None

To enable enhanced data consolidation, tracking and analysis, UCB chose to create its own basic emissions calculation spreadsheet tool. This custom tool does, however, adhere to the same basic GHG accounting principles, methodologies and emissions factors used in the CA-CP Calculator.

Xcel Energy, Inc. Annual Reports, and regulatory filings made by Xcel to the Colorado Public Service Commission.

Data collection for emissions inventory was compiled from pre-existing campus data aggregation and tracking systems in various departments including Accounting, Facilities Management, Parking and Transportation Services, Purchasing, and Human Resources. These data were compared with UCB utility data and data from Xcel Energy.

Identified de minimis sources are: CH4 and N2O from fossil fuel and electricity usage; HFCs from cooling equipment; CO2, CH4 and N2O from fleet transportations fuels; and waste landfilling.
The University of Colorado has several programs and initiatives to reduce emissions in university-owned fleet and waste landfilling (composting and recycling). Although de minimis, we are including emissions from university-owned fleet and waste landfilling in order to measure progress in reductions in these emissions categories.
These sources individually make up less 1% of the total inventory and cumulatively less than 5%. Using standard emissions factors we determined CH4 and N2O from all fossil fuel usage was de minimis, including for electricity. Similarly, using the CA-CP factors for waste we determined these emissions to be less than 1% of the University total.
Using upper-bound calculations of cooling equipment used and building space cooled, we determined HFCs to be less than 1% of the University total. We have not included the refrigerators used in laboratories or dining services as the maintenance and end of life coolant disposal is handled by outside vendors. Even if included in the inventory, we determine these emissions would not be more than 1% of university total.

One limitation is the emissions factor used to estimate CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from electricity purchased from our utility, Xcel Energy. As prescribed by the CA-CP tool we used the Department of Energy’s eGRID database of regional emissions factors from electricity generating plants. However, these factors are released with a lag time of several years. The current factors used in our GHG inventory are from 2005. This limitation is common as most entities reporting GHG inventories depend on these factors.

The Larimer County offset project is designed and managed in accordance with the Climate Action Reserve’s Landfill Gas Protocol. The protocol provides independent and transparent procedures for calculating the emission reductions resulting from destroying methane to produce electricity and verifying the level of offsets by an accredited auditor. The offsets purchased from this project will be registered on the Reserve’s publicly accessible registry and retired on behalf of the donors to the Colorado Carbon Fund who made this transaction possible.

Wind energy RECs from Colorado and Minnesota projects.

No information provided

Overall, the trend of UCB green house gas (GHG) emissions from major sources is essentially flat in absolute terms and declining in relative terms despite a 14 percent growth in facilities footprint since 2005. This is due to extensive energy efficiency/conservation efforts, the LEED Gold building standard applied to all construction projects, and increasingly “green” electricity being supplied by Xcel Energy. The data indicate:
• Major source GHG emissions are essentially unchanged since 2005 despite the increased facilities footprint.
• Total electricity consumption is essentially unchanged since 2005 despite the increased facilities footprint.
• Total energy use including electricity and natural gas declined over the period due to the robust conservation program despite the increased facilities footprint.
• GHG emissions intensity (carbon per square foot) has declined significantly over the period.
• Emissions from UCB’s vehicle fleet have grown slightly over the period but remain a small fraction of combined emissions.
• Indirect emissions from air travel paid for by the university have declined slightly since FY 08.
• Indirect emissions from faculty, staff, and student commuting and solid waste disposal have declined since FY 08.
• The purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs) and carbon offsets have declined slightly since 2006 to less than 3% of major source emissions in 2009.
• UCB’s emissions are below all categorical averages for peer doctorate-granting universities that are also participating in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment.
In summary, UCB has essentially halted growth in GHG emissions and is potentially turning the corner towards the emissions reductions needed to meet the first benchmark of the UCB carbon neutrality plan, a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020.