HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-1, Attachment 1 2012_GHG_Report_FINALAttachment 1
r
SIERRA
rar�srr:fuur
BUSINESS CNCIL
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
2012 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Re -Inventory
Final Report
Prepared by Sierra Business Council
Paul Ahrns, Lead Author
Emma Ingebretsen, Project Manager
Nicholas Martin, Program Director
Prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District
July, 2013
Attachment 1
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by the Sierra
Business Council. The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their input:
Kathy Neus, Technical Programs Administrator, Truckee Donner PUD
Stephen Hollabaugh, P.E., Assistant General Manager, Truckee Donner PUD
Attachment 1
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.........................................................................1
1.1 Overall Emissions Summary and Comparison..................................................................... 1
1.2 Electric Department Emissions............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Water Department Emissions................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Power Deliveries Emissions.................................................................................................. 4
2
Introduction......................................................................................
6
2.1 Project Background and Purpose......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Climate Science Background................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Relevant California Policy...................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1 State Emissions Reduction Targets...................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act.....................................................................................
7
3
Inventory Methodology...................................................................
8
3.1 Overview................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Protocols and Tools Used..................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 The Climate Registry............................................................................................................
8
3.2.2 General Reporting Protocol.................................................................................................. 8
3.2.3 Electric Power Sector Protocol.............................................................................................. 9
3.2.4 Climate Registry Information System....................................................................................
9
3.3 Inventory Process.................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.1 Establishing a Base Year...................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 Inventory Boundaries............................................................................................................ 9
3.3.3 GHGs Considered..............................................................................................................
10
3.3.4 Scopes Framework.............................................................................................................
10
3.3.5 Simplified Estimation Methods............................................................................................
11
4
2012 Inventory Results..................................................................12
4.1 Overall Emissions Summary...............................................................................................
12
4.2 Electric Department Emissions...........................................................................................
12
4.2.1 Emissions by Source..........................................................................................................
14
4.2.2 District Headquarters Emissions.........................................................................................
16
4.2. 3 Corp Yard Emissions..........................................................................................................
17
4.2.4 Vehicle Fleet Emissions......................................................................................................
17
4.2.5 Local Distribution Losses Emissions...................................................................................
18
4.2.6 Employee Commute Emissions..........................................................................................
18
4.3 Water Department Emissions..............................................................................................
19
4.3.1 Emissions by Source..........................................................................................................
20
4.3.2 District Headquarters Emissions.........................................................................................
21
4.3.3 Water Delivery System Emissions......................................................................................
22
4.3.4 Vehicle Fleet Emissions......................................................................................................
23
Attachment 1
4.3.5 Employee Commute Emissions.......................................................................................... 24
4.4 Power Deliveries Emissions................................................................................................ 24
5 Comparison of 2012 Emissions to 2008 Baseline Emissions ...28
5.1 Actions Contributing to Emissions Reductions................................................................. 28
5.2 Overall Emissions Comparison........................................................................................... 28
5.3 Electric Department Emissions Comparison..................................................................... 29
5.4 Water Department Emissions Comparison........................................................................ 31
5.5 Power Deliveries Emissions Comparison........................................................................... 33
6 Conclusion.....................................................................................35
7 Appendices....................................................................................36
7.1 Appendix A — Entity Summary from CRIS Emissions Detailed Report Export ................. 36
7.2 Appendix B — Buildings and Facilities................................................................................ 40
7.3 Appendix C — Water Delivery Infrastructure....................................................................... 42
7.4 Appendix D — Vehicle Fleet.................................................................................................. 43
7.5 Appendix E — Employee Commute...................................................................................... 45
7.6 Appendix F — Electric Power Sector.................................................................................... 46
Under Separate Cover
Appendix G — Full CRIS Emissions Detailed Report Export
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1-1: Overall Emissions Summary and Comparison................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 1-2: Electric Department Emissions Summary and Comparison...........................................................................................
3
Figure 1-3: Water Department Emissions Summary and Comparison.............................................................................................
4
Table 1-1: 2012 Power Delivery Emissions Summary.......................................................................................................................
4
Figure 1-4: Power Delivery Emissions Summary and Comparison...................................................................................................
5
Table3-1: Greenhouse Gases.........................................................................................................................................................
10
Table 3-2: Simplified Estimation Methods Summary.....................................................................................................................
11
Figure 4-1: 2012 Overall Emissions Summary................................................................................................................................
12
Table 4-1: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by End Use..........................................................................................
13
Figure 4-2: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by End Use.........................................................................................
13
Figure 4-3: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by End Use (Excluding Local Distribution Losses) ..............................
14
Table 4-2: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by Source.............................................................................................
14
Figure 4-4: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by Source...........................................................................................
15
Figure 4-5: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by Source (Excluding Local Distribution Losses) .................................
15
Table 4-3: 2012 Electric Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source.........................................................................
16
Figure 4-6: 2012 Electric Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source........................................................................
16
Table 4-4: 2012 Electric Department Corp Yard Emissions by Source............................................................................................
17
Table 4-5: 2012 Electric Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source........................................................................................
17
Figure 4-7: 2012 Electric Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source......................................................................................
18
Table 4-6: 2012 Electric Department Local Distribution Losses Emissions by Source.....................................................................
18
Table 4-7: 2012 Electric Department Employee Commute Emissions by Source............................................................................
19
Table 4-8: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by End Use............................................................................................
19
Figure 4-8: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by End Use...........................................................................................
20
Table 4-9: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by Source..............................................................................................
20
Figure 4-9: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by Source.............................................................................................
21
Table 4-10: 2012 Water Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source.........................................................................
21
Figure 4-10: 2012 Water Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source........................................................................
22
Table 4-11: 2012 Water Department Water Delivery Emissions by Equipment.............................................................................
