cive 6900/8900 sustainability engineering and science · web viewthe east plant uses an aerated...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory ofLucas County Facilities and Operations
Prepared by
Katherine ChulskiGregory Denman
Jeff GrabarkiewiczPraneeth Nimmatoori
Hannah West
Prepared for
Lucas County Commissioners
and
CIVE 6900/8900 Sustainability Engineering and ScienceUniversity of Toledo
Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringFall 2010
December 13, 2010Final Report
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Abstract
This report quantifies the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of Lucas County facilities
and operations. Scope 1 emissions and Scope 2 emissions were calculated for the years 2005 to
2009. Scope 1 emissions included wastewater treatment, vehicle fleet, and natural gas
combustion. Scope 2 emissions included purchased electricity by facilities, pump stations, and
traffic signals. It was found that the total greenhouse gas emissions which include both scope
1emissions and scope 2 emissions, showed an increasing trend from 2005 to 2009 and were
projected to increase in future years. The total greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2009 were
30,556 MTCO2e. Results showed that the primary contributor to these emissions was energy
usage within facilities which accounted for 73% followed by energy usage within wastewater
treatment plant – 21%, vehicle fuel – 6% and traffic lights – less than 1%. The methodology used
to calculate these emissions was explained. The measures to reduce these emissions were also
discussed.
2
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the collaboration and assistance of Defne
Apul, Jim Shaw, Veronica Jackson, Mike Cravens, Lynn DiPierro, Earl Reid, Chris Pizza, Keith
Earley, Ron Myers, Kara Moore, Kim Kettman, Bridgette Kabat, Tina Wozniak, Meg Adams,
and Ray Evans.
3
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................8
2.0 Project Objectives.................................................................................................................9
3.0 Methods...................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Project Site Description.......................................................................................................10
3.2 Raw Data.............................................................................................................................11
3.2.1 Scope 1 Emissions.........................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Scope 2 Emissions.........................................................................................................21
3.2.3 Scope 3 Emissions.........................................................................................................25
3.2.4 Biogenic Emissions.......................................................................................................26
4.0 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................26
4.1 Scope 1 Emissions...............................................................................................................27
4.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility.....................................................................................28
4.1.2 Vehicle Fleet.................................................................................................................30
4.1.3 Natural Gas..................................................................................................................31
4.2 Scope 2 Emissions...............................................................................................................32
4.2.1 Facilities.......................................................................................................................33
4
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
4.2.2 Traffic Signals...............................................................................................................34
4.3 Projections...........................................................................................................................35
4.4 Putting Emissions into Perspective......................................................................................36
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................38
References......................................................................................................................................40
5
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Lucas County.......................................................................................................9
Figure 2: Lucas County Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Facility......................................12
Figure 3: Annual emissions by sector type....................................................................................25
Figure 4: Scope 1 Emissions for 2009...........................................................................................26
Figure 5: Annual CO2e emissions for 2009 at the MRWWTP.....................................................27
Figure 6: Scope 2 Emissions for 2009...........................................................................................31
Figure 7: Energy usage from the US Department of Energy “Buildings Energy Data Book.......32
Figure 8: Annual emissions broken out into Scope 1 and 2 contributions....................................33
Figure 9: Projections for Scope 2 emissions over the years 2010 to 2014....................................34
Figure 10: Greenhouse Gas Equivalence Calculator (Source: EPA).............................................35
Figure A.1: eGRID Sub Regions (2006 and 2007)........................................................................41
Figure D.1: Vehicle Fleet Data......................................................................................................45
Figure D.2: Natural Gas Usage Data – Columbia Gas..................................................................46
Figure D.3: Natural Gas Usage Data –CCAO (Bulk Gas)............................................................46
Figure D.4: Facility Energy Usage Data – Toledo Edison............................................................47
Figure D.5: Facility Energy Usage Data – Department of Public Utilities (Water)......................47
Figure D.6: Traffic Signal Data.....................................................................................................48
Figure D.7: Pump Station Data......................................................................................................49
Figure D.8: General Fund County Vehicles with City and Highway MPG..................................50
Figure F.1: Scope 1 Emissions from 2005 to 2009.......................................................................52
Figure F.2: Scope 2 Emissions from 2005 to 2009.......................................................................52
6
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
List of Tables
Table 1: Raw data received from Lucas County...........................................................................10
Table 2: Organizations utilizing fleet vehicles, fueled by Vehicle Maintenance..........................16
Table 3: List of Buildings..............................................................................................................21
Table 4: Facilities Activity Data....................................................................................................21
Table 5: Pump Station Activity Data.............................................................................................22
Table 6: Traffic Signal Activity Data............................................................................................22
Table 7: Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Plant Activity Data............................................23
Table 8: Emission Factors from Toledo Edison vs. eGrid.............................................................23
Table A.1: Emission Factors for CO2...........................................................................................40
Table A.2: Emission Factors for CH4 and N2O............................................................................41
Table A.3:eGRID 2007 Electricity Emission Factors by Sub Region...........................................42
Table C.1: Project Schedule..........................................................................................................44
7
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
List of Appendix
Appendix A: Emission Factors......................................................................................................41
Appendix B: Team Member Responsibilities................................................................................44
Appendix C: Project Schedule.......................................................................................................45
Appendix D: Raw Data..................................................................................................................46
Appendix E: Facility Data Limitations..........................................................................................52
Appendix F: Annual Emissions Graphs........................................................................................53
8
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
1.0 Introduction
A carbon footprint represents the total amount of greenhouse gases produced by an individual,
entity, product, or event (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalence). Therefore, it
measures the impact we make individually as well collectively through our lifestyle choices.
Environmental issues such as global warming are also linked to CO2 emissions. The carbon
footprint of an individual, organization, or nation can be measured by undertaking a greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions assessment. Through this assessment, an organization can understand the
impact of its facilities and operations on global warming. Once the emissions are known, a
reduction strategy may be formulated. This strategy often achieves reductions through
technological developments, better process and product management, and consumption
strategies.
2.0 Project Objectives
The goal of this study was to determine was to:
Determine the greenhouse gas emissions of the facilities and operations of Lucas County,
Ohio.
