2007 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Vancouver, Washington

The carbon footprint of residents, businesses and government inside the city limits

December 2009 Overview This report is a Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory for the City of Vancouver, WA for 2007. It was conducted to establish the baseline carbon footprint of the community as a whole in order to discover the highest-leverage areas for change, plan long-term GHG reductions, and set the stage for a sense of scale of emissions from City Government operations versus activities of business and private citizens. Results The chart below summarizes, at the highest level, the carbon footprint of the residents and businesses inside the city limits of Vancouver. As explained in detail in the following pages, these emissions are in some cases direct (such as gasoline combustion), in some cases from beyond our city borders (such as regional electricity imports), and in other cases associated with remote activities that end with final consumption here in the community (such as the production of materials, goods and food). The goal has been to provide the fullest and truest view of the community’s carbon footprint.

Materials, Goods, and Food (~1,272,400 MT CO2e) • Production and transport of

materials and goods consumed in the city

• Production and transport of food consumed in the city

• Landfilled waste

Transportation Emissions (~949,500 MT CO2e) • Vehicle miles traveled by

passenger vehicles and light trucks

• C-Tran public transportation emissions

• Marine / Rail / Freight • Air travel by Vancouver

citizens at Portland International Airport and Pearson Air Field

Energy-related Emissions (~1,038,800 MT CO2e)

• Natural gas consumption from residents, businesses and industry • Electricity consumption from Clark Public Utility District’s (PUD) River

Road Plant • Fossil fuel consumption from Clark PUD’s imported electricity

2

From Carbon Footprints to Climate Action We have before us a daunting task. In order to avoid the worst impacts from climate change, the best available science calls for dramatic decreases in human-caused greenhouse gas emissions – more than half by the global economy, and more than 80% by affluent industrialized regions and countries such as Europe, Japan, Canada and the United States. National policy is moving in this direction, with specific and ambitious policies now under consideration by Congress. And discussions this December in Copenhagen – where 200 nations will gather to discuss climate concerns – will tackle the need for a deeper international agreement. Everything Is On The Table To take such a goal seriously, we must look at all emissions sources in some detail. As this short report demonstrates, our work toward significant emissions reductions will necessarily involve revisiting how we do what we do – how we move around, how we operate our buildings, where we get our electricity, and even how we think about our consumption decisions. This analysis is just the beginning, and ultimately, it is the tip of the iceberg. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of our economy, and we are still early in what will be a decades-long transition. The numbers here are an attempt to start giving a sense of scale to our understanding of the challenge. (See the City of Vancouver Sustainability web site for detailed information, community activities and the technical report from which this data was drawn: http://www.cityofvancouver.us/sustainability.asp.) Win-Win Opportunities for Carbon Reduction and Economic Development It is important to recognize that even when national policy is passed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it is likely to be a while before we understand the implications of it. One thing is clear: there will be an economic incentive built into the economy to reduce direct and indirect emissions. This “cost of carbon” will come at us in every possible way – through energy prices, at the gas pump, and in the cost of goods and services. Thus, our carbon footprint calculations are, in part, a guide to seeking economic opportunity and efficiency and an opportunity to gauge our risk. Fortunately, the opportunity for emissions reductions is great, and the benefits may outweigh the costs for the foreseeable future. Analysis by McKinsey, the global consultancy, has demonstrated that total US greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by as much as 30% while achieving cost savings – even at today’s prices for energy and with today’s technologies. While we may have to pursue these efficiencies deliberately and with hard work, the chance to harness markets and innovation is before us. Next Steps for Climate Action There is much work to do in our community. Each section below describes emissions results for energy; transportation; and materials, goods and food; as well as high-leverage areas for taking action. Remember that this analysis – high-level, an approximation, and in some cases an estimate – is merely a starting point on the journey toward a low-carbon economy. Technical Note: Why Does This Carbon Footprint Look…Different from Others?

If you’ve ever seen a community carbon footprint, these results will seem surprising. Most analyses of the Northwest as a whole and of cities in the region focus on directly measured emissions. However, recent EPA research suggests that our indirect emissions – especially those resulting from the production of material goods – are a large share, and these emissions are usually ignored. There are trade-offs in the approach used here. The calculations related to material goods rely on national data (with regional adjustments), rather than direct measurements. Still, the estimate works: our material consumption is not so different from national averages, and the estimate provides a sense of scale with a clear message – consumption matters as much as energy and transportation. For more information, see Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices, US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (2009) (http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf).

