transition to carbon reduction campus carbon and ab32
DESCRIPTION
Transition to Carbon Reduction Campus Carbon and AB32. Lecture 8 EECE 449/549. Main Components of WU Carbon Emissions: On Campus Energy Use in Buildings and Transportation. On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact. Heating. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Transition to Carbon ReductionCampus Carbon and AB32
Lecture 8
EECE 449/549
Main Components of WU Carbon Emissions: On Campus Energy Use in Buildings and Transportation
The impact on carbon arises from on-campus energy use and from transportation
On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact
Students
Heating
Cooling
Appliances
Faculty/Staff
Transportation Carbon Impact
Commuting
Air Travel
University Fleet
Linear Causality Model for Campus Carbon Emissions
• The carbon impact of on-campus energy is due to direct fuel consumption and indirectly from electricity use
• The overall carbon impact for on campus energy consumption has increased 50% from 1990-2007
• Electricity use contributed about 80 percent to the on-campus carbon impact
PopulationStudents
Activities $ Expend./yr
Buildings Sq. Ft
Fuel Cons. BTU/yr
C Emission Ton C/yr
Fuel Cons.BTU/yr
C EmissionTon C/yr
Electr. ConsKw-Hr/yr
$/Student Sq. Ft./$ BTU/Sq.Ft.
Kw-hr/Sq.Ft.
BTU/Kw-hr Carbon/BTU
Carbon/BTU
Carbon Emission due to On Campus Energy Use,Danforth Campus 1990-2007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Year
C T
onne
s (t
hous
ands
)
50% Increase
Electricity
Fuel Cons.
Causality Drivers for Carbon Emission due to All Energy Use on Danforth Campus
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year
Rat
io to
199
0
Emission
$/Student
# Students
$/Sq.Ft
Energy/Sq.Ft.
Energy
Carbon
SqFt
Energy
Expen
FtSq
Student
ExpenStudentsEmission
$
$#
• The student population increased only by 10% since 1990
• However, the expenditures/student have increased by 60 percent
• The buildings/expenditure has barely changed and the increased expenditures were matched by 60% growth in campus building area
• Neither the energy use/sq ft nor the C emission/energy use has changed much
• Hence, the key driver for the 60% carbon emission growth were the increased expenditures (prosperity) and the associated growth in the physical campus expansion.
Change in Causality Drivers from 1990-2005 for On Campus Energy Consumption
Students
$ per student
Sq.ft per $
Energy per Sq. Ft.
Carbon Emission- Buildings
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% C
han
ge
1990
-200
5
Students $ per student Sq.ft per $ Energy per Sq. Ft. Carbon Emission- Buildings
Washington University Transportation Emission
• Incomplete analysis – More work needed
Next Steps for Campus Carbon Project
• Stationary source forecasting the transition to sustainability
• Verification and improvement of transportation inventory – Researching transportation inventory methods– Additional data gathering
• Transportation forecast to transition toward sustainability
Connection between AB 32 and Campus Carbon
• AB 32 is a goal (compass) to transition – GHG should be at1990 levels by 2020
• With it came a scoping plan for how CA could implement the required reductions
• We can study the scope plan and apply it to Wash. U.’s carbon emissions. – AB32 looks to link with national efforts, but it is calling all
citizens to make changes.
Introduction to AB 32
• Law passed in 2006, marks turning point that BAU is not acceptable– States that by 2020 CA should reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels
• Used as a method to mitigate global warming
• Designed to allow CA to flourish while reducing GHG emissions
• This is not the only process we’ll look at.
What lead to AB 32?• 1988 – AB 4420 directed CA Energy Commission (CEC) to study global warming
impacts and develop an inventory of GHG emission sources
• 2000 – SB 1771 established the CA Climate Action Registry for voluntary GHG emission reporting
• 2002 – AB 1493 required CA Air Resource Board (ARB) to reduce GHG emissions from passenger cars and light trucks
• 2005 – Gov. Schwarzenegger signed Exec. Order to reduce CA GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and further reduce emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
• 2006 – SB 1368 created GHG performace standards for new long-term investments in base-load electricity.
• 2006 – AB 32 created the law that requires CA emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
AB 32 TimelineAB 32 Timeline
20202007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GHG reduction
measures enforceable
Adopt GHG reduction measures
Publish list of early actions
Adopt scoping plan by 1/1/09
Mandatory reporting &
1990 Baseline
Adopt enforceable early action regulations
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
Identification/ implementation
of further emission reduction strategies
Early action regulations enforceable
Kathleen Mead
11
Proposed Scoping PlanProposed Scoping Plan
• Describes how California will reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
• Identifies measures to achieve GHG reductions
• Addresses individuals, individual sectors, State government and local government
• Combines Early Actions, CAT efforts, voluntary reductions, market-based regulatory approaches, other regulations
• Evaluates economic and public health impacts
Kathleen Mead
Proposed Scoping PlanCap and Trade Program
• Links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create regional market system
• Majority of reductions from capped sources• Offsets must be real, additional, quantifiable and
enforceable– No geographic limits
• 100% auction of allowances is worthwhile goal, but careful consideration needed.
Kathleen Mead
Proposed Scoping PlanNew Regulations and Policies
• Land-use and community design to increase walking, biking and transit options
• High global warming potential gases
• Oil and gas industry/refinery measures
• Medium and heavy-duty vehicle regulations
Kathleen Mead
Sector-Based MeasuresCapped Sectors
• Transportation– Pavley I and II, Low carbon fuel standard, Regional
transportation-related targets, Light, medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency, High speed rail
• Electricity/Energy– Energy efficiency, 33 percent renewables, Million
solar roofs
Kathleen Mead
California 2020 GHG Emissions and Recommended Reduction Measures
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Business-as-Usual Scoping Plan
Transportation
Recycling & waste
Industry
Natural gas
Electricity
Agriculture
High GWP
Recycling & waste
Capped sectors
Agriculture
High GWPReductions from capped sectors:
Total reductions of 146.7 MMT(including 112.3 MMT
from specified measures): Pavley standards: 31.7 MMTEnergy efficiency: 26.3 MMT33% RPS: 21.3 MMTLCFS: 15.0 MMTRegional targets: 5.0 MMTVehicle efficiency: 4.5 MMTGoods movement: 3.7 MMTMillion solar roofs: 2.1 MMTHeavy/medium veh: 1.4 MMTIndustrial measures: 0.3 MMTHigh speed rail: 1.0 MMT
Reductions from uncapped sectors: Total reductions of 27.3 MMT
Industrial measures: 1.1 MMTHigh GWP measures: 20.2 MMTRecycling & waste: 1.0 MMTSustainable forests: 5.0 MMT
Reduction Measures
Total Emissions 422 MMTCO2E
Cap is set at 365 MMT
Total Emissions: 596 MMTCO2E
MMTCO2E
Kathleen Mead
References
• AB32 Legislation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20081201_introduced.pdf
• AB32 Scoping Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf
• Kathleen Mead, Presentation Nov. 6, 2008http://www.caltransit.org/files/resources/AB%2032-Mead.ppt