Investigate methods to reduce the emissions of Lucas County.
Project annual emissions for future year(s) taking reduction methods into account.
To assist in the analysis, the “Local Government Operations Protocol for the quantification and
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories” will be used. This method was developed by
the California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI – Local
Governments for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry.
9
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Facilities under examination within this project include buildings, ports, airports, solid waste
facilities, water treatment and delivery facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and power
generation facilities. Emissions associated with these facilities, in addition to the operational
products of Lucas County that fall under Scope 1 emissions, Scope 2 emissions, Scope 3
emissions, and biogenic emissions will be examined. The annual emissions will then be
calculated for the years 2005 to 2009. This method will allow yearly comparisons. The scope of
this project does not include emissions related to forestry and land management. Emissions data
for similar county facilities across the United States will be obtained and indicators will be
examined.
3.0 Methods
Methods used to quantify emissions required activity data and emissions factors. Activity data
obtained from Lucas County included fuel consumption by fuel type, metered monthly energy
consumption by unit, and annual vehicle mileage by vehicle type. Activity data along with
emissions factors for each activity type were multiplied to determine the relative emissions.
Emissions factors used in this report were adapted from the Local Governments Operations
Protocol, 2010 and were determined by means of direct measurement, laboratory analysis or
calculations based on representative heat or carbon content.
3.1 Project Site Description
Lucas County is located in Northwest Ohio, on the shores of Western Lake Erie just south of
State of Michigan. It is part of the Toledo Metropolitan Area. The outline of Lucas County is
shown in Figure 1. This figure is borrowed from the Wikipedia page for Lucas County
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ohio_highlighting_Lucas_County.svg) and paired
10
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
with an image from Google Earth. According to the Ohio Department of Development, Lucas
County spans 596 square miles, with 340 square miles of land area. In 2009, the population of
the county was estimated to be 463,493 (ODOD 2010).
Figure 1: Map of Lucas County
3.2 Raw Data
The local government sectors considered for this project are listed in Table 1. The status of data
acquisition and the individual who provided the data are also included. The county does not own
or operate any water treatment facilities, ports, airports, transit fleet, power generation facilities,
or solid waste facilities. While the county does not manage or own a landfill, they do
consistently spend approximately $11,000/month on fuel for trucks to collect recyclables from
area schools and facilities.
11
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Table 1: Raw data received from Lucas County
Sector Data Acquired Provided byBuildings Yes Earl ReidTraffic Signals Yes Keith EarleyWater Delivery Facilities N/A N/APort facilities N/A N/AAirport facilities N/A N/AVehicle Fleet Yes Bridgette Kabat, Lynn
DiPierro, Keith Early, Kim Kettman, Veronica Jackson, and Jim Shaw
Transit Fleet N/A N/APower Generation Facilities N/A N/ASolid Waste Facilities N/A N/AWastewater Facilities Yes Mike Cravens and Jim Shaw
3.2.1 Scope 1 Emissions
Scope 1 emissions involve those emissions which are directly produced, including emissions
from stationary combustion, mobile combustion, process emissions, and fugitive emissions. For
Lucas County, this includes emissions produced during treatment processes at the wastewater
treatment plant, emissions produced from the fleet vehicles, and natural gas usage within the
County’s facilities.
3.2.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater treatment facilities include stationary, fugitive and process emissions relative to
Scope 1 emissions. They also include scope 2 Emissions related to any facilities used for the
conveyance, collection or treatment of the wastewater/sewage. This typically includes treatment
facilities, booster stations, in-line pumps and lift stations.
12
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Plant Overview
Lucas County owns and operates the Lucas County Maumee River wastewater treatment plant
(MRWWTP) which is located on the Maumee River (Figure 2). The treatment facility was
constructed in 1971. Several expansions and improvements have occurred since the facilities
inception. The plant can now treat 22.5 MGD and serves a population of 80,500 people.
Wastewater enters the plant by means of a 90-inch sewer. Liquid ferrous chloride is injected into
the raw influent to remove phosphorus and control odor. The influent is then diverted to either
the East or West treatment plant. Both plants use filter screens to remove material greater than
¼” diameter. Both plants also filter the influent through grit removal. The east plant uses an
aerated grit chamber while the west plant has a vortex grit removal unit. Screenings and grit
removed from the influent are stored on sand filter drying beds and eventually transported to a
local landfill.
Influent flows are measured prior to preliminary treatment. The influent wastewater is pumped
to primary settling tanks. Sludge is then pumped to the anaerobic digesters using cavity pumps.
Primary effluents then flow by gravity to the aeration basins. Ferrous chloride is added once
again in the aeration basin to remove phosphorus. Secondary treatment then begins via the
activated sludge process. The water is then sent to the final clarifiers where solids separation
occurs. The clarified effluent flow is measured in each plant via a Parshall flume before
ultraviolet disinfection. East and west plant effluents are combined and then discharged to the
Maumee River. The methane gas produced in the digesters is used to run generators that
produce electric power and hot water for the digester/cogeneration complex. Digested sludge
from the secondary digester is dewatered and then placed on a storage pad to dry. Hauling
contractors remove the class B biosolids and land apply them.
13
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure 2: Lucas County Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Facility
CH4 Emissions
CH4 emissions are associated with several factors of wastewater treatment. They can arise from
septic systems, aerobic systems that are poorly managed, anaerobic treatment, facultative
treatment lagoons and from captured biogas from anaerobic digesters that is not completely
combusted. The MRWWTP operates anaerobic digesters to treat excess biosolids produced by
the wastewater treatment process. The anaerobic digestion creates CH4 which is then combusted.
Stationary CH4 production from the incomplete combustion of digester gas was calculated using
Equation 1.