22
Figure 4-11: 2012 Water Department Water Delivery Emissions by Equipment...........................................................................
23
Table 4-12: 2012 Water Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source.......................................................................................
23
Figure 4-12: 2012 Water Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source......................................................................................
24
Table 4-13: 2012 Water Department Employee Commute Emissions by Source...........................................................................
24
Table 4-14: 2012 Electric Power Sector Metrics.............................................................................................................................
25
Table 4-15: 2012 Electricity Purchased by Source..........................................................................................................................
26
Figure 4-13: 2012 Electricity Purchased by Generation Facility.....................................................................................................
26
Figure 4-14: 2012 Purchased Electricity COz Emissions by Generation Facility..............................................................................
27
Table 5-1: Overall Emissions Comparison.......................................................................................................................................
29
Figure 5-1: Overall Emissions Comparison.....................................................................................................................................
29
Table 5-2: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by End Use...............................................................................................
30
Figure 5-2: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by End Use..............................................................................................
30
Table 5-3: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by Source..................................................................................................
31
Figure 5-3: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by Source................................................................................................
31
Table 5-4: Water Department Emissions Comparison by End Use.................................................................................................
32
Figure 5-4: Water Department Emissions Comparison by End Use................................................................................................
32
Table 5-5: Water Department Emissions Comparison by Source...................................................................................................
33
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 5-5: Water Department Emissions Comparison by Source..................................................................................................
33
Table 5-6: Power Deliveries COz Emissions Factor Comparison.....................................................................................................
34
Table 5-7: Power Deliveries Emissions Comparison by End Use.....................................................................................................
34
Figure 5-6: Power Deliveries Emissions Comparison by End Use....................................................................................................
34
Table B-1: Buildings and Facilities Data Inputs..............................................................................................................................
40
Table B-2: Refrigerants and Fire Suppression Data Inputs and Emissions Factors.........................................................................
40
Table B-3: Buildings and Facilities Emissions Factors.....................................................................................................................
40
Table C-1: Water Delivery Equipment Data Inputs.........................................................................................................................
42
Table C-2: Water Delivery Equipment Emissions Factors...............................................................................................................
42
Table D-1: Vehicle Fleet Data Inputs..............................................................................................................................................
43
Table D-2: Vehicle Fleet Refrigerants Data Inputs and Emissions Factors.....................................................................................
43
Table D-3: Vehicle Fleet Emissions Factors.....................................................................................................................................
43
Table D-4: Equipment Fleet Emissions Factors...............................................................................................................................
43
Table E-1: Employee Commute Data Inputs...................................................................................................................................
45
Table E-2: Employee Commute Emissions Factors.........................................................................................................................
45
Table F-1: Electric Power Sector Data Inputs.................................................................................................................................
46
Table F-2: Electric Power Sector Emissions Factors........................................................................................................................
46
Table F-3: TDPUD-specific Emissions Factors.................................................................................................................................
46
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
1 Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the 2012 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Re -Inventory for the district
operations and electric power sector activities of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD,
District). Additionally, this report provides a comparison between the 2012 re -inventory and the 2008
Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.I Under contract with the TDPUD, Sierra Business
Council (SBC) conducted all emissions estimations following the Climate Registry's General Reporting
Protocol and Electric Power Sector Protocol.2,3 Additional information on inventory methodology is
included in the Inventory Methodology Section (section 4) and Appendices of this report.
1.1 Overall Emissions Summary and Comparison
Included in this report are estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the following
categories of the TDPUD's activities in 2012:
• Electric Department operations
• Water Department operations
• Electricity purchased and delivered to retail customers
• Bulk transmission losses incurred through the delivery of electricity, by other service providers, to
TDPUD sub -stations
In addition to quantifying emissions from these categories, this report presents a comparison of 2012
emissions with 20o8 baseline emissions.
Key findings of this work include:
• The 2012 CO2 emissions factor for TDPUD power deliveries was 6o6.8 lbs/MWh. This represents
a 57% reduction from the 2oo8 emissions factor. Decreased purchases of coal -generated
electricity, increased purchases of renewable electricity, and increased purchases of RECs all
contributed to the emissions factor reduction. The reduced carbon -intensity of the TDPUD's
delivered and self -consumed electricity contributed significantly to reductions in each emissions
category between 2oo8 and 2012.
• Emissions for all TDPUD activities totaled approximately 43,555 MT CO2e in 2012, a 58%
reduction from 2oo8 emissions levels. As in 2008, the largest source of emissions, by a wide
margin, was Scope 3 electricity delivered to customers.
• Emissions from Electric Department operations totaled approximately 1,784 MT CO2e in 2012, a
68% reduction from 2oo8 emissions levels. As in 2oo8, the largest source of emissions was the
local distribution losses between TDPUD substations and retail customers' meters.
1 2008 Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, prepared by the Sierra Business Council in 2012 and updated in 2013 (available upon
request from Kathy Neus, TDPUD)
2 The General Reporting Protocol, v. 2.0 is available at http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2013/03/TCR_GRP_Version_2.0.pdf
3 The Electric Power Sector Protocol, v. 1.0 is available at http://www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/electric-power-setor-
protocol/
Page 1
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
• Emissions from Water Department operations totaled approximately 2,611 MT CO2e in 2012, a
65% reduction from 2oo8 emissions levels. As in 2oo8, the largest source of emissions was from
electricity consumed within the water delivery system.
• Emissions from electricity delivered to customers and from bulk transmission losses totaled
39,16o MT CO2e, a 58% reduction from 20o8 emissions levels, tracking closely with the emissions
factor reduction. This reduction can be attributed to a 2% reduction in total electricity losses on
the system as well as a 57% reduction in the associated emissions factor due to the actions taken
by the TDPUD to source more renewable, zero -emissions electricity.
