,205 -6.0% 63,496 4.1%2008 242,500 -7.0% 72,497 18.9%

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

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

Emissions Distribution Percentage

Year Plants Electricity Purchases

Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases

Total Plants Electricity Purchases

Building Fuel Purchases

Total

FY mT CO2e

mT CO2e mT CO2e mT CO2e

% % % %

2003 221,938 45,101 1,502 268,541 82.6% 16.8% 0.6% 100%2004 219,327 43,829 1,493 264,649 82.9% 16.6% 0.6% 100%2005 212,388 47,029 1,335 260,752 81.5% 18.0% 0.5% 100%2006 184,861 59,033 1,088 244,982 75.5% 24.1% 0.4% 100%2007 186,433 57,701 1,071 245,205 76.0% 23.5% 0.4% 100%2008 186,666 55,809 4,5799 247,054 76% 23.0% 2.0% 100%

Average 79.1% 20.2% 0.7% -

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

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.

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.

13

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

mT

CO

2e

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Non-Power Plant Fuel Purchases Electricity Purchases Plants

Figure 4: Energy Provision Emissions, FY2003-2008

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 aver-age. Emissions from building fuel purchases have been small, accounting for less than 1% of energy provision emissions on average.

As shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, emissions from power plants have decreased over the FY2003-2008 time period while emissions from electricity pur-

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 purchases3. A reassessment of emissions from off campus buildings that are not connected to the Yale Power Plants.

Power Plant Fuel MixThe reductions in power plant emissions shown in Figure 4 did not result from reduced power plant

Quantity % Distribution

FY Gas #6 Residual Fuel

#2 Diesel Fuel Oil

TOTAL FY Gas #6 Residual Fuel

#2 Diesel Fuel

TOTAL

MMBTU MMBTU MMBTU MMBTU % % % %2003 2,329,684 531,748 779,692 3,641,124 2003 63.9% 14.6% 21.4% 100.0%2004 2,671,732 592,685 429,512 3,693,929 2004 72.3% 16.0% 11.6% 100.0%2005 3,272,874 0 536,858 3,809,732 2005 85.9% 0.0% 14.0% 100.0%2006 3,065,927 0 309,386 3,375,314 2006 90.8% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%2007 3,443,061 0 56,885 3,499,946 2007 98.3% 0.0% 1.6% 100.0%2008 3,473,488 0 44,907 3,518,395 2008 98.7% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0%

Table 6: Power Plant Fuel Usage, FY2003-2008


0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% Natural Gas % #6 Residual Fuel % #2 Diesel Fuel

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

operation but rather from a transition to lower emit-ting 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 PurchasesAs 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 im-portant to note that the emissions factor from the

grid is higher than the emissions factor for on cam-pus 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 PlantsAs 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 in-ventory, 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.

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

15

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

Transportation Emissions Emissions from air travel, university vehicle fleet fuel consumption, and commuting10 comprise transpor-tation emissions. As described in Section 4, a larger portion of transportation data was based on estima-tions than was the case with energy provision emis-sions as gathering transportation data is a more chal-lenging task than energy provision data. However, based on interviews with transportation staff mem-bers and internal validity checks, we believe these es-timates are an accurate approximation of the main transportation activities of Yale’s faculty and staff.

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

The Yale shuttle has increased both in terms of ser-vice area and service hours over this six-year period. This should be regarded positively as expanded shut-tle services may reduce number of personal vehicles on campus.

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

Table 7: Historic Electricity Purchases, FY2003-2008

Electricity Purchases

FY kWh2003 101,046,1012004 98,196,4922005 105,364,0002006 132,259,6722007 129,274,6002008 133,834,000

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

mT

CO

2e

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

University Fleet Commuting Air Travel


Emissions by ScopeThis section presents emissions as summarized by scope category. This complies with standard report-ing procedures utilized by other universities.

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 approx-imately 65.5% of the University’s annual emissions, on average. Scope 1 emissions have been steadily declining since FY2003 and between FY2003-2008, Scope 1 emissions decreased by nearly 16%. This was largely the result of decreased power plant emis-sions as described previously.

Yale’s Scope 2 and 3 emissions, both indirect emis-sions 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, electric-ity 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 consider-ation, increasing a total of 25% in the FY2003-2008 time period.

Emissions by scope category and their distribution are presented in Table 9 and Figure 7

Emissions Distribution Percentage

Year Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Total Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 TotalFY mT CO2e mT CO2e mT CO2e mT CO2e % % % %2002 189,893 46,410 54,862 291,164 65.2% 15.9% 18.8% 100%2003 221,938 45,101 57,008 324,048 68.5% 13.9% 17.6% 100%2004 219,327 43,829 58,577 321,733 68.2% 13.6% 18.2% 100%2005 212,388 47,029 58,571 317,988 66.8% 14.8% 18.4% 100%2006 184,861 59,033 59,931 303,825 60.8% 19.4% 19.7% 100%2007 186,433 57,701 61,224 305,358 61.1% 18.9% 20.0% 100%2008 186,666 55,809 70,220 312,694 59.7% 17.8% 22.5% 100.0%