AnnualC H4 emissions ( MTC O2e )=(P × Digester Gas× F C H 4 × ρ (C H 4 ) × (1−DE ) ×0.0283 m3
ft3 ×365.25 daysyear
×10−6 MTg )×GWP(1)
Where : P=population served by MRWWTP (80,500 people)
14
Northeast
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Digester Gas=volume of digester gas produced ( 1 ft3
personday )
F C H 4=Fraction of C H 4∈biogas(0.65)
ρ (C H 4 )=Density of methane(662 gm3 )
DE=C H 4 Destruction efficiency (0.99)
GWP=Global warming potential of C H 4(21)
N2O Emissions
N2O is generated at wastewater treatment facilities during the processes of nitrification and de-
nitrification. Nitrogen is usually present in the form of urea, ammonia and proteins. These
compounds are converted to nitrate (NO3) by nitrification. De-nitrification then converts the
NO3 to dinitrogen gas (N2). Process emissions for N2O can be calculated using two different
equations which relate to whether or not the WWTP used nitrification/de-nitrification. At the
MRWWTP this process is not employed. Equation 2 was used to determine the N2O emissions
at the MRWWTP. N2O emissions are also associated with effluent discharge to receiving
aquatic environments. Equation 3 was used to calculate the emissions from this source.
N2 Oemissions=(( Ptotal ) × EF wo
nitdenit
×10−6 MTg )× GWP(2)
Where : Ptotal=Polpulation served by MRWWTP(80,500 people)
EF wo
nitdenit
=Emission factor for WWTPwit hout nitdenit (3.2
g N2Opersonyear )
GWP=Global warming potential of N2 O (310 )
15
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
N 2 Oemissions=(Ptotal× (Total N Load−N uptake× BOD5 load ) × EF effluent × 4428
×(1−F plant nitdenit )×365.25 days
year×10−3 MT
kg )×GWP(3)
Where : Ptotal= polpulation served by MRWWTP ( Number of people )
Total N Load=T otal nitrogenload(0.026 Kg N
personday )
N uptake=N uptake for cell growth∈aerobic system(0.05 Kg KKg BOD5 )
BOD5 load=A mount of BOD5 produced (0.09 KgBOD5
personday )
EF effluent=emisions factor (0.005Kg N2O−N
Kg sewage−N produced )4428
=Molecular weight ration of N2 O¿ N
F plant nitdenit
=Fraction of nitrogenremoved (0 for plant wo
nitdenit )
GWP=Glob alwarming potential of N2O (310 )
3.2.1.2 Vehicle fleet
Three departments are primarily responsible for the maintenance and fueling of Lucas county
fleet vehicles: Vehicle Maintenance (general fund), County Engineer’s Office, and the Sanitary
Engineer’s Office. Vehicle make and models were provided by the respective County offices
and the Board of Lucas County Commissioners. The County Engineers provided a record of
gasoline and diesel purchased for road maintenance vehicles in 2009. The Sanitary Engineer’s
Office provided records of gasoline and diesel purchased for 2008 and 2009. Vehicle
Maintenance provided a record of gasoline purchased during a five year period. Many different
16
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
county departments rely on Vehicle Maintenance for their fueling needs. Those departments are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Organizations utilizing fleet vehicles, fueled by Vehicle Maintenance
911 Common Pleas Court Facilities
Auditor Coroner's Office Job and Family Services
Board of Elections County Engineer Juvenile Court
Child Services Board Court Deputies Probate Court
Child Support Dog Warden Real EstateChild Treatment Facilities Domestic Relations Sheriff
Clerks of Courts EMA Veteran Services
Commissioners EMS Youth Treatment Center
The Local Government Operations Protocol provides detailed recommendations for calculating
vehicle emissions. Three greenhouse gasses are discussed; CO2, CH4, and N2O. Calculation of
CO2 emissions are relatively straightforward because CO2 represents the vast majority of total
vehicle emissions. Due to data limitations, calculation of CH4, and N2O was omitted in this
study. Accurate inventory of those gasses requires detailed information about the vehicle fleet,
including vehicle make, model year, total mileage, EPA rated fuel economy, and the overall
mechanical condition of the vehicle. This data was available for less than half of the vehicles
under examination. CH4, and N2O emissions are highly dependent on a particular vehicle’s
emission control system, mainly the catalytic converter. This system operates at peak efficiency
when exhaust gas temperatures are at their highest. As a result, ambient air temperature plays a
role in emissions. In winter months, a vehicles engine requires much longer to reach normal
17
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
operating temperature than in the summer. When a cold vehicle engine is first started, the
mixture ratio of fuel to air burned is much more than when warm. This high fuel content is
known as a “rich mixture,” and results in lower engine efficiency and a greater release of
unburned hydrocarbons (such asCH4) and N2O into the atmosphere. Normally such emissions are
oxidized or reduced at high temperature in the catalytic converter, but the rich mixture
accompanied by low exhaust gas temperature renders the system essentially ineffective. Once the
engine warms, the rich fuel mixture becomes “lean” (more air and less fuel), resulting in lower
emissions, high exhaust temperature, and maximum efficiency of the converter.
To complicate matters further, gasoline in the Toledo area contains up to 10% Ethanol by
volume. Ohio fuel retailers are not required by law to inform consumers exactly how much
Ethanol is in the gasoline, so the actual chemical composition is unknown. Ethanol in gasoline
would theoretically increase the amount of CO2 in the exhaust gasses relative to CH4, and N2O
because complete combustion of ethanol yields only water and CO2 . The combustion reaction is
shown below:
C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 3 H2O
Also, the emission of CH4, and N2O are extremely low once an engine is warm because they are
converted to water, oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 during catalytic conversion. Common oxidation
and reduction reactions occurring in a converter are shown below:
2CO + O2 → 2CO2
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 → xCO2 + (x+1) H2O
2NOx → xO2 + N2
Accounting for CH4, and N2O in exhaust gasses would be virtually impossible considering the
lack of data and number of variables. Calculation was therefore limited to accommodate these
18
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
limited data and to avoid letting imaginations run wild while indiscriminately filling in unknown
variables.
To calculate CO2 emissions for vehicle usage, equations were adopted from the EPA Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, publication EPA420-F-05-001, February, 2005. The parameters
are as follows:
Gasoline carbon content: 2,421 grams/gallon
Diesel carbon content: 2,778 grams/gallon
Oxidation factor for all petroleum products: 0.99
Molecular weight of Carbon: 12
Molecular Weight of Carbon Dioxide: 44
The CO2e was calculated from gasoline using Equation 4.