Emissions totals for each category in 2012 and 2oo8 are presented in Figure 1-1 below. All emissions
estimations are shown in units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e). Each emissions
category is discussed further in sections 1.2-1.4. Further detail on emissions is provided in sections 4 and
5 of this report.
Figure 1-1: Overall Emissions Summary and Comparison
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
a� 60,000
O
u 50,000
H
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
88,302
7,389 5528
2,611 ,1,784
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
2,621 1,099
Water Department Electric Department Delivered Electricity Bulk Transmission
Subtotal Subtotal Losses
Emissions Category
1.2 Electric Department Emissions
In the 2012 inventory, the emissions from the following categories were attributed to the Electric
Department:
• Line losses incurred during the local distribution of electricity
• Fuel use and leaked refrigerants from the operation of the Electric Department's vehicle and off -
road equipment fleet
• Fuel use, electricity consumption and leaked refrigerants at the District Headquarters (split
50/5o between the electric and water departments)
• Fuel use for the Electric Department employees' commute
• Electricity consumption at the Corp Yard (attributed t00% to Electric Department)
Figure 1-2 displays the total emissions from each end use in 2oo8 and 2012. From 2oo8 to 2012 the
Electric Department experienced reductions in emissions across the board, with an overall emissions
Page 2
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
reduction of 68%. The most significant of these reductions was associated with local distribution losses
which can be attributed to a 2% reduction in total electricity losses on the system as well as a 57%
reduction in the associated emissions factor due to the actions taken by the TDPUD to source more
renewable, zero -emissions electricity. A more detailed discussion of the inventory results can be found in
sections 4 and 5.
Figure 1-2: Electric Department Emissions Summary and Comparison
Corp Yard 13
5
Employee Commute
127
121
v
M District Headquarters
207
c
110 2008 MT CO2e
W
Vehicle Fleet
160 2012 MT CO2e
157
Local Distribution Losses 5,021
1,391
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
MT COZe
1.3 Water Department Emissions
In the 2012 inventory, emissions from the following categories were attributed to the Water Department:
• Electricity consumption and fuel use for the pumping and delivery of drinking water to customers
• Fuel use and leaked refrigerants from the operation of the Water Department's vehicle and off -
road equipment fleet
• Fuel use, electricity consumption and leaked refrigerants at the District Headquarters (split
5O/5o between the electric and water departments)
• Fuel use for the Water Department employees' commute
Figure 1-3 displays the total emissions from each end use in 2Oo8 and 2012. From 2008 to 2012 the
Water Department experienced reductions in emissions in all categories except vehicle fleet where there
was a slight increase in emissions. A more detailed discussion of the inventory results can be found in
sections 4 and 5.
Page 3
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 1-3: Water Department Emissions Summary and Comparison
Other Water Transport
9
Infrastructure
4
Employee Commute
103
94
District Headquarters
207
v
110
w Vehicle Fleet
159
167
Booster Stations
1,096
Wells
1,141 ll
- 1,000 2,000
1.4 Power Deliveries Emissions
2,616
3,000
MT CO2e
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
4,294
4,000 5,000
The Power Deliveries category includes emissions associated with electricity generation and transmission
of power delivered to TDPUD customers. Since the TDPUD does not own or operate any generation
facilities or bulk transmission infrastructure, the emissions from these sources are not a required
reporting metric under the Electric Power Sector Protocol. The TDPUD has chosen to report this data
here in order to appreciate the scale of these emissions and the potential benefit of future conservation
efforts and changes in the carbon -intensity of the electricity they source and deliver to customers.
Table 1-1 below summarizes the electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
electricity consumed by TDPUD's customers and the bulk transmission losses incurred in the delivery of
this electricity to TDPUD substations. This does not include electricity consumed at TDPUD facilities or
local distribution losses.
Table 1-1: 2012 Power Delivery Emissions Summary
Source
Electricity (kWh)
Associated Emissions (MT CO2e)
Bulk Transmission Losses
3,980,387
1,099
Delivered Electricity
137,741,865
38,061
From 2008 to 2012, the TDPUD significantly reduced emissions associated with both bulk transmission
losses and electricity delivered to customers, by 58% and 57% respectively. For bulk transmission losses,
the reduction can be attributed to a 2% reduction in total electricity losses on the system as well as a 57%
reduction in the associated emissions factor due to the actions taken by the TDPUD to source more
renewable, zero -emissions electricity. For electricity delivered to customers, the reduction in emissions
can be attributed exclusively to the reduction in the associated emissions factor, since electricity
Page 4
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
delivered actually increased slightly by 0.3% between 20o8 and 2012. Figure 1-4 highlights the change in
emissions from 2oo8 to 2012. A more detailed discussion of the inventory results can be found in
sections 4 and 5.
Figure 1-4: Power Delivery Emissions Summary and Comparison
Page 5
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
2 Introduction
2.1 Project Background and Purpose
As consumers, government and private industry are placing increasing focus on quantifying and reducing
GHG emissions, the TDPUD has contracted SBC to conduct a re -inventory of emissions produced directly
by TDPUD's operations and indirectly through power delivered to customers in 2012. This report
presents the results of that inventory as well as a comparison of 2012 emissions to the 2008 baseline of
GHG emissions.4 Both inventories provide valuable information that TDPUD staff and leadership can use
to evaluate opportunities, take actions to reduce GHG emissions, monitor progress and ultimately meet
target emissions levels over time.
The TDPUD Electric Department serves approximately 13,00o residential and commercial electric
customers in the Downtown, Gateway, Tahoe Donner, Donner Lake, and Prosser neighborhoods in
Truckee, California, as well as parts of Sierra Meadows, Martis Valley and Glenshire. The District owns
and operates approximately 127 miles of primary overhead and 79 miles of primary underground
electrical distribution circuits.
