GHG Report for Austin College
Submitted on September 11, 2009; last updated on September 23, 2009
Summary Statistics
Making fair comparisons between higher education institutions is always challenging due to the rich diversity of higher education. The unverified nature of the information in this database and unavailability of unbiased normalization metrics means such comparisons are even more difficult. Users should therefore approach direct institution to institution comparisons with caution and recognize that all comparisons between institutions are inherently biased.| Total | Per Full-Time Enrollment | Per 1000 Square Feet | % Offset | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross emissions (Scopes 1 + 2) | 9,725 metric tons of CO2e | 7.6 metric tons of CO2e | 12.5 metric tons of CO2e | 3% |
| Gross emissions (Scopes 1 + 2 + 3) | 14,302 metric tons of CO2e | 11.1 metric tons of CO2e | 18.5 metric tons of CO2e | 2% |
| Net emissions | 13,965 metric tons of CO2e | 10.9 metric tons of CO2e | 18.0 metric tons of CO2e | N/A |
Emissions Inventory Methodology and Boundaries
| Start date of the 12-month period covered in this report | July 1, 2007 |
| Consolidation methodology used to determine organizational boundaries | Operational control approach |
|
If any institution-owned, leased, or operated buildings or other holdings that should fall within the organizational boundaries are omitted, briefly explain why.
The college rents a few small houses that are remote from campus. The college does not pay the utilities for those houses. Those houses are not included in this report. Other college-owned houses that are residences of administrators are included in this report. All 14 campus electricity accounts are included in this report, plus the electricity consumption for the house at the McCarley Reserve and the Pavilion at the Sneed Prairie Restoration. |
|
| Emissions calculation tool used | Clean Air-Cool Planet |
|
Please describe why this tool was selected.
This was the suggested calculator and because it is widely used it facilitates comparision with other campuses. We used version 6.1 |
|
|
Please describe the source(s) of the emissions coefficients used.
Default coefficients were used with the following exceptions. We changed the Radiation Forcing Index from 2.8 to 2 because various IPCC reports have used different values and our local expert, Dr. David Baker, does not think the relevant science warrants specifying this value to two significant figures. We corrected the CO2 emissions of study abroad flights by a factor of 0.64 to reflect their longer distances and thus better per mile fuel efficiency than the shorter domestic flights that the calculator assumes. We used actual community data for communiting distances, vehicles used, and carpooling based on a detailed survey. |
|
| Which version of IPCC's list of global warming potentials did you use? | Third Assessment Report |
| Who primarily conducted this emissions inventory? | Student researcher(s) |
|
Please describe the process of conducting the inventory.
The inventory was completed by Senior Honors Thesis student Jade Rutledge (Austin College 2009) under the direction of her thesis committee [Peter Schulze (chair), David Baker, and Todd Penner]. Peter Schulze is Director of the College's environmental studies program and Professor of Biology and Environmental Science. David Baker is a member of the environmental studies program and Associate Professor of Physics. |
|
|
Please describe any emissions sources that were classified as de minimis and explain how a determination of the significance of these emissions was made.
No information provided |
|
|
Please describe any data limitations related to this submission and any major assumptions made in response to these limitations.
Commuter gasoline calculations are based on a detailed and extensive survey of the campus population. We assume the survey respondents were representative. Solid waste calculations are based upon average waste generated rather than direct measurements. Air travel records had missing destination data for 17% of flights. We assumed these flights had the same distances as the average of the other 83% of flights. Fleet vehicle calculations are based upon averages of mileages on vehicles. |
|
Emissions Data
Emissions from the following sources (in metric tons of CO2e)
| Scope 1 Emissions | |
|---|---|
| Stationary Combustion | 2,466.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Mobile Combustion | 121.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Process Emissions | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Fugitive Emissions | 32.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Total Scope 1 emissions | 2,619.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Scope 2 Emissions | |
| Purchased Electricity | 7,106.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Purchased Heating | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Purchased Cooling | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Purchased Steam | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Total Scope 2 emissions | 7,106.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Scope 3 Emissions | |
| Commuting | 822.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Air Travel | 2,501.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Solid Waste | 383.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Wastewater | 13.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Paper Purchasing | 155.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Scope 2 T & D losses | 703.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Total Scope 3 emissions | 4,577.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Biogenic Emissions | |
| Biogenic Emissions from Stationary Combustion | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Biogenic Emissions from Mobile Combustion | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
Mitigation Data
| Carbon Offsets | |
|---|---|
| Carbon offsets purchased | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
| Offset verification program(s) | No information provided |
|
Description of offsets purchased (including vendor, project source, etc.)
None |
|
| Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) | |
| Total RECs purchased | 649792 kWh |
| Percent of total electricity consumption mitigated through the purchase of RECs | 4.7 % |
| Emissions reductions due to the purchase of RECs | 336.6 metric tons of CO2e |
| REC verification program(s) | Green-e |
|
Description of RECs purchased (including vendor, project source, etc.)
The REC vendor was FPL Energy and the project was Snyder Wind Farm, LLC |
|
| Sequestration and Carbon Storage | |
| Sequestration due to land owned by the institution | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
|
Description of how sequestration was calculated
No sequestration assumed. We own some land on which ecosystems are recovering but we have not attempted to estimate a quantity of carbon dioxide sequestration. |
|
| Carbon storage due to composting | 0.0 metric tons of CO2e |
Normalization and Contextual Data
| Building Space | |
|---|---|
| Gross square feet of building space | 774,924.0 sq ft |
| Net assignable square feet of laboratory space | 21,000.0 sq ft |
| Net assignable square feet of health care space | 0.0 sq ft |
| Net assignable square feet of residential space | 246,260.0 sq ft |
| Population | |
| Total Student Enrollment (FTE) | 1283.0 |
| Residential Students | 822 |
| Full-time Commuter Students | 417 |
| Part-time Commuter Students | 15 |
| Non-Credit Students | No information provided |
| Full-time Faculty | 94 |
| Part-time Faculty | 15 |
| Full-time Staff | 193 |
| Part-time Staff | 20 |
| Other Contextual Data | |
| Endowment Size | 140822803 |
| Heating Degree Days | 1890 |
| Cooling Degree Days | 2779 |
|
Please describe any circumstances specific to your institution that provide context for understanding your greenhouse gas emissions this year.
None. |
|
Supporting Documentation
| Completed inventory narrative |
Austin College Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Download |
| Completed inventory calculator | Download |