| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 57.59 |
| Liaison | Maria Ayala |
| Submission Date | Dec. 26, 2018 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Universidad San Francisco de Quito
OP-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
6.51 / 10.00 |
Melanie
Valencia Sustainability Officer Innovation and Sustainability Office |
Has the institution conducted a GHG emissions inventory that includes all Scope 1 and 2 emissions? :
Does the institution’s GHG emissions inventory include all, some or none of its Scope 3 GHG emissions from the following categories?:
| All, Some, or None | |
| Business travel | All |
| Commuting | All |
| Purchased goods and services | None |
| Capital goods | None |
| Waste generated in operations | All |
| Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2 | Some |
| Other categories | None |
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, including how the institution accounted for each category of Scope 3 emissions reported above:
Commuting
The CO2 emissions related to the commuting were calculated through the traveled distance to and from the University of each student and employee and the efficiency of the car used. The information were obtained from a survey made to all the university community with 3636 students answering and 402 staff and faculty, giving only a 1.11% margin of error.
Air travel was done using the data of all flights purchased by the University using the International Civil Aviation Organization estimates.
Waste Generation
The CO2 emissions related to waste generation is calculated through biodegradation reaction of organic material
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?:
A brief description of the internal and/or external verification process:
Documentation to support the internal and/or external verification process:
Does the institution wish to pursue Part 2 and Part 3 of this credit? (reductions in Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions):
Gross Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions:
| Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
| Gross Scope 1 GHG emissions from stationary combustion | 65.60 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 118.20 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Gross Scope 1 GHG emissions from other sources | 143.70 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 90.40 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from purchased electricity | 614.60 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 804.90 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from other sources | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Total | 823.90 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 1,013.50 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Start and end dates of the performance year and baseline year (or three-year periods):
| Start Date | End Date | |
| Performance Year | Jan. 1, 2017 | Dec. 31, 2017 |
| Baseline Year | Jan. 1, 2012 | Dec. 31, 2012 |
A brief description of when and why the GHG emissions baseline was adopted (e.g. in sustainability plans and policies or in the context of other reporting obligations):
Figures needed to determine total carbon offsets:
| Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
| Third-party verified carbon offsets purchased (exclude purchased RECs/GOs) | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Institution-catalyzed carbon offsets generated | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Carbon sequestration due to land that the institution manages specifically for sequestration | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Carbon storage from on-site composting | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Carbon offsets included above for which the emissions reductions have been sold or transferred by the institution | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Net carbon offsets | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
A brief description of the offsets in each category reported above, including vendor, project source, verification program and contract timeframes (as applicable):
USFQ has 600 hectares in the Yasuni National Park as a concession to maintain it and do research as our Tiputini Biological Station. The soil contains 60Mg C/ha based on the Ministry of Agriculture Soil Map http://54.229.242.119/GSOCmap/
Emissions reductions attributable to Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) or Guarantee of Origin (GO) purchases:
| Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
| Emissions reductions attributable to REC/GO purchases | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
A brief description of the purchased RECs/GOs including vendor, project source and verification program:
Adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions:
| Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
| Adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions | 823.90 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 1,013.50 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Figures needed to determine “Weighted Campus Users”:
| Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
| Number of students resident on-site | 0 | 0 |
| Number of employees resident on-site | 0 | 0 |
| Number of other individuals resident on-site and/or staffed hospital beds | 0 | 0 |
| Total full-time equivalent student enrollment | 8,862 | 5,953 |
| Full-time equivalent of employees (staff + faculty) | 1,050 | 491 |
| Full-time equivalent of students enrolled exclusively in distance education | 1,988 | 0 |
| Weighted campus users | 5,943 | 4,833 |
Adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions per weighted campus user:
| Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
| Adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions per weighted campus user | 0.14 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent | 0.21 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Percentage reduction in adjusted net Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions per weighted campus user from baseline:
Gross floor area of building space, performance year:
Floor area of energy intensive building space, performance year:
| Floor Area | |
| Laboratory space | 6,793.28 Square meters |
| Healthcare space | 0 Square meters |
| Other energy intensive space | 4,964.26 Square meters |
EUI-adjusted floor area, performance year:
Adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions per unit of EUI-adjusted floor area, performance year:
Scope 3 GHG emissions, performance year:
| Emissions | |
| Business travel | 668 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Commuting | 2,665 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Purchased goods and services | --- |
| Capital goods | --- |
| Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2 | --- |
| Waste generated in operations | 127.77 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Other categories | --- |
A brief description of the institution’s GHG emissions reduction initiatives, including efforts made during the previous three years:
To reduce the transport GHG emissions a carpooling system was implemented and piloted, waste separation on campus was improved as well as the implementation of specific reduction of waste campaigns (monetary incentives for bringing reusable cups to the campus cafeterias). The University is currently introducing a new institutional bus route for University use with the aim of reducing student, faculty and administrative use of vehicles for school transportation.
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The Gross GHG Scope 1 emissions come from diesel fuel consumed for the operation of the backup generators on campus. There are methodological differences for the calculation of this scope between the baseline and performance years.
For the 2012 carbon footprint calculation, there is a reported data accuracy assumption, as the finance and physics plant records did not match on diesel fuel purchases. Data uncertainty was reported because the operational estimation of what was being used for the energy plant differs from what was reported by the Finance department. Therefore, an estimation was calculated on the basis of the purchasing data obtained.
For 2017, all records were obtained for the generator diesel fuel consumption, reducing the data uncertainty. The generators are mainly used during power outages, during 2012, the Campus suffered significantly more power outages than in 2017, another reason for the emissions decline between both years.
For the Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from purchased electricity, the main difference comes from the change in the academic work week. In 2012 classes where held Monday to Friday, a change was introduced and for 2017 classes where only held Monday-Friday. Reducing to a 4-day academic work week, meant a significant reduction in electricity consumption, as the student population, which makes up the majority of the campus users, doesn’t use campus facilities on Fridays.
Due to emission factor updates, significant infrastructure changes, and methodology changes, the baseline 2012 emissions where recalculated, for future benchmarking and comparison purposes. The updated valued are being reported.
The Gross GHG Scope 1 emissions come from diesel fuel consumed for the operation of the backup generators on campus. There are methodological differences for the calculation of this scope between the baseline and performance years.
For the 2012 carbon footprint calculation, there is a reported data accuracy assumption, as the finance and physics plant records did not match on diesel fuel purchases. Data uncertainty was reported because the operational estimation of what was being used for the energy plant differs from what was reported by the Finance department. Therefore, an estimation was calculated on the basis of the purchasing data obtained.
For 2017, all records were obtained for the generator diesel fuel consumption, reducing the data uncertainty. The generators are mainly used during power outages, during 2012, the Campus suffered significantly more power outages than in 2017, another reason for the emissions decline between both years.
For the Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from purchased electricity, the main difference comes from the change in the academic work week. In 2012 classes where held Monday to Friday, a change was introduced and for 2017 classes where only held Monday-Friday. Reducing to a 4-day academic work week, meant a significant reduction in electricity consumption, as the student population, which makes up the majority of the campus users, doesn’t use campus facilities on Fridays.
Due to emission factor updates, significant infrastructure changes, and methodology changes, the baseline 2012 emissions where recalculated, for future benchmarking and comparison purposes. The updated valued are being reported.
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.