The TDPUD Water Department provides water service to portions of Truckee, California along with
adjacent portions of unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. The District currently operates
two water systems in the Truckee area, including 16 active wells, 25 pumping stations and 33 active
storage tanks with a total production capacity of potable water of approximately 14 million gallons per
day.
2.2 Climate Science Background
GHGs are gases in the earth's atmosphere that absorb and re -emit infrared radiation that would
otherwise escape into space, and as a result cause the natural phenomenon known as the greenhouse
effect. GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) occur
naturally at a certain concentration, creating the heat -trapping greenhouse effect that makes earth
inhabitable. However, over time, in the industrial era, human activities have been contributing to an
increased level of CO2 and other GHGs, which in turn increases the greenhouse effect. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses scientific, technical and socio-economic
information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for
adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC predicts substantial increases in temperatures globally of between
1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius under a business -as -usual scenario.5 For this reason, increased international,
national and state focus has been placed on reducing human -caused GHG emissions.
4 The 2008 Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, prepared by the Sierra Business Council in 2012 and updated in 2013 (available
upon request from Kathy Neus, TDPUD)
5 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, availabel at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications and data/publications ipcc fourth assessment_ report_ synthesis report.htm
Page 6
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
2.3 Relevant California Policy
California has produced several landmark policies whose purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the state. These policies are driving action at the state level, and recommend that local agencies take
action as well in order to help the state meet its goals. Additionally, new state regulations, effective under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) now require local agencies to consider and potentially
mitigate GHG emissions related to their activity. Two major state laws and their relation to local agencies
are discussed in more detail here.
2.3.1 State Emissions Reduction Targets
California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) in 2006, which charged the California Air
Resources Board (GARB) with implementing a comprehensive statewide program to reduce GHG
emissions. AB 32 established the following GHG emissions reduction targets for the state of California:
• 200o emissions levels by 2010
• 1990 emissions levels by 2020
Executive Order S-3-05 establishes an additional target of 8o% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The AB32 Scoping Plan provides guidance on how local agencies can help the state reach these goals;
specifically the plan suggests that local agencies establish an emissions reduction goal of 15 % below
"current" levels by 2020.6 The District's re -inventory and comparison is intended to enable leadership to
develop effective GHG reduction policies in line with these state goals and programs to meet these targets
and track emissions reduction progress.
2.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act
Perhaps the main policy driver for climate action planning at the local level is SB 97, which established
that GHG emissions and their impacts are appropriate subjects for analysis under CEQA. This law,
passed in 2007, requires agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions in their environmental documents
for every project and to mitigate those emissions if they are significant. The updated CEQA guidelines do,
however, allow public agencies to simplify their CEQA analysis at the project level if they have a plan in
place for their entity -wide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This plan would quantify emissions
associated with plan activities, set a reduction target and identify ways to reach that target. If a project is
consistent with a climate action plan, it implies that it will have a less than significant climate change
impact, and a negative declaration would suffice for CEQA compliance. In this way, a climate action plan
would streamline the GHG analysis portion of the CEQA process for many projects. This inventory
provides an updated inventory and a comparison to baseline data that would be used if the TDPUD
decides to develop a climate action planning document in the future.
6 The AB 32 Scoping Plan is available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
Page 7
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
3 Inventory Methodology
3.1 Overview
As governments, utilities, and corporations have continued to join the climate planning movement, the
need for a standardized approach to quantify GHG emissions has proven essential. This inventory uses
currently available standardized methodology to estimate emissions from activities that produce GHGs.
All emissions in this inventory were quantified using calculation -based methodologies. Calculation -based
methodologies calculate emissions using activity data and emission factors, in accordance with the
following basic equation:
Activity Data x Emission Factor = Emissions
Activity data refers to the relevant measurement of energy use or other GHG-generating processes such
as fossil fuel consumption, electricity consumption and vehicle miles traveled. Emissions factors are
expressed in terms of emissions per unit of activity data (e.g. lbs CO,/kWh of electricity). Standardized
U.S.-specific emission factors were used to convert energy usage or other activity data into associated
quantities of emissions. Appendix A provides a comprehensive list of all activity data and emissions
factors used in this inventory.
3.2 Protocols and Tools Used
3.2.1 The Climate Registry
The Climate Registry (the Registry) is a nonprofit collaboration among North American states, provinces,
territories and Native Sovereign Nations that sets consistent and transparent standards to calculate,
verify and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions into a single registry. The Registry supports both
voluntary and mandatory reporting programs and provides comprehensive, accurate data to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. This inventory was conducted in accordance with the standardized
methodology outlined in the Registry's General Reporting Protocol and Electric Power Sector Protocol,
discussed in more depth below. Although the 2012 inventory used the Registry's protocols and tools to
conduct the inventory, the emissions will not be reported publicly through the Registry at this time. If in
the future the TDPUD leadership decides that they would like to report emissions publicly, this inventory
would be required to undergo third party verification and could then be reported publicly.
3.2.2 General Reporting Protocol
The General Reporting Protocol V. 2.0 (GRP), released in March 2013, was developed by the Registry in
collaboration with the California Climate Action Registry, US Environmental Protection Agency and
World Resources Institute to assist in the reporting of an organization's GHG emissions. 7 The GRP was
built upon existing GHG Programs and Protocols including the World Resources Institute and the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard, International Organization for Standardization 14o64-1, the California Climate Action Registry
General Reporting Protocol and the US EPA Climate Leaders GHG Inventory Guidance. The GRP
outlines the estimation methodology and emission factors used in this inventory. The GRP V. 2.0
General Reporting Protocol v. 2.0 (GRP). http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2013/03/TCR_GRP_Version_2.0.pdf
Page 8
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
provided minor revisions to the guidance provided in GRP v. 1.1 in order to make reporting requirements
more clear. s None of these changes affected the sections of GRP methodology used to conduct the
inventories for the TDPUD.
