THE CSUEB CARBON REPORT UCCSUCCC SUSTAINABILITY CONFERENCE 2008
THE CSUEB CARBON REPORT UC/CSU/CCC SUSTAINABILITY CONFERENCE, 2008 AUGUST 1, 2008 CAL POLY, SAN LUIS OBISPO KARINA GARBESI, DERREN O’NEAL, AND SALLY OTTON AND THE STUDENTS OF APPLIED FIELD STUDIES (GEOG/ENVT 3480) FALL 2007 EVELYN ALERIDGE, KWAKU DAH, CRAIG EAGLE, AARON GARCIA, VERONICA GREEN, CHIUNG-YI HUANG, NATASHA NEEVES, JARED REIN, RYAN STOHR California State University East Bay
Background
Mandates for Carbon Reductions STATE LEVEL: Main driving force Global Warming Solutions Act 2006 (aka AB 32) Reduce GHG Emissions to 1990 level by 2020 Governor’s Executive Order S-3 -05 (25% below business as usual) Reduce GHG Emissions to 80% below 1990 level by 2050 CSUEB: Sustainability Resolution S 08 Resolved “to make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum” “to support research and other efforts to achieve climate neutrality”
Project’s Goals RESEARCH Assess CSUEB’s Energy-Related CO 2 Emissions EDUCATION Train resource managers in sustainable energy management Involve undergraduates in original research ACTION…by identifying Critical pathways to reduce emissions Best carbon accounting practices for EB and the CSU
Significance and Context CSU is the largest university system in the world 340, 000 students (FTE) CSU among first to register its emissions with the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) CSUEB two campuses Hayward (~11, 000 FTES) Concord (~800 FTES)
Main (Hayward) Campus • urban, dominantly commuter campus • located on top of hill • poor transit access • 2 miles uphill from nearest BART) • along route that is extremely biking / pedestrian hostile Concord Campus far worse
Methods
CO 2 Accounting Overview STEP 1: Determine Fossil Fuel Use Direct fuel uses gasoline, diesel, natural gas (for fleet vehicles and equipment) Indirect uses (electricity and commuting) STEP 2: Multiply by Carbon Emissions Factor Fuel Coal Diesel Gasoline N-Gas Fuel Specific Carbon Emissions per Unit Energy lbs-CO 2 per million Btu 204 160 155 116
CSUEB Electricity Overview EB purchases electricity from Arizona Public Service Company (APS) Part of huge UC/CSU Direct Access Contract Negotiated in 2002 Serves 7 of the 10 UC Campuses 19 of the 23 CSU Campus At EB dorms excluded (private contracts with PG&E) EB also self-generates ~7% of its electricity 1 megawatt photovoltaic system Launched aggressive energy efficiency campaign, will save 22% of electricity 29% of N-gas
Electricity Analysis STEP in carbon accounting 2006 electricity consumption (utility bills) Fractions from coal and natural gas (no oil) 1. 2. 1. Energy Content Label (supplied to CEC by law) Fuel used to generate that electricity 3. 1. Based power plant efficiencies (hodgepodge of data) 1. 2. APS Power Plants (type and capacity online) Efficiencies (estimated for type and age of units) CO 2 determined from fuel consumption 4. 1. Fuel-specific carbon emissions factors
Commute Analysis Based on student-administered questionnaires Obtained data for two classes of ‘commuters’ Traditional commuters SAMPLE: 207 students, faculty, and staff Data Gathered: Miles traveled per week by mode Dorm residents Single occupancy vehicles (+ vehicle type) Carpools (+ vehicle type) BART (commuter rail) Bus 45 domestic and international travel to and from CSUEB Ignored reimbursed travel for faculty and staff
Calculated carbon emissions factors person-mile per mode 1. 2. SOV estimates based on vehicle type, year and EPA reported fuel efficiencies Transit estimates based on reported annual passenger miles and fuel usage
Results
CSUEB Carbon Emissions… Commuting dominates emissions 3. 4 tons / yr-FTE(f/s/s)
Commuting dominated by Single Occupancy Vehicles Non-SOV commuters 11% SOVcommuters 89%
Per capita emissions 200 180 160 Pounds of CO 2 per Year Among traditional commuters (nondormers) SOVs dominate emissions, only party explained by commute distance 173 140 120 110 100 80 86 86 60 58 40 20 0 Intl. Dormers Staff Student Commuters Faculty Domestic Dormers But international travel dominates per capita emissions (is explained by distance)
Potential to Reduce Emissions
Pursue low-carbon electricity contract 12 000 CSUEB 2006 CO 2 Emissions from Purchased Electricity Tons CO 2 Emitted per Year 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 0 %-coal %-gas APS Actual 35. 0% 33. 0% PG&E Mix 3. 0% 42. 0% Average CA MIX 15. 7% 41. 5%
Problems with CSU/CCAR Electricity Accounting (undercounting and inconsistent) 2006 Emission Inventory for CO 2 for CSU (2007 draft report) Assumed C-emissions for the CA mix, NOT on actual APS contract Submitted to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) for certification Underestimates actual electricity emissions for 19 campuses by about 1/3 Procedure allowed by CCAR default in accounting software But certified actual data ‘preferred’ C-CAR CSUEB Master Plan based CO 2 analysis on PG&E mix
Means to reduce commute emissions Based on questionnaire of 165 CSUEB commuters Survey Question Interest in economical fuel-efficient vehicle for next car % Yes 82% Gas prices, new CAFÉ standards, new CA fuel and vehicle(? ) standards, will facilitate 76% Two-day-per-week offerings recently increased at CSUEB (maxed out) More hybrid/on-line classes 66% Greater emphasis being placed on on-line teaching (educational impacts concern) Interest in carpooling 61% Would BART if BART-shuttle more frequent 45% Interest in 2 -day-per-week rather than 3 day-per-week classes Could/should be facilitated more actively by University
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and Recommendations CSU system-wide and CSUEB have been leaders in green energy management, but much more must be done to achieve sustainability, and quickly CSU should adopt ultra low-carbon electricity contract CSU should revise its 2006 baseline accounting with C-CAR to account for actual emissions To get full credit for future reductions Pursuing new electricity contract now! CSU should adopt uniform guidelines for campus carbon accounting requiring that actual electricity emissions be tracked Easy to do and huge leverage! Eliminating carbon from 19 -campus electricity contract equivalent to taking 47, 000 cars off the road @22. 5 miles/gallon, 12, 000 miles/yr Supplement with carbon offsets (UCSC)
Further recommendations CSU should push the State and C-CAR to adopt more accurate carbonaccounting requirements Current system favors low-cost dirty electricity contracts State should require reporting on all FF power plant fuel usage and electricity production (including on imports) CSUEB (commute campuses) must take action Offer carpooling assistance and incentives Increase BART shuttle frequency and duration Stop subsidizing SOV commuting with low-cost parking Implement awareness campaign benefits of efficient vehicle, transit, and carbon offsets Launch voluntary carbon offsets campaign CSU should adopt leadership policy on net-zero-energy buildings CEC current recommendation to the State residential by 2020, commercial by 2030
Thank you karina. garbesi@csueastbay. edu
- Slides: 26