CO2 ( MTCO2 e )=Gasoline (gal ) ×2,421( g Cgal )× 0.99× 44
12 (CO2
C )×10−6(MTg ) (4)
Similarly, the CO2e was calculated from diesel fuel using Equation 5.
CO2 ( MTCO2 e )=Diesel (gal ) ×2,778( g Cgal )× 0.99 × 44
12 (CO2
C )× 10−6( MTg ) (5)
It is important to note that these equations are essentially the same as provided by the Local
Protocol, but are more explanatory. For example the Protocol defines the following “CO2
Emission Factors”:
Gasoline: 8.78 kilograms CO2 / gallon
Diesel: 10.21 kilograms CO2 / gallon
19
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Note that the “CO2 Emission Factors” can be found by multiplying the molecular weight ratios
and the carbon content of the fuel and are included within equations 4 and 5:
Gasoline:
CO2 Emission Factor=8.88( kgCO2
gal )=2,421( g Cgal )× 44
12 (CO2
C )×0.001( kgg )
Diesel:
CO2 Emission Factor=10.19( kgCO2
gal )=2,778( gCgal )× 44
12 ( CO2
C )×0.001( kgg )
The results are essentially the same; however the Protocol makes no mention of molecular
weight ratios.
3.2.1.3 Natural Gas Usage
Buildings and other facilities include stationary and fugitive emissions as well as Scope 2
emissions. The CO2e associated with CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from stationary combustion
of natural gas were calculated using Equations 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Facilities analyzed in this
study are listed in Table 3 and activity data for natural gas consumption is totaled for facilities
(combining values from CCAO bulk gas and Columbia Gas suppliers) in Table 4, for pump
stations in Table 5, and for the Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Plant in Table 7.
Additionally, the activity data is provided in detail in Appendix D, Figures D.2, D.3, and D.7.
MT C O2 ( MT C O2 e )=Natural gasusage ×Em ission factor ( KgC O2
CCF )1000 Kg
MT
×GWP (6 )
Where :Natural gas usage=Annual natural gas usage(total for all buildings)(CCF )
Emissio n factor=0.0545KgC O2
CCF¿Table A .1∈ Appendix A
20
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
GWP=global warming potential factor (1)
MT C H4 ( MT C O2e )=Natural ga susage ×Emissionfactor ( Kg C H4
CCF )1000 Kg
MT
×GWP(7)
Where : Natural gas usage=Annual natural gas usage(total for all buildings)(CCF )
Emission factor=0.001Kg C H 4
CCF¿Table A .2∈ Appendix A
GWP=global warming potential factor (21)
MT N 2O ( MT C O2 e )=Natural gasusage×Emission factor ( Kg N2 O
CCF )1000 Kg
MT
×GWP (8)
Where :Natural gas usage=Annual natural gas usage(total for all buildings )(CCF)
Emission factor=0.0001Kg N2 O
CCF¿Table A .2∈ Appendix
GWP=global warming potential factor (310)
3.2.2 Scope 2 Emissions
Scope 2 emissions involve those emissions which are indirectly produced, including purchased
electricity, steam, heating, and cooling. For Lucas County, this included electricity for facilities,
traffic signals, pump stations, and wastewater treatment facilities.
21
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
3.2.2.1 Facilities
Lucas County owns several buildings that are associated with Scope 2 emissions. Buildings
owned and maintained by Lucas County included office space, courts, prisons, administrative
spaces, etc. Raw data for buildings was obtained from 2005 to 2009. This data included
monthly electrical consumption, water consumption, and natural gas consumption. A detailed
list of buildings included in our analysis is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: List of Buildings
Adult Probation Dog Warden Maumee River Waste Water Treatment
Alcohol & Drug et al Educational Services Center
One Government Center
Appeals Court, 6th District Emergency Services Public LibraryArea Office on Aging EMS Annex Rec Center / Public
Service DeptBoard of Mental Health Facilities/Board of
ElectionsRoad Maintenance
Community Development Center
Family Court Center Sanitary Engineer
Coolie Canal Health Department Solid WasteCoroner Humane Society THE SOURCECorrections Center Job and Family Services Vehicle MaintenanceCourt House Juvenile Justice Center Work Release/ Centralized
Drug TestingCourt of Appeals (old Sheriff Residence)
Margaret Hunt Senior Center
Youth Treatment Center
Methods used to quantify emissions required activity data and emissions factors. Activity data
obtained by Lucas County included metered monthly energy consumption by unit and annual
vehicle mileage by vehicle type. Activity data along with emissions factors for each activity type
were multiplied to determine the relative emissions. Emissions factors used in this report were
adapted from the Local Governments Operations Protocol, 2010 and were determined by means
22
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
of direct measurement, laboratory analysis or calculations based on representative heat or carbon
content. The activity data is summarized below in Table 3. Additionally, the activity data is
provided in detail in Appendix D, and the limitations of the data is detailed in Appendix E.
Table 4: Facilities Activity Data
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Natural Gas Usage (ccf) 1,123,934 454,221 825,748 682,819 1,461,986
Electrical Usage (kwh)26,954,14
8 28,255,43928,088,01
6 26,827,599 28,157,006Methods used to quantify emissions required activity data and emissions factors. Activity data
obtained by Lucas County included metered monthly energy consumption by unit and annual
vehicle mileage by vehicle type. Activity data along with emissions factors for each activity type
were multiplied to determine the relative emissions. Emissions factors used in this report were
adapted from the Local Governments Operations Protocol, 2010 and were determined by means
of direct measurement, laboratory analysis or calculations based on representative heat or carbon
content. The activity data is summarized below in Table 3. Additionally, the activity data is
provided in detail in Appendix D, and the limitations of the data is detailed in Appendix E.