3

Energy (Natural Gas and Electricity) Vancouver’s energy use from electricity and natural gas accounts for 32% of community emissions. The chart below shows that of the 32% of emissions from energy, residential and commercial buildings account for the majority of Vancouver’s energy use (15% and 12% respectively). Local manufacturing by industry is a smaller but still important component of energy emissions (5%). Energy emissions from electricity and natural gas are intimately related and difficult to separate. Clark Public Utilities District meets an important share (about 20%) of local electricity demand by burning natural gas at its River Road plant – in fact, that is the bulk of the utility’s owned generation. Natural gas also contributes about 10% of the region’s electricity mix. For many long-time residents of the Northwest, it may come as a surprise that electricity consumption is responsible for so much of the carbon footprint. We have traditionally thought of our electricity as clean and green, coming overwhelmingly from hydropower. Yet as the region’s economy and population have grown, the system of large hydroelectric dams has not. Coal and gas have, for the most part, filled that gap. Renewable energy sources are still small share of the total (though growing rapidly). Opportunities for Energy Emissions Reductions Energy Efficiency: Energy efficiency must be at the top of our list – both of climate action items and economic development strategies. The win-win opportunities economy-wide are, according to estimates, at least enough to meet all growth in energy demand for the next generation. But it will take a commitment, including new policies and deliberate private investments. Renewable Energy: At the same time, aggressive development of new renewable energy sources will accelerate the transition as we retire pieces of our current fossil fuel infrastructure. The Northwest has abundant wind, solar, geothermal and sustainable biomass options. For electricity in particular, better and “smarter” grid management – including time-of-day pricing and advanced metering in homes and businesses – can align supply and demand for both economic efficiency and emissions reductions. Local Generation: Local electricity generation in particular can make our community less reliant on the electric grid and more economically secure. Many communities are pursuing so-called “distributed generation” (at the building and municipal scale) of solar thermal, solar PV, geothermal and biomass. We also have a chance to pursue appropriate use of biomass in the region, in particular by connecting energy uses to responsible forest stewardship. Some waste streams also hold potential as energy feedstocks, though recycling is always a higher and better use (economically and environmentally).

4

Transportation Transportation is responsible for about 29% of the community’s greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions come mainly from on-road vehicles (commercially and individually owned, but not including freight) and air travel, with small shares from rail, marine and transit sources. Transportation activities are clearly an important emissions source, perhaps as much as a third of total emissions nationally, but these activities are diverse. Truly local sources include personal and commercial on-road vehicles, public transit and Vancouver citizen travel at Portland International Airport. Rail and marine emissions are estimated for sense of scale but contribute a small component overall. Notably, some of the transportation on which we rely is long-distance transportation of goods and food from far beyond the community’s borders; in this analysis it is therefore included in emissions associated with material consumption (see the next page), and not within this section of emissions. Conventional analyses often attribute about half of regional emissions to transportation, but those calculations typically exclude the emissions associated with the production of material goods. When those upstream emissions related to material consumption are included, local transportation falls to less than a third – still large, but no longer deserving of our sole focus. Opportunities for Transportation Emissions Reductions Fuel efficiency: Federal and state mandates are slated to raise fuel efficiency for personal and commercial vehicles over the next generation. There is room for moving more quickly through coordinated local action. Lower-carbon transportation modes: Encouraging and fostering opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian options, while not relevant in all circumstances, is very high leverage, as these modes have essentially no emissions associated with them. Some of the necessary changes are difficult, but over the long term, the opportunity may be very large. The community is already experiencing some bike/ped-friendly development. Transit: A shift to transit is high-leverage and takes advantage of existing local infrastructure. There is considerable room to improve C-Tran ridership with coordinated action by business and government in the area. Lower-carbon fuels: Along with these efficiency and mode-shift measures, we are seeing the emergence of low-carbon fuels as a substitute for diesel and gasoline from petroleum. This approach requires care, as not all biofuels are truly low-carbon, so we have to look closely at the full life cycles of these fuels, especially the feedstocks on which they are based. Transportation electrification: Many analyses have identified this area as a key opportunity, both with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Even with our existing electricity grid that is approximately half fossil fuels (see above), a close look at the emissions across the entire life cycle shows reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The efficiency of batteries and electric motors compare favorably to the relative inefficiency of internal combustion engines that burn gasoline and diesel now. Electricity is also a regional resource, with tremendous growth potential for renewable sources, while petroleum is an import with tremendous price volatility. Our strategy will need to be a blend of all of these. There’s no silver bullet, and we will want to watch technological and economic opportunities closely in this time of rapid change for the transportation sector.