3.2.3 Electric Power Sector Protocol
The Electric Power Sector Protocol (EPS Protocol) was developed as a supplemental appendix to the GRP
to provide specific guidance to electric utilities.9 Since the TDPUD does not own or operate generation
facilities the EPS Protocol was only used to estimate transmission and distribution (T&D) losses on the
local distribution system owned and operated by TDPUD (Chapter 14), develop power deliveries metrics
(Chapter 19), estimate Scope 3 delivered electricity emissions (Chapter 19) and estimate Scope 3 bulk
transmission loss emissions (Chapter 14).
3.2.4 Climate Registry Information System
The Climate Registry Information System (CRIS) is the Registry's online calculation, reporting, and
verification tool. CRIS was used to calculate the majority of emissions reported in this inventory.
Employee commute emissions were calculated outside of CRIS using an employee commute survey and
standard emission factors for mobile fuel combustion and vehicle -miles traveled, then entered into CRIS
as CO,, CH4 and NO emissions. Appendices B-E provide detail on the methodology used in this
inventory.
3.3 Inventory Process
3.3.1 Establishing a Base Year
The inventory process requires the selection of a base year with which to compare current and future
emissions. The Truckee Donner PUD chose to establish 2oo8 as the base year in order to conform to the
California Air Resources Board (GARB) GHG reporting program which began in 2oo8. The 2oo8
emissions baseline was completed in 2012.10 The emissions quantified in this report for the year 2012 are
compared to the baseline emissions to provide context and to document progress -to -date in reducing
emissions.
3.3.2 Inventory Boundaries
The setting of an entity's organizational boundary for GHG emissions accounting and reporting is an
important step in the inventory process. The organizational boundary is used to identify the emissions
that the entity is required to report. Under the GRP, two approaches are used for defining an
organizational boundary: the equity share approach and the control approach. The equity share approach
requires the reporting of all emissions sources that are wholly- or partially -owned, according to the
entity's equity share in each. The control approach requires the reporting of too percent of the emissions
8 For an overview of changes from GRP 1.1 to GRP 2.0 can be found here:
http://www.theelimateregistry. org/downloads/2O l 2/ 12/Overview-of-Changes-from-GRP-1.1.pdf
9 Electric Power Sector Protocol (EPS Protocol). http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2009/05/Electric-Power-Sector-
Protocol_v 1.O.pdf
10 2008 Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, prepared by the Sierra Business Council in 2012 and updated in 2013 (available upon
request from Kathy Neus, TDPUD)
Page 9
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
from sources that are under the entity's control, including both wholly -owned and partially -owned
sources. The control approach was used in this inventory.
When using the control approach, control can be defined in either financial or operational terms. An
entity has financial control over an activity or facility if the entity has the ability to direct its financial
policies. An entity has operational control over an activity or facility if the entity has the full authority to
introduce and implement its operating policies. The operational control approach was used in this
inventory.
3.3.3 GHGs Considered
The GRP requires Climate Registry members to report emissions of all internationally recognized
greenhouse gasses regulated under the Kyoto Protocol. These greenhouse gasses are listed in Table 3-1
below. This inventory collected information on all six internationally recognized greenhouse gases;
however, it was determined that perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride did not contribute to TDPUD's
operations emissions. In the GRP V. 2.0, the Climate Registry added a seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride.
It was determined that nitrogen trifluoride was not used in TDPUD operations.
Greenhouse gas emissions are commonly aggregated and reported in terms of equivalent carbon dioxide
units (CO2e). This standard is based on the global warming potential (GWP) of each gas, which is a
measure of the amount of warming a GHG may cause over a too year time horizon measured against the
amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide. For example, because its GWP is 21, one metric ton of
methane is equal to 21 MT CO2e. Emissions reported throughout this report are expressed in COZe unless
otherwise noted.
Table 3-1: Greenhouse Gases
GHG Chemical Composition GWP
Carbon Dioxide
CO2
1
Methane
CH,
21
Nitrous Oxide
NZO
310
Hydrofluorocarbons
Various
43-11,700
Perfluorocarbons
Various
6,500-9,000
Sulfur Hexafluoride
SF,
23,900
Nitrogen Trifluoride
NF3
10,800
3.3.4 Scopes Framework
To separately account for direct and indirect emissions the GRP requires members to categorize direct
and indirect emissions into "scopes" as follows:
• Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions from sources under operational or financial control
• Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of purchased or acquired
electricity, steam, heating or cooling, including transmission and distribution losses of electric
lines under operational or financial control
• Scope 3: All other indirect emissions not covered in Scope 2, such as activities not under direct
operational or financial control, upstream and downstream emissions, emissions resulting from
the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, transport -related activities in
vehicles not owned or controlled by the reporting entity (e.g., employee commuting and business
Page 10
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
travel), use of sold products and services, outsourced activities, recycling of used products, waste
disposal, etc.
Together the three scopes provide a comprehensive accounting framework for managing and reducing
direct and indirect emissions. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are the most essential components of this
inventory since the TDPUD has the most control over these sources. The Scope 3 emissions sources
accounted for in this inventory were employee commute, electricity delivered to customers and bulk
transmission losses. These emissions were included to provide scale and context to the report and
because of the TDPUD's unique ability to influence emissions in these areas, particularly in the area of
delivered electricity.
In addition to the categories in the scopes framework, emissions sources may also fall in a fourth
category, called "information items". Information items are emissions sources that are not included as
Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions in an inventory, but are reported separately in order to provide a more
complete picture of emissions. Common emissions categorized as information items are carbon dioxide
emitted through the combustion of biogenic fuels and fugitive emissions of ozone depleting refrigerants
regulated under the Montreal Accord. The information items accounted for in this inventory include
ethanol combusted in employee commuting and R-22 used in the District's HVAC units.