Table 5: Pump Station Activity Data
Year 2005
200
6 2007 2008 2009
Natural Gas Usage N/A N/A N/A 5,857 6,678
Electrical Usage N/A N/A N/A 4,622,927 4,505,524
3.2.2.2 Traffic Signals
Activity data for the traffic signals owned by Lucas County was obtained for 54 locations. This
data is presented below in Table 5. The noticeable difference in total annual energy consumed
23
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
may result from an incomplete data set which was transferred by our team from copies of
invoices to our excel spreadsheet, and the complete annual energy activity data for traffic signals
for the 54 sites can be found in Appendix D, Figure D.6.
Table 6: Traffic Signal Activity Data
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Energy (kWh) 63,804 230,170 236,355 158,641 268,862
3.2.2.3 Wastewater Facilities
As outlined in the Scope 1 Wastewater Treatment section above, the Maumee River Wastewater
Treatment Plant can now treat 22.5 MGD and serves a population of 80,500 people.
Additionally, the activity data for the MRWWTP is summarized below in Table 6.
Table 7: Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Plant Activity Data
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Energy Consumption (kwh) 8,681,140 7,505,985 6,489,343 6,244,273 6,194,061 6,253,248Gas Consumption (Mcf of NG) 7,802 14,237 5,747 5,064 5,506 5,278
3.2.2.4 Scope 2 Emissions Calculations
Local governments have indirect emissions associated with the purchase and use of electricity.
The generation of electricity through the combustion of fossil fuels typically yields CO2, and
small amounts of N2O and CH4. Emissions based on electricity consumption were determined by
multiplying activity data by an emissions factor and a global warming potential factor. For our
analysis, the emission factor value from Toledo Edison were used to calculate CO2 emissions and
values from eGRID were used to calculate N2O and CH4 emissions. To determine the eGRID
24
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
emission factors, we first determined the. sub region including Lucas County fromFigureFigure
A.1 in the appendix and subsequently selected the corresponding emissions factors from Table
A.3 in Appendix Aappendix. Equations 9 to 11 were used to determine the CO2e for electricity
consumption associated with the County’s buildings. At the time this report was completed only
the emission factor value for CO2 was available from Toledo Edison; these emission factors are
summarized for comparison in Table 8.
Table 8: Emission Factors from Toledo Edison vs. eGrid
Emission Factor for CO2 (lbs/mwh)
Emission Factor for N2O (lbs/mwh)
Emission Factor for CH4 (lbs/mwh)
Toledo Edison 1265 N/A N/AeGRID 1537.82 0.0182 0.0257
MT C O2 ( MT C O2 e)=Electrical usage ( MWh )× emissionsfactor × 1 MT2205lbs
× GWP(9)
Where : Electrical usage=Annualelectricity consumption(MWh )
Emissions factor=1265lbsC O 2
MWh
GWP=gl obal warming potential factor (1)
MT C H4 ( MT C O2e )=Electricalusage ( MWh) × emissionsfactor × 1 MT2205 lbs
×GWP(10)
Where : Electrical usage=Annuale lectricity consumption(MWh)
Emissions factor=0.0182lbsC H4
MWh
GWP=global warming potential factor (21)
MT N 2O ( MT C O2 e )=Electrical usage (MWh ) ×emissionsfactor × 1 MT2205 lbs
×GWP(11)
25
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Where : Electrical usage=Annualelectricity consumption(MWh)
Emissions factor=0.0257 lbsN2OMWh
GWP=global warming potential factor (310)
3.2.3 Scope 3 Emissions
Scope 3 emissions involve those emissions which are generated by government operations,
employee commuting, and employee business travel. For Lucas County, this primarily involves
employee commuting and business travel. Due to the blending of many jobs between state and
county officials, the number of employees working for the County, the lack of data on employee
commuting times and vehicles - these emissions are indeterminable. Therefore for the purposes
of this report Scope 3 emissions will not be calculated.
3.2.4 Biogenic Emissions
Biogenic emissions from combustion involves the use combustion of biogenic carbon fuels
(CO2) other than fossil fuels such as waste products. Because Lucas County does not own and
operate any landfills, biogenic emissions are not being considered in our analysis. Additionally,
the waste products produced in the wastewater treatment process are CH4 and N2O and therefore
are considered Scope 1 emissions in nature.
4.0 Results and Discussion
Based on our calculations, we determined the total MT CO2e for each sector type. It can be seen
in Figure 3 that facilities contribute more emissions than all other sector types. Annual
emissions for each Scope can be found in Appendix F. Figure F.1 applies to Scope 1 emissions
26
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
and Figure F.2 applies to Scope 2 emissions. Additionally, emissions are broken down by Scope
and type for the year 2009 in this discussion.
Figure 3: Annual emissions by sector type
4.1 Scope 1 Emissions
Scope 1 emissions involved process emissions from the Maumee River Waste Water Treatment
Plant, emissions from fleet vehicles, and emissions from natural gas used within county
buildings. Scope 1 emissions for 2009 totaled 11,539 MT CO2e. Figure 4 shows the breakdown
by contributor percentage, with facility natural gas consumption contributing the most emissions
to Scope 1.
27
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure 4: Scope 1 Emissions for 2009
4.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility
CO2e was calculated for the Lucas County Maumee River Wastewater Treatment plant for the
year 2009. The total annual MT CO2e includes CH4 emissions from the incomplete combustion
of digester gas, N2O emissions from wastewater treatment not including nitrification and de-
nitrification, and N2O emissions from the effluent discharge to receiving aquatic environments.
Emissions and relative contributions from each gas are shown in Figure 5. The total emissions
from wastewater treatment at the MRWWTP in 2009 were 1,695 MT CO2e. Emissions from
effluent discharge account for 91% of the entire emissions from wastewater treatment. The
discharge contains nitrogen which poses environmental concerns to receiving waters. The
nitrogen within the effluent can contribute to eutrophic lakes and dead zones through algal
bloom-induced hypoxia.
28
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure 5: Annual CO2e emissions for 2009 at the MRWWTP
Lucas County has started making its wastewater treatment facility more environmentally
friendly. The primary sludge from the East and West plants are pumped to one of three primary
anaerobic digesters for stabilization. The sludge is then transferred to a secondary digester. The
methane gas which is produced during the anaerobic digestion process is recovered and used to
run generators at the plant which produce electricity to power hot water for the digester and
cogeneration complex. Reductions in emissions due to the capture of methane were not
considered in this report because the Local Government Operations Protocol does not provide
methods to analyze such data.
