| Overall Rating | Gold |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 69.91 |
| Liaison | Julie Hopper |
| Submission Date | Dec. 20, 2023 |
University of Southern California
OP-1: Emissions Inventory and Disclosure
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
2.46 / 3.00 |
Zelinda
Welch Associate Director of Sustainability USC Facilities Plant Management |
"---"
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:
All calculations were done using the Sustainability Indicator Management and Analysis Platform (SIMAP), EF version 2021 (the most up to date available at time of calculation). Global Warming Potential (GWP) values are from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The selected radiative forcing factor was 2.7 and the air travel cost version was “BTS.”
For Market Based Scope 2 emissions calculations, an LADWP supplier-specific emission factor was applied to the UPC, UPC North, HSC campus and the USC Hotel. These supplier specific emissions factors were published by LADWP (for which the last available
update was October 2021) and reflect the municipal utility’s generation mix for properties that use LADWP. The other facilities in
Catalina and Pasadena used the residual mix for E-Grid region CAMX
For Market Based Scope 2 emissions calculations, an LADWP supplier-specific emission factor was applied to the UPC, UPC North, HSC campus and the USC Hotel. These supplier specific emissions factors were published by LADWP (for which the last available
update was October 2021) and reflect the municipal utility’s generation mix for properties that use LADWP. The other facilities in
Catalina and Pasadena used the residual mix for E-Grid region CAMX
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?:
Yes
A brief description of the GHG inventory verification process:
Activity data was collected by USC's Sustainability and Energy office from departments across campus. That activity data was reviewed by Energy office staff, and by consultants from U-CAN, who are familiar with USC's previous years' activity data; they reviewed the data for outliers based on past years as well as averages from other campuses. U-CAN entered activity data into the SIMAP tool, and provided results to the Energy office. Those results were reviewed by Energy office staff, and by other stakeholders from across campus, for consistency and coherence.
Documentation to support the GHG inventory verification process:
Scope 1 GHG emissions
| Weight in MTCO2e | |
| Stationary combustion | 31,449.39 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Other sources (mobile combustion, process emissions, fugitive emissions) | 3,232.18 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total gross Scope 1 GHG emissions, performance year:
34,681.57
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Scope 2 GHG emissions
| Weight in MTCO2e | |
| Imported electricity | 60,117.05 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Imported thermal energy | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total gross Scope 2 GHG emissions, performance year:
60,117.05
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
GHG emissions from biomass combustion
307
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Scope 3 GHG emissions
| Yes or No | Weight in MTCO2e | |
| Business travel | Yes | 15,612.39 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Commuting | Yes | 46,080.96 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Purchased goods and services | No | --- |
| Capital goods | No | --- |
| Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2 | Yes | 3,364.52 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Waste generated in operations | Yes | 5,228.56 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
| Other sources | No | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total Scope 3 GHG emissions, performance year:
70,286.43
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
A brief description of how the institution accounted for its Scope 3 emissions:
For the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, emissions for commuting were estimated/projected based on the rate of change in (Full- Time Equivalent) student enrollment from the 2014 baseline year (for student commuting). For 2020, a 30% across-the-board
reduction from 2019 commuting vehicle miles traveled was assumed, due to changes induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. For 2021, a further 50% across the board reduction was applied. For this 2022 update, we have changed methodologies to incorporate
AQMD commuter survey data, allowing for much greater confidence in the mode share and distance numbers. While the survey breaks commuters down by subtype (e.g. undergrad versus grad students, faculty vs staff), the total commuting emissions were
aggregated into the two categories (employee and student) to allow for continuity between historic reporting and this new method for
gathering and analyzing activity data.
For air travel, a portion of miles traveled was provided directly by the travel agencies that service campus travel needs; in addition, the dollars spent on airfare were converted to air passenger miles using conversion factors from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS)
reduction from 2019 commuting vehicle miles traveled was assumed, due to changes induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. For 2021, a further 50% across the board reduction was applied. For this 2022 update, we have changed methodologies to incorporate
AQMD commuter survey data, allowing for much greater confidence in the mode share and distance numbers. While the survey breaks commuters down by subtype (e.g. undergrad versus grad students, faculty vs staff), the total commuting emissions were
aggregated into the two categories (employee and student) to allow for continuity between historic reporting and this new method for
gathering and analyzing activity data.
For air travel, a portion of miles traveled was provided directly by the travel agencies that service campus travel needs; in addition, the dollars spent on airfare were converted to air passenger miles using conversion factors from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS)
Part 2. Air pollutant emissions inventory
Yes
Annual weight of emissions for::
| Weight of Emissions | |
| Nitrogen oxides (NOx) | 11.67 Tons |
| Sulfur oxides (SOx) | 0.17 Tons |
| Carbon monoxide (CO) | 22.83 Tons |
| Particulate matter (PM) | 19.99 Tons |
| Ozone (O3) | 0 Tons |
| Lead (Pb) | 0.00 Tons |
| Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) | 30,527 Tons |
| Ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs) | 0.50 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 | No |
| 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:
Based upon our emissions, USC is required annually to submit an Annual Emissions Report to the Air District. The District’s reporting web tool involves using emission factors (based upon permit emission limits) and specified equipment through-put data to calculate air emissions.
Optional Fields
50,865.57
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
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:
---
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.