3.3.5 Simplified Estimation Methods
In order to reduce the reporting burden, the Climate Registry allows the use of alternative, simplified
estimation methods for any combination of individual emission sources and/or gasses, provided that the
emissions from these sources and/or gasses are less than or equal to 5% of the entity's total Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions aggregated on a COZe basis. In this inventory, simplified estimation methods were
used to estimate the emissions of leaked refrigerants from refrigerators, vending machines and the
vehicle fleet's air conditioning units as well as backup generators used at the District Headquarters and
water delivery infrastructure, which together comprised less than i% of total emissions. The simplified
estimation method used to estimate the leaked refrigerant emissions relies on inventory data, default full
charge capacity by equipment type and operating emissions factors. This method is results in a
conservative estimate of emissions, and generally produces a greater quantity of emissions than the
standard methodology, which requires detailed maintenance records. The simplified estimation method
used for the backup generators uses run hours and fuel loads either provided by TDPUD or reported in
manufacturer specifications to estimate fuel use. Table 3-2 below summarizes the total emissions
calculated using simplified estimation methods and the percent of total Scope i & 2 emissions.
Table 3-2: Simplified Estimation Methods Summary
Simplified Estimation Methods MT CO2e % of Total Emissions
SEM Total 28.6 0.68%
Page 11
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
4 2012 Inventory Results
4.1 Overall Emissions Summary
The total roll -up emissions for the TDPUD are comprised of the operations emissions of the Electric and
Water Departments, Scope 3 emissions from electricity delivered to customers and Scope 3 emissions
from bulk transmission losses. As shown in Figure 4-1, the vast majority of emissions were Scope 3
emissions from electricity delivered to TDPUD's customers. While the TDPUD does not have direct
control over these emissions, they are important to note because of their scale and because the TDPUD
does have control over the sourcing of electricity delivered to customers and the implementation of
conservation programs.
Figure 4-1: 2012 Overall Emissions Summary
40,000 38,061
35,000
30,000
25,000
W
N
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000Ll
1,784 21611
1,099
Electric Department Water Department Delivered Electricity Bulk Transmission
Subtotal Subtotal Losses
Emissions Category
4.2 Electric Department Emissions
In the 2012 inventory, the emissions from the following categories were attributed to the Electric
Department:
• Line losses incurred during the local distribution of electricity
• Fuel use and leaked refrigerants from the operation of the Electric Department's vehicle and off -
road equipment fleet
• Fuel use, electricity consumption and leaked refrigerants at the District Headquarters (split
50/5o between departments)
• Fuel use for the Electric Department employees' commute
• Electricity consumption at the Corp Yard (attributed t00% to Electric Department)
Page 12
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 present the Electric Department's emissions breakdown.,, Figure 4-3 presents
the Electric Department emissions breakdown, excluding local distribution losses. A more detailed
discussion of these emissions sources is provided in sections 4.2.1 — 4.2.6.
Table 4-1: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by End Use
End Use
MT COZe
Local Distribution Losses
11391
Vehicle Fleet
157
District Headquarters
110
Employee Commute
121
Corp Yard
5
Total
1,784
Figure 4-2: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by End Use
Local Distribution
Losses
78.0%
Vehicle Fleet
8.8
District
Headquarters
Corp Yard Employee Commute 6.2%
0.3% 6.8
i Note that in tables throughout this inventory, individual category emissions may not add up to the total listed due to
rounding.
Page 13
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-3: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by End Use (Excluding Local Distribution Losses)
District
Headquarters
Vehicle Fleet
40.0
1.2%
4.2.1 Emissions by Source
Employee Commute
30.8%
Table 4-2 and Figure 4-4 present the breakdown of Electric Department emissions by source, the largest
of which was local distribution losses.
Table 4-2: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by Source
Source
MT CO2e
Local Distribution Losses
1,391
Employee Commute
121
Diesel
105
Consumed Electricity
62
Natural Gas
52
Gasoline
47
Refrigerants
6
Totals
1,784
Page 14
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-4: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by Source
Local Distribution
Losses
78.0%
Gasoline
2.6
Employee Commute
6.8
'--Consumed
Natural Gas Electricity
2.9/ 3.5%
Diesel
5.9
To provide a more detailed insight on electric department emissions, figure 4-5 presents the breakdown
of emissions with the local distribution losses excluded. These emissions categories are generally more
easily reduced through internal TDPUD policies and actions.
Figure 4-5: 2012 Electric Department Emissions Summary by Source (Excluding Local Distribution Losses)
Diesel
26.7%
Consumed
Electricity
15.8%
Employee Commute Natural Gas
30.8% 13.1%
Refrigerants Gasoline
1.5 % 12.0
Page 15
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
4.2.2 District Headquarters Emissions
The District Headquarters building is shared equally between the Electric and Water Department. The
activity data collected for the District Headquarters was split equally between the two departments. The
two major sources of emissions for the District Headquarters were electricity consumption and natural
gas usage. Table 4-3 and Figure 4-6 present the breakdown of emissions for the District Headquarters by
source.
Leaked refrigerants from HVAC units were not included in any of the totals because R-22 was used as the
refrigerant in all units. R-22 is an ozone depleting substance that is regulated under the Montreal Accord,
and therefore emissions from leaked R-22 refrigerant are reported only as an information item. Appendix
B provides detail on the methodology used for District Headquarters emissions calculations.
Table 4-3: 2012 Electric Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source
Source
MT COZe
Electricity
57
Natural Gas
52
Refrigerants
0.6
Diesel
0.6
Totals
110
Figure 4-6: 2012 Electric Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source
Diesel
Refrigerants 0.6%
0.5%
Electricity
52.1%
Natural Gas
46.8%
Page 16
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
4.2.3 Corp Yard Emissions
The Corp Yard is used solely by the Electric Department. The only emissions attributed to the Corp Yard
were from electricity consumption. Table 4-4 presents the emissions attributed to the Corp Yard.