Additional steps can be taken to reduce the emissions from wastewater treatment. If the county
were to implement nitrification/denitrification processes, the process emissions would be
reduced. Another method to reduce emissions would be to generate energy from direct recovery
of waste by incineration. Beyond the wastewater treatment facility, the county as a whole can
help to reduce emissions from wastewater treatment at the MRWWTP by reducing loading.
High efficiency toilets, composting toilets, and low-flow showerheads and faucets would help to
29
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
reduce loading at the facility. Use of gray water for purposes throughout a residence or building
can also significantly reduce the amount of wastewater sent to the treatment facility.
4.1.2 Vehicle Fleet
Vehicle emissions were calculated for the 181 gasoline and diesel powered vehicles maintained
by Lucas County. The majority of these vehicles are used by 12 County offices – with the
primary users being the Lucas County Sheriff, Engineer’s Office, Sanitary Engineer’s Office,
and Facilities. During our inventory of general fund County vehicles, we calculated a mean
miles per gallon (mpg) rating of 15 city and 21 highway (Appendix D, Figure D.8). In addition,
approximately 26% of general fund vehicles were found to be 10 years or older and may require
replacement in the near future.
Our most comprehensive fuel and diesel consumption dataset was for the year 2009, where
97,688 gallons of gasoline and 93,774 gallons of diesel were consumed. These totals resulted in
1868 MT CO2e emitted for 2009.
The following measures should be considered to reduce vehicle emissions:
1. Vehicle fuel economy and emission ratings should be included in specifications for
procurement of vehicles. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The new
standards apply to new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The EPA GHG standards require these
vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon
dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg).
30
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
2. Retrofit engines with pollution control devices. “Retrofit device” means any component that
is designed to be installed in or on an automobile (as an addition to, as a replacement for, or
through alteration or modification of, any original component, equipment, or other device);
and that any manufacturer, dealer, or distributor of the device represents will provide higher
fuel economy than would have resulted with the automobile as originally equipped, as
determined by EPA regulations.
3. Over the past several years, EPA has evaluated anti idle technologies/devices as part of
grants, cooperative agreements, emissions testing, engineering analyses, modeling,
demonstration projects and external peer reviewed reports to study the effects of idling on air
quality, fuel consumption and driver health. Based on this evaluation and research, EPA has
determined that a variety of idle reduction technologies save fuel and reduce emissions when
compared to idling the main engine. Anti-idle technology allows engine operators to refrain
from long-duration idling of the main propulsion engine by using an alternative technology.
An idle reduction technology is generally defined as the installation of a technology or device
that:
is installed on a vehicle (e.g., bus, truck, locomotive, automobile, marine vessel,
equipment, etc.) or at a location, and
reduces unnecessary main engine idling of the vehicle or equipment, and/or
is designed to provide services (e.g., heat, air conditioning, and/or electricity) to the
vehicle or equipment that would otherwise require the operation of the main drive engine
while the vehicle or equipment is temporarily parked or remains stationary.
4.1.3 Natural Gas
31
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
In 2009, the total emissions from natural gas usage in county facilities was 7,976 MT CO2e.
Natural gas was the largest contributor of Scope 1 emissions at 69% (Figure 4). Among County
managed facilities, the Corrections Center, Juvenile Justice Center, Lucas County Work Release
Center, and Rec Center had the highest emissions in 2009. These four locations accounted for
47% of the total natural gas emissions of all County facilities.
Natural gas emissions were found to be approximately one-third of electricity related emissions
(Section 4.2.1). This is likely due to both building infrastructure as well as cleaner emissions
associated with natural gas combustion.
The following measures should be considered to reduce natural gas consumption:
1. For individual facilities, energy audits should be performed to determine the most
effective natural gas reduction measures.
2. Programmable thermostats can be installed to reduce consumption when buildings are not
occupied.
4.2 Scope 2 Emissions
Scope 2 emissions involving facilities and traffic signals total 18,862 MT CO2e for the year
2009. Figure 6 shows the breakdown by percentage of the contributors, with facility purchased
electricity contributing the most emissions for Scope 2 in 2009.
32
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure 6: Scope 2 Emissions for 2009
4.2.1 Facilities
In 2009, energy consumption for facilities due to electricity use resulted in approximately 18,862
MT CO2e.
Initiatives currently underway to reduce emissions for facilities include:
A facility wide real-time facility control system that is projected to reduce energy use by
15 to 20 percent.
Boiler improvements at 701 Adams to increase energy efficiency.
Figure 7 displays the energy usage from the US Department of Energy “Buildings Energy Data
Book.” Disregarding the emissions which fall under Scope 1 (e.g. natural gas), the primary
sources of energy usage within buildings are lighting, space cooling, electronics, ventilation,
refrigeration, and computers.
33
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure 7: Energy usage from the US Department of Energy “Buildings Energy Data Book
Several steps can be taken to reduce emissions from lighting, space cooling, electronics,
ventilation, refrigeration, and computers used within facilities. The following measures should
be considered to reduce electrical consumption:
1. For individual facilities, energy audits should be performed to determine the most
effective electricity reduction measures.
2. Occupancy sensors and/or daylight sensors should be installed to reduce lighting time.
3. Retrofit lighting with more efficient technology when applicable and feasible.
4. A purchasing policy should be instituted to ensure new appliances and office equipment is
Energy Star rated, including copiers and fax machines, printers, monitors, and refrigerators.
5. Institute a network wide program (such as Nightwatchman) that automatically puts
computers to sleep when not in use.
4.2.2 Traffic Signals
In 2009, energy consumption for traffic signals resulted in approximately 190 MT CO2e.
34
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
To reduce energy consumption and costs, in 2003 Lucas County replaced all traffic signals with
LED bulbs. This retrofit reduced energy use by 80% per signal. Lucas County has also
constructed two roundabouts and has several more in the planning stages.