Average 64.3% 16.3% 19.3% -

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

Table 8: Transportation Emissions: Amount and Distribution, FY2003-2008

Emissions Distribution PercentageYear Air

TravelCommuting University

FleetTotal Air

TravelCommuters University

FleetTotal

FY mT CO2e

mT CO2e mT CO2e mT CO2e

% % % %

2003 41,137 15,872 2, 166 59,174 69.5% 26.8% 3.7% 100%2004 42,268 16,308 2,225 60,801 69.5 26.8% 3.7% 100%2005 42,265 16,307 2, 398 60969 69.3% 26.7% 3.9% 100%2006 43,246 16,685 2,438 62,369 69.3% 26.8% 3.9% 100%2007 44,178 17,045 2,272 63,496 69.6% 26.8% 3.6% 100%2008 55,361 14,859 2,278 72,497 76.4% 20.5% 3.1% 100%

Average 70.4% 25.9% 3.7% -

17

Section 6 - Progress to Date and Actions Going Forward

As detailed above, Yale has successfully reduced its greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels; the baseline year the university set to measure progress towards its greenhouse gas reduction target. These reductions stem largely from transitioning to lower emitting fuel sources, investments in emissions reduc-tions strategies, energy conservation initiatives and educational programs that inform the campus com-munity about the significance of climate change.

In terms of investments on campus, Yale has under-taken activities in the following areas:

• Energy conservation• Sustainable building design and construction• Campus energy production and distribution• Renewable energy technologies• Alternative fuels• Promotion of sustainable commuting

modes

Examples of some of Yale’s recent activities include the distribution of 5,000 energy efficient compact

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 replacement at two large buildings, and achieving LEED Gold and Silver for two full laboratory reno-vations at the Medical School. A more detailed de-scription of Yale’s emission reduction initiatives are outlined in Table 10 below.

Though we currently do not include transportation emissions in our annual emissions updates, the Uni-versity has instituted a number of transportation related programs that will ultimately lead to green-house gas emission reduction. One such program is the car-sharing program through Zipcar, Inc.11 which began in the fall of 2007 and has shared-use cars on campus. The Zipcar program enables the hourly use of cars for students, faculty, and staff to meet their transportation needs without bringing a personal ve-hicle to campus. After just six months, student park-ing pass renewal requests declined by 5%.

To further involve the campus community in ad-dressing climate change, the university initiated the

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

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

mT

CO

2e

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scope 3 Scope 2 Scope 1

Figure 7: Scope Category Emissions, FY2003-2007


Yale Energy Pledge in 2006 whereby students com-mitted to taking actions to reduce personal energy consumption. Over 2,500 students signed the pledge which also supported the temperature reduction pro-gram. 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 Uni-versity’s two power plants and purchased electricity; however, emissions from the University fleet, com-muting and air travel are under analysis and debate for future inclusion in the University’s reduction tar-get. As more accurate methodologies for account-ing for scope 3 emissions are developed Yale may consider expanding its emission reduction target to include this wider scope.

Section 7 - Conclusion

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 green-house gas reduction target. This reduction clearly demonstrates that the University is making a con-certed effort to deliver on its ambitious goal to re-duce its greenhouse gas emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Much of this reduction can be attributed to reduc-ing emissions from campus power plants through the transition to lower emitting fuel sources, improved

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

As power plant operations represent the single larg-est source of emissions, nearly two-thirds of emis-sions, 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 promot-ing 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 en-velope 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, geother-mal, fuel cells and micro-wind turbines.

This inventory reveals that emissions from the sec-ond and third largest categories, electricity purchases and air travel, increased steadily over this period. The university has less control over these emissions cat-egories compared to power plant emissions as the university has little impact on United Illuminating

Conservation Projects MTCO2e AvoidedHVAC Recommissioning of 90 Buildings (all DDC type) 19,000 Building Temperature Standardization (DDC Buildings) 9,500Lighting Occupancy Sensors in 85+ Buildings 5,000High Efficiency Filters in all HVAC Units 2,500Rescheduling of Lab “Occupied” Hours 1,500Lab Rebalance & Air Change Red’n 15-9 (6 Buildings) 1,000Sensible Heat Recovery Retrofits in Labs 1,500Window Replacement Var. Buildings 1,000Programmable Thermostats in Smaller Buildings 500Demand Ventilation (CO2 Sensors & VFDs) 500

Table 10: Summary of Yale’s Emission Reduction Initiatives

19

Company’s fuel purchase decisions and cannot di-rectly 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 pol-icies to reduce the number of trips taken while simul-taneously 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 pub-lic transportation or living within walking distance of campus. Incentives to reduce the commuter vehicle contribution to greenhouse gas emissions are current-ly in development.

Yale’s actions since the first greenhouse gas inven-tory clearly underscore the university’s commitment towards promoting a more sustainable environmen-tal 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 sec-tion of the university community to participate in this debate.


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 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 emis-sions 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 en-ergy 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 ra-tio 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 busi-ness leaders to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol was devel-oped 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)

GLossarY

21

GLossarY

Kyoto Protocol – The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Frame-work 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 Mid-Atlantic 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 ac-tion.

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

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

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://ctclimat-echange.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.). Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. (2001). Climate Change Action Plan 2001. Avail-able 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 Emis-sions. 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 Fu-ture. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/sustainability/greenhouse9_112.pdf.

22

Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper

Date post:	07-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	keri-enright-kato
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Yale GHG Inventory

Documents