Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
---|---|
Overall Score | 66.69 |
Liaison | Laurie Husted |
Submission Date | June 8, 2020 |
Bard College
OP-1: Emissions Inventory and Disclosure
Status | Score | Responsible Party |
---|---|---|
2.00 / 3.00 |
Dan
Smith Energy Efficiency Coordinator Office of Sustainability |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Part 1. Greenhouse gas emissions inventory
Yes
A copy of the most recent GHG emissions inventory:
A brief description of the methodology and/or tool used to complete the GHG emissions inventory:
SIMAP (Sustainability Indicator Management & Analysis Platform, UNH):
Assumptions
- Emission Factors 2019 (updated from 2017 EF)
- Global Warming Potential Version AR4
Scope 1 & 2 emissions are collected from bulk utility and fuel billing.
Data for Scope 3 emissions are collected from various sources, including records provided by Purchasing Department personnel, waste audits, operation reports, and commuter behavior surveys.
Assumptions
- Emission Factors 2019 (updated from 2017 EF)
- Global Warming Potential Version AR4
Scope 1 & 2 emissions are collected from bulk utility and fuel billing.
Data for Scope 3 emissions are collected from various sources, including records provided by Purchasing Department personnel, waste audits, operation reports, and commuter behavior surveys.
Has the GHG emissions inventory been validated internally by personnel who are independent of the GHG accounting and reporting process and/or verified by an independent, external third party?:
No
A brief description of the GHG inventory verification process:
Review of audit values are performed by colleagues in Bard Office of Sustainability.
Documentation to support the GHG inventory verification process:
---
Scope 1 GHG emissions
Weight in MTCO2e | |
Stationary combustion | 3,797.80 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Other sources (mobile combustion, process emissions, fugitive emissions) | 736.70 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total gross Scope 1 GHG emissions, performance year:
4,534.50
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Scope 2 GHG emissions
Weight in MTCO2e | |
Imported electricity | 2,214.20 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Imported thermal energy | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total gross Scope 2 GHG emissions, performance year:
2,214.20
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
GHG emissions from biomass combustion
0
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Scope 3 GHG emissions
Yes or No | Weight in MTCO2e | |
Business travel | Yes | 3,325 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Commuting | Yes | 2,877.90 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Purchased goods and services | Yes | 22 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Capital goods | No | --- |
Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2 | Yes | 113.60 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Waste generated in operations | --- | 144.90 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Other sources | --- | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total Scope 3 GHG emissions, performance year:
6,483.40
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
A brief description of how the institution accounted for its Scope 3 emissions:
Where Scope 1&2 values have a high degree of confidence (i.e. from utility and fuel billing), Scope 3 values generally carry a higher degree of uncertainty-- documents from various departments may be inaccurate or incomplete. In particular, business air travel
records are very difficult to collect and quantify, due to the many possible ways for employees to book travel (including Travel
Accounts, or personal purchase and reimbursement). Emissions from student and employee commuting are gathered via a Commuting
Behavior Survey, and is only as good as the feedback provided (though values can be considered a "good estimate").
records are very difficult to collect and quantify, due to the many possible ways for employees to book travel (including Travel
Accounts, or personal purchase and reimbursement). Emissions from student and employee commuting are gathered via a Commuting
Behavior Survey, and is only as good as the feedback provided (though values can be considered a "good estimate").
Part 2. Air pollutant emissions inventory
Yes
Annual weight of emissions for::
Weight of Emissions | |
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) | 9,529 Tons |
Sulfur oxides (SOx) | 160.33 Tons |
Carbon monoxide (CO) | 2,593 Tons |
Particulate matter (PM) | 672.59 Tons |
Ozone (O3) | 0 Tons |
Lead (Pb) | 0.47 Tons |
Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) | 19.27 Tons |
Ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs) | 0 Tons |
Other standard categories of air emissions identified in permits and/or regulations | 0 Tons |
Do the air pollutant emissions figures provided include the following sources?:
Yes or No | |
Major stationary sources | Yes |
Area sources | Yes |
Mobile sources | No |
Commuting | No |
Off-site electricity production | No |
None
A brief description of the methodology(ies) the institution used to complete its air emissions inventory:
For NOx, SOx, CO, PM, Pb, and HAPs, Bard contracts an engineering firm to do a campus-wide assessment of emissions from stationary sources which is then submitted to NYSDEC for "air facility" pollution permitting.
Optional Fields
---
Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from imported thermal energy (location-based) :
---
Website URL where information about the institution’s emissions inventories is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
1) The update in SIMAP methodology from EF-2017 to EF-2019 led to a downward trend in emissions across several categories. Most notably, the updates to regional e-grid EFs (NYUP: NPCC Upstate NY) led to a roughly 30% decrease in emissions for Scope 2 purchased electricity. This is likely due to New York State's notable efforts to reduce its carbon footprint from power generation, which has set aggressive goals to displace dirtier forms of generation with a greater portfolio of natural gas and renewable generation. Therefor, all downstream consumers benefit from a "greener" grid.
2) The large increase in emissions for Scope 3 Business Travel (compared to 2017 Reporting) appears to stem from an error in the 2017 submission-- most likely a decimal place typo, putting the value off by an order of magnitude. The correction was made for this submission.
2) The large increase in emissions for Scope 3 Business Travel (compared to 2017 Reporting) appears to stem from an error in the 2017 submission-- most likely a decimal place typo, putting the value off by an order of magnitude. The correction was made for this submission.
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.