At this time, Lucas County appears to be utilizing the most modern, energy efficient technology
for its traffic signals.
4.3 Projections
The total carbon footprint for Lucas County is shown from 2005 to 2009 in Figure 3.
Contributions from each sector (vehicle fleet, buildings, wastewater treatment etc.) have been
shown in order to determine which sectors contributed the greatest to the overall carbon
footprint. Alternatively, the carbon footprint resulting from Scope 1 and Scope 2 are shown in
Figure 8.
Figure 8: Annual emissions broken out into Scope 1 and 2 contributions
35
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
It can be seen from Figure 8 that the primary contributor to the carbon footprint for Lucas
County results from Scope 2 emissions. Additionally, Scope 2 emissions appear to have an
upward trend from 2005 to 2009 whereas Scope 1 emissions appear to be relatively steady over
the same time period. This is due to the increase in purchased electricity within facilities and
from traffic signals. The increase is also due to voids in data. For example, pump station data
was provided for 2007-2009 and does not include 2005 and 2006. From this observation over
the past, we can assume a projection of five years by creating a trend line of the data assuming
continued practices within facilities and for traffic signals without taking measures to reduce the
carbon footprint. This trend can be observed in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Projections for Scope 2 emissions over the years 2010 to 2014
4.4 Putting Emissions into Perspective
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website provides greenhouse gas equivalencies
calculator (Figure 10). This calculator basically provides the quantity of equivalent CO2
emissions from various products. It’s a simpler way to understand greenhouse gas emissions
36
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
which helps us to focus on reduction targets and other initiatives aimed at greenhouse gas
emissions.
There are two options for entering reduction data into this calculator:
Option 1: Data in units of "gallons of gasoline consumed," or "kilowatt-hours of
electricity” etc.
Option 2: Estimated quantity of emissions (e.g., metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent).
Figure 10: Greenhouse Gas Equivalence Calculator (Source: EPA)
This report estimates quantity of emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The
annual emissions from Lucas County operations in 2009 were 30,556 MT CO2e. In order to
understand the significance of this value, the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalence Calculator was
37
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
used to compare this number to easily comprehendible items. The comparison of 30,556 MT
CO2e to other items is as follows:
Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 5,813 passenger vehicles
CO2 emissions from 3,419,573 gallons of gasoline consumed
CO2 emissions from 70,698 barrels of oil consumed
CO2 emissions from 406 tanker trucks of gasoline
CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 2,587 homes for one year
Carbon sequestered by 779,487 tree seedings grown for ten years
Carbon sequestered annually by 6,842 acres of pine or fir forest
Carbon sequestered annually by 288 acres of forest preserved from deforestation
CO2 emissions from 1,266,667 propane cylinders used for home barbeques
CO2 emissions from burning 159 railcars worth of coal
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling 10,236 tons of waste instead of sending it to the land fill.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Annual greenhouse gas emissions for Lucas County show a slight increasing trend from the years
2005 to 2009. The annual energy usage for Lucas County operations for the year 2009 was 290
TJ. The annual greenhouse gas emissions for 2009 summed to 30,556 MT CO2e. The majority
(72%) of the emissions resulted from energy usage within facilities. The second largest
contributor is the wastewater treatment facility which accounts for 21% of Lucas County’s 2009
emissions. The majority of emissions from the MRWWTP are attributed to energy usage within
the facility. Vehicle fuel results in 6% of emissions and Traffic signals comprise 1% of the total
emissions.
38
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Without reduction initiatives, the current trend will remain and emissions will continue to
increase for years to come. Now that the baseline inventory and climate impact assessment has
been completed, the county should take every effort to complete the process of reducing
emissions. By setting targets, a climate and energy reduction plan can be compiled. Once
implemented, the plan should be monitored continuously to assure that reduction goals are being
met. It is important that Lucas County keeps an accurate and up to date inventory of all aspects
pertaining to greenhouse gas inventory analysis. By appointing an energy coordinator to compile
and organize all data, maintaining greenhouse gas inventories would be easily attainable.
Reduction initiatives should focus on areas which emit the most greenhouse gases. The majority
of the emissions from Lucas County operations are attributed to energy consumption within
facilities. Several methods could be taken to reduce energy consumption within buildings. A
simple and affordable step would be to replace all existing lighting with energy efficient lighting
which has been shown to reduce electricity consumption by up to 75%. Heat gain results would
also be reduced with more efficient lighting which reduces cooling requirements and thus
reduces energy from cooling. Other methods to reduce energy consumption in buildings include
installing occupancy sensors, using programmable thermostats and replacing standard office
equipment with energy star rated equipment. An energy audit should be performed in county
facilities to determine which items should be upgraded. Further reduction methods are listed in
section 4 of this report. They have been compiled for Lucas County to use as starting point to
compile an emissions reduction plan.
39
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
References
1. “Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.” Accessed
10/18/2010. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm.
2. “Early Action Plan for Charleston County List of Emission Reduction Strategies.” Accessed
11/28/2010. http://www.bcdcog.com/files/charleston_strategies.pdf.
3. Energy Star. “Energy Star: Home.” Accessed 11/14/2010.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide
EmissionsResulting from Gasoline and DieselFuel.” Accessed 11/28/2010.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.pdf.
5. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic sNational Program
to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks.” Accessed
11/28/2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf.
6. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device
Evaluation Program.” Accessed 11/28/2010. http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/b00003.pdf
7. EPA Greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator. Accessed 12/3/2010.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
8. “File:Map of Ohio highlighting Lucas County.svg.” Accessed 11/28/2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ohio_highlighting_Lucas_County.svg.
9. Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse
gas emissions inventories, Version 1.1, May 2010.
10. “Lucas County, Ohio Adopted Plan and Budget.” Accessed 10/18/2010.
http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/documents/Management%20and%20Budget/Budget/Budget
%20Document%202010.PDF .
11. Midwest Weekly Retail Gasoline Prices. Accessed 10/18/2010.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/pswrgvwrmw.xls.
12. Ohio Deparment of Development (ODOD). (2010). Ohio County Profiles [Fact sheet].
Accessed 9/21/2010. http://development.ohio.gov/research/files/s0/Lucas.pdf.
