Overall Rating Gold - expired
Overall Score 66.69
Liaison Laurie Husted
Submission Date June 8, 2020

STARS v2.2

Bard College
OP-1: Emissions Inventory and Disclosure

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 2.00 / 3.00 Dan Smith
Energy Efficiency Coordinator
Office of Sustainability
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Has the institution conducted a GHG emissions inventory within the previous three years that includes all Scope 1 and 2 emissions? :
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.


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:
---

Gross Scope 1 GHG emissions, performance year:
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

Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions, performance year (market-based):
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

Gross GHG emissions from biogenic sources, performance year:
0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent

Does the GHG emissions inventory include Scope 3 emissions from the following sources?:
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").


Has the institution completed an inventory within the previous three years to quantify its air pollutant emissions?:
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

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.


Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from purchased electricity (location-based):
---

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.


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.

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.