5

Consumption of Materials, Goods and Food Nearly 39% of community GHG emissions are estimated to come from the resource extraction, raw materials processing, manufacture and distribution of material consumption. A small component of these emissions is also associated with the landfill disposal of these products at the end of their life. These life-cycle stages – generally out of sight and out of mind – are a large and important part of our carbon footprint, and are excluded from the vast majority of GHG inventories. What exactly is this consumption? First and foremost, it is goods, from clothing and furniture and cars, to food and beverages (the one major category estimated here). It also includes packaging and many other items that, while often small and largely unnoticed, are single-use and then quickly relegated to the waste stream. The emissions from materials, goods and food also include freight-related emissions – all of the transportation of materials, goods and food that we rely on to get things to us. However, that proportion is not as large as we often think: freight-related emissions for materials and goods are only about 19% of the total related to goods (the green slice in the figure above), and only about 12.5% of the total related to food (the red slice). Opportunities for Emissions Reductions from Consumption of Materials, Good and Food Buy Less: The first and most obvious prescription for climate action regarding consumption is simple, unpleasant and unhelpful: buy less stuff. However, innovative thinking about how to do more with less is itself the heart of economic efficiency, and virtually ever material-intensive economic sector – from construction and manufacturing to transportation and packaging – achieves economic competitiveness in part by thinking this way. Consumers concerned about their carbon footprints can do the same. Lower-carbon Alternatives: Other than going with less, one can shift toward lower-carbon alternatives. This is often difficult to identify, but with life-cycle thinking we see some hints: recyclable and durable items allow us to find more and longer lasting uses for the same initial production. Reuse is always better than buying new. Reused and Recycled-Content Materials: When buying new, goods with recycled content require less energy and water (and tend to generate less pollution overall) because they need less raw material and manufacturing. And seeking out recycled-content goods is the other side of the recycling coin. These ideas are most important with large and on-going purchases, such as cars, building materials (and house size generally), furniture, appliances and food. But we can apply them in every-day life to all purchases, large and small. Low-Carbon Diet: Research on the carbon footprint of food and agriculture has led to some clear (though unpopular) prescriptions as well. Red meat and dairy products have among the highest carbon footprints on the food pyramid, per calorie or per pound, and recent research on the average American diet suggests that switching less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat to chicken, fish, eggs or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than switching to an all-local diet. (Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States by Christopher L. Weber, and H. Scott Matthews, April 2008)

6

Summary of Calculation Details Energy Emissions Calculation Details Assumptions for Natural Gas Emissions: • NW Natural provided consumption numbers for the state of Washington where it serves citizens in Clark, Klickitat and

Skamania counties, and a portion of this service territory was attributed to the City of Vancouver. Assumptions for Electricity Emissions: • Clark Public Utility District (Clark PUD) serves the City of Vancouver and sources its electricity from the River Road

natural gas plant (inside the city) and imported electricity from Bonneville Power Administration (outside the city). Clark PUD reported electricity consumption from residential, commercial and industrial accounts.

• The emissions calculations used the emissions factor for the River Road Plant and the regional grid mix for Northwest Power Pool (eGRID Region, US EPA) for electricity Clark PUD imports from outside the city limits.

Transportation Emissions Calculation Details Assumptions for Vehicle Emissions (Personal and Local Freight): • The Washington Regional Transportation Council provided data on average daily vehicle miles traveled within the

Vancouver city limits. Vehicle fuel efficiency was assumed to follow average US fleet traits based on model years 1992-2007 (EPA, 2007: Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975-2007).

Assumptions for C-TRAN (public transportation) Emissions: • C-TRAN provided total gallons of fuel used in 2007 by type (gasoline and diesel). Based on a ridership survey

conducted in 2008, 81% of C-TRAN emissions were attributed to the City of Vancouver. Assumptions for Estimated Rail and Marine Emissions: • Based on similar per-capita trade volumes at the Port of Seattle and the Port of Vancouver (U.S. Port Ranking by

Cargo Volume 2006, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Vancouver’s and Seattle’s rail emissions (2005 Inventory of Seattle Greenhouse Gas Emissions, City of Seattle) were assumed to be proportional to population.

• The City of Seattle’s marine emissions (City of Seattle, 2005) were assumed to be proportional to the City of Vancouver’s population. (Seattle’s ferry emissions were excluded due to Vancouver’s lack of a ferry system.) Rail and marine emissions are estimates based on available data that are included for sense of scale. Data will be more accurate after the Port of Vancouver conducts a GHG inventory.

Assumptions for Air Travel Emissions at Portland International Airport (PDX) and Pearson Field: • PDX supplied information on the percent of enplaning and deplaning passengers by three-digit zip code. The total was

prorated by population to determine the number of per capita flights. The average flight length for PDX travelers was assumed to be 1,237 miles (Federal Aviation Administration Aerospace Forecast 2008-2025). Air emissions were calculated using a Radiative Forcing Index of 2 (Climate Care 2005).

• The Airport Manager at Pearson Field supplied 2007 fuel consumption data, with 70% of the fuel attributed to Vancouver citizens, using emissions factors for aviation gasoline, assuming no Radiative Forcing Index.

Purchased Goods and Services Embodied Emissions Calculation Details Per-capita emissions from material goods and food for the United States were attributed to the City of Vancouver, adjusted proportionately (downward) based on city residents’ per capita income (i.e., as a proportion of US per capita income). Assumptions • Per capita consumption was assumed to be in proportion to median household income. • It was assumed that 10% of consumption by Vancouver residents is produced inside the city limits, so the energy and

transportation emissions from that production are already accounted for elsewhere in the inventory. • One half of Vancouver's goods and food were assumed to be produced within the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP)

eGRID region, as defined by the US EPA, with resulting electricity-related emissions scaled accordingly.

For additional details on this report, please contact: Michael Piper, Sustainability Coordinator, City of Vancouver, WA

E-mail: mike.piper@ci.vancouver.wa.us

Good Company performed this analysis and generated this report. www.goodcompany.com