13. The United States Conference Of Mayors. “Energy And Environment Best Practices Guide.”
Accessed 11/15/2010. http://usmayors.org/uscm/best_practices/EandEBP07.pdf.
40
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
14. US Department of Energy. “Buildings Energy Data Book.” Accessed 11/30/2010.
http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs%5CDataBooks%5C2009_BEDB_Updated.pdf
41
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Appendix A: Emission Factors
Table A.1: Emission Factors for CO2
Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (Page 202)
42
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Table A.2: Emission Factors for CH4 and N2O
Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (Page 205)
Figure A.1: eGRID Sub Regions (2006 and 2007)
Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (Page 210)
43
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Table A.3:eGRID 2007 Electricity Emission Factors by Sub Region
Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (Page 211)
Subregion Subregion Name (lbs CO2/MWh)
(lbs CH4/MWh)
(lbs N2O/MWh)
AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid 1,232.36 0.0256 0.0065
AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous 498.86 0.0208 0.0041
AZNM WECC Southwest 1,311.05 0.0175 0.0179
CAMX WECC California See Table G.7
ERCT ERCOT All 1,324.35 0.0187 0.0151
FRCC FRCC All 1,318.57 0.0459 0.0169
HIMS HICC Miscellaneous 1,514.92 0.3147 0.0469
HIOA HICC Oahu 1,811.98 0.1095 0.0236
MROE MRO East 1,834.72 0.0276 0.0304
MROW MRO West 1,821.84 0.028 0.0307
NEWE NPCC New England 927.68 0.0865 0.017
NWPP WECC Northwest 902.24 0.0191 0.0149
NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester 815.45 0.036 0.0055
NYLI NPCC Long Island 1,536.80 0.1154 0.0181
NYUP NPCC Upstate NY 720.8 0.0248 0.0112
RFCE RFC East 1,139.07 0.0303 0.0187
RFCM RFC Michigan 1,563.28 0.0339 0.0272
RFCW RFC West 1,537.82 0.0182 0.0257
RMPA WECC Rockies 1,883.08 0.0229 0.0288
SPNO SPP North 1,960.94 0.0238 0.0321
SPSO SPP South 1,658.14 0.025 0.0226
SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley 1,019.74 0.0243 0.0117
SRMW SERC Midwest 1,830.51 0.0212 0.0305
SRSO SERC South 1,489.54 0.0263 0.0255
SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley 1,510.44 0.0201 0.0256
SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina 1,134.88 0.0238 0.0198
Source: U.S. EPA eGRID2007 Version 1.1 (2005 data: eGRID subregion annual CO2 output emission rate). Except * from Department of Energy guidance on Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Factors do not include emissions from transmission and distribution losses.
44
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Appendix B: Team Member Responsibilities
Katherine Chulski: She acted as Project Manager and primary technical communicator. Kate
was well organized and is capable of keeping team efforts on task during team meetings and
discussions. She was also proficient with technical writing.
Gregory Denman: He obtained information regarding county operated fleet vehicles and
associated fuel purchasing records. Greg then used this information to determine approximate
annual diesel and gasoline consumption.
Jeff Grabarkiewicz: He acted as our primary point of contact and liaison between our team and
city and county representatives. Jeff also served in other capacities as needed, as he has worked
as a contract technical writer and editor.
Praneeth Nimmatoori: He performed the data analyses. Additionally Praneeth acted as our
technology guru by coordinating the table of contents in our final report.
Hannah West: She also be performed the data analyses. Hannah was also adept at creating
informational figures and tables relaying the data for our final report and presentation.
All team members were responsible for their own duties defined here, as well as updating and
maintaining our Wikispaces website (http://lucascountycarbonfootprint.wikispaces.com/) as
appropriate.
45
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Appendix C: Project Schedule
As outlined in the Phase 0 PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Apul, our project schedule met the
following deadlines shown in Table C.1 below.
Table C.1: Project Schedule.
Phase 0 September 14 Project launchedPhase 1 September 21 Project Progress Report (Initial Draft)
Phase 2 October 17 Preliminary version of final reportOctober 18 Preliminary version of final presentation
Phase 3November 30 Mock grading of final reportDecember 6 Final presentationDecember 13 Final report
Ongoing Project journal posted online at Wikispaces
46
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Appendix D: Raw Data
Figure D.1: Vehicle Fleet Data
47
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure D.2: Natural Gas Usage Data – Columbia Gas
Figure D.3: Natural Gas Usage Data –CCAO (Bulk Gas)
48
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure D.4: Facility Energy Usage Data – Toledo Edison
Figure D.5: Facility Energy Usage Data – Department of Public Utilities (Water)
49
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure D.6: Traffic Signal Data
50
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure D.7: Pump Station Data
51
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Figure D.8: General Fund County Vehicles with City and Highway MPG
52
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Appendix E: Facility Data Limitations
Building Data included within other buildings:
711 Adams, Annex/Garage; and 705 Adams, CSB included in 701 Adams building
564 Southard, Board of Elections (BOE)/Facilities included in 1819 Canton building
1115 S McCord, Building Regulations included in 1111 McCord building
905 Jackson, Law Library included in 429 Family Court building
Leased with utilities included:
4456 Heatherdowns, Auto Title - 1600 Madison Ave.
1600 Madison, Auto Title - 3034 Navarre Ave.
3034 Navarre, Auto Title - 4900 North Mccord Rd.
Outliers:
Agriculture Society/Fair Board only briefly under operational control of County
5403 Elmer, Botanical Gardens not under control of County
130 W Dudley, Soil and Water Conservation not under control of County
No Data for:
2001 Collingwood – Board of Mental Health
2595/3000 Arlington – Coroner
2275 Collingwood – Educational Services Center
635 N Erie – Health Department
1920 Indian Wood Circle – Humane Society
425 Michigan – Public Library
53
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
Appendix F: Annual Emissions Graphs
Figure F.1: Scope 1 Emissions from 2005 to 2009
Figure F.2: Scope 2 Emissions from 2005 to 2009
54
Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report
55