Appendix B provides detail on the methodology used for Corp Yard emissions calculations.
Table 4-4: 2012 Electric Department Corp Yard Emissions by Source
Source
MT CO2e
Electricity
5
Totals
5
4.2.4 Vehicle Fleet Emissions
In 2012, the Electric Department vehicle fleet was the second largest contributor to the Electric
Department's operations emissions. The gasoline -fueled vehicles produced significantly lower emissions
than the diesel -fueled vehicles, even with a greater amount of vehicle -miles traveled (VMT). This is
primarily due to the better fuel economy of the gasoline fleet compared to the diesel fleet, and partially
due to a lower CO2 emissions factor of gasoline compared to diesel combustion (approximately 19.3 lbs
CO,/gallon of gasoline compared to 22.5 lbs CO,/gallon of diesel). Appendix D provides detail on the
methodology used for vehicle fleet emissions calculations. Table 4-5 and Figure 4-7 present the
breakdown of emissions from the vehicle fleet by source.
Table 4-5: 2012 Electric Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source
Source
MT COZe
Gallons Consumed
VMT
Diesel
104
10,209
77,972
Gasoline
47
5,276
86,606
Refrigerants
5
N/A
N/A
Totals
157
15,486
164,577
Page 17
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-7: 2012 Electric Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source
Refrigerants
3.5
Gasoline
30.0%
Diesel
66.5%
4.2.5 Local Distribution Losses Emissions
The Electric Department owns and operates approximately 127 miles of primary overhead and 79 miles
of primary underground electrical distribution circuits. Power is provided through four electrical
substations and fifteen distribution circuits throughout Truckee. Electricity losses are incurred
throughout this distribution system for various reasons. The local distribution losses reported here are
calculated by taking the difference between the electricity load measured at TDPUD substations and the
retail sales reported by TDPUD. The retail sales include all self -consumed electricity at TDPUD facilities.
Table 4-6 presents the emissions attributed to the local distribution losses. Appendix F provides detail on
the methodology used for the local distribution losses emissions calculations.
Table 4-6: 2012 Electric Department Local Distribution Losses Emissions by Source
Source
MT COZe
Local Distribution Losses
1,391
Totals
1,391
4.2.6 Employee Commute Emissions
In 2012, the Electric Department had 36.5 full-time equivalent employees. The emissions attributed to
the Electric Department's employee's commute were estimated based on a survey of actual employees in
2012. Table 4-7 presents the emissions attributed to the employee commute by source, the largest of
which was Gasoline. Appendix E provides detail on the methodology used for the employee commute
emissions calculations.
Page 18
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 4-7: 2012 Electric Department Employee Commute Emissions by Source
Source
MT CO2e
Diesel
23
Gasoline
98
Ethanol
0.01
Totals
121
4.3 Water Department Emissions
In the 2012 inventory, the following emission categories were attributed to the Water Department:
• Electricity consumption and fuel use for the pumping and delivery of drinking water to customers
• Fuel use and leaked refrigerants from the operation of the Water Department's vehicle and off -
road equipment fleet
• Fuel use, electricity consumption and leaked refrigerants at the District Headquarters (split
50/5o between departments)
• Fuel use for the Water Department employees' commute
Table 4-8 and Figure 4-8 present the emissions breakdown for the Water Department. The vast majority
of emissions were from electricity used in the pumping and delivery of drinking water. A more detailed
discussion of these emissions sources is provided in sections 4.3.1 — 4.3.5•
Table 4-8: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by End Use
Department
MT CO2e
Wells
1,141
Booster Stations
1,096
Vehicle Fleet
167
District Headquarters
110
Employee Commute
94
Other Water Transport Infrastructure
4
FTotal
2,611
Page 19
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-8: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by End Use
Booster Stations
42.0%
Wells
43.7% 0--p
Vehicle Fleet
6.4%
District
Other Water Headquarters
Transport Employee Commute 4.2%
Infrastructure 3.6%
0.1%
4.3.1 Emissions by Source
Table 4-9 and Figure 4-9 present the breakdown of emissions by source for the Water Department. The
vast majority of emissions are from electricity, which is used in the pumping and delivery of drinking
water as well as at the District Headquarters.
Table 4-9: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by Source
Source
MT CO2e
Electricity
2,282
Diesel
90
Employee Commute
94
Gasoline
87
Propane
52
Refrigerants
6
Propane
0.4
Totals
2,611
Page 20
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-9: 2012 Water Department Emissions Summary by Source
Electricity
87.4%
Diesel
Propane 3.4%
0.0% Employee Commute
Refrigerants Gasoline 3.6%
0 2% Propane o
2.0%
3.3
4.3.2 District Headquarters Emissions
The District Headquarters is shared equally between the Electric and Water Department. The activity
data collected for the District Headquarters was split equally between the two departments. The two
major sources of emissions for the District Headquarters were electricity consumption and natural gas
usage. Table 4-10 and Figure 4-10 present the breakdown of emissions for the District Headquarters by
source.
Leaked refrigerants from HVAC units were not included in any of the totals because R-22 was used as the
refrigerant in all units. R-22 is an ozone depleting substance that is regulated under the Montreal Accord
and therefore emissions from leaked R-22 refrigerant are reported only as an information item. Appendix
B provides detail on the methodology used for District Headquarters emissions calculations.
Table 4-10: 2012 Water Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source
Source
MT CO2e
Electricity
57
Natural Gas
52
Refrigerants
0.6
Diesel
0.6
Total
110
Page 21
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-10: 2012 Water Department District Headquarters Emissions by Source
Refrigerants Diesel
0.5% 0.6%
IIIIIIIIIIIIM Electricity
52.1%
Natural Gas
46.8% it
4.3.3 Water Delivery System Emissions
By far the largest source of emissions for the Water Department is the electricity and fuel use in the
District's water delivery system. The water delivery system is comprised of 16 active wells, 25 pumping
stations and 33 active storage tanks primarily powered by electric motors with backup generators in case
of power disruptions. Table 4-11 and Figure 4-11 present the breakdown of emissions for the water
delivery system by equipment type. Appendix C provides detail on the methodology used for water
delivery infrastructure emissions.
Table 4-11: 2012 Water Department Water Delivery Emissions by Equipment
Source
MT COZe
Wells
1,141
Booster Stations
1,096
Other Water Transport Infrastructure
4
Total
2,240
Page 22
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-11: 2012 Water Department Water Delivery Emissions by Equipment
Other Water
Transport
Infrastructure
�0.2%
Booster Stations
48.9
Wells
50.9
4.3.4 Vehicle Fleet Emissions
In 2012, the Water Department vehicle fleet was the second largest contributor to the Water
Department's operations emissions, after the Water Delivery System. Appendix D provides detail on the
methodology used for vehicle fleet emissions calculations. Table 4-12 and Figure 4-12 present the
breakdown of vehicle fleet emissions by source.
Table 4-12: 2012 Water Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source
Source
MT COZe
Gallons Consumed
VMT
Diesel
74
7,253
52,244
Gasoline
87
9,823
117,354
Refrigerants
6
N/A
N/A
Total
167
17,076
169,598
Page 23
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-12: 2012 Water Department Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source
Refrigerants
3.4% Diesel
44.6
Gasoline
52.1%
4.3.5 Employee Commute Emissions
In 2012, the Water Department had 28.5 full time equivalent employees. The emissions attributed to the
Water Department's employee's commute were estimated based on a survey of TDPUD employees in
2012. Table 4-7 presents the emissions attributed to the employee commute by source. Appendix E
provides detail on the methodology used for employee commute emissions calculations.
Table 4-13: 2012 Water Department Employee Commute Emissions by Source
Source
MT CO2e
Diesel
18
Gasoline
76
Ethanol
0.01
Totals
94
4.4 Power Deliveries Emissions
Since the TDPUD does not own or operate any generation facilities or bulk transmission infrastructure,
the emissions from these sources are not a required reporting metric under the Electric Power Sector
Protocol. The TDPUD does, however, have control over the sourcing of this electricity and the
implementation of conservation efforts to help customers reduce their electricity use. Accordingly, the
TDPUD has chosen to report emissions from power deliveries in order to provide a sense of the scale of
these emissions and, as a result, the scale of the potential benefits of future conservation efforts and
changes in the carbon -intensity of the electricity delivered to customers. The emissions from delivering
Page 24
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
electricity to retail customers are considered an optional, Scope 3 reporting metric since the TDPUD does
not have direct control over the amount of electricity used by consumers.
Additionally, the TDPUD does not own or operate the bulk transmission lines between the generating
facilities and the TDPUD substations through which the electricity delivered to customers is transmitted.
Therefore the emissions from the tariffed bulk transmission losses are also considered Scope 3. Table 4-
14 shows the EPS metrics calculated in this inventory and the associated emissions in MT COZe.
Table 4-14: 2012 Electric Power Sector Metrics
EPS Metric
r kWh
MT CO2e
Total Electricity Purchased
162,544,425
44,914
In -Balance Electricity
7,516,514
2,077
Bulk Transmission Losses
3,980,387
1,099
Local Distribution Losses
5,033,046
1,391
TDPUD Self -Consumed Electricity
8,272,613
2,286
Delivered Electricity
137,741,865
38,061
In 2012, the TDPUD purchased electricity from six specific facilities including: Stampede Reservoir
Hydroelectric, Trans Jordan Landfill Gas, Pleasant Valley Wind, Horse Butte Wind, Intermountain Coal
and Nebo Natural Gas facilities as well as unspecified market purchases and a small amount of excess
solar and wind electricity generated by TDPUD customers and purchased by TDPUD through net -
metering contracts.
Table 4-15 and Figure 4-13, show the breakdown of electricity purchased and the associated CO2
emissions factors used to calculate the TDPUD specific electricity emissions factors. Figure 4-14 shows
the breakdown of CO2 emissions by generation facility.
Emissions were estimated using the 2012 purchased power statistics provided by TDPUD and applying
electricity emissions factors from the California Air Resources Board's mandatory GHG reporting under
§95111 for specified generation facilities and unspecified market purchases. Electricity purchased from
carbon -neutral sources such as hydroelectric power plants was given an emissions factor of zero except
for the electricity from the Stampede Hydroelectric facility for which the TDPUD does not receive the
associated Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). For more information on how the TDPUD-specific
emissions factors were calculated please refer to Appendix F.
Page 25
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 4-15: 2012 Electricity Purchased by Source
Source
kWh
COZ Emissions Factors
(grams/kWh)
Stampede (WAPA) with RECs
2,972,000
-
Trans Jordan Landfill Gas with RECs
18,177,885
-
UAMPS Market Purchases
74,347,172
426.10
IPP - SC&E
13,480,692
905.21
Nebo
29,271,772
456.04
Pleasant Valley Wind with RECs
346,170
-
Horse Butte Wind with RECs
14,701,306
-
Excess Customer Produced Renewables with RECs
51,799
-
Stampede (WAPA) without RECs
9,195,629
426.10
Total
162,544,425
Additional RECs Purchased
43,622,115
Figure 4-13: 2012 Electricity Purchased by Generation Facility
UAMPS Market
Purchases
a5J%
Trans Jordan Lanunn_/
Gas
11.2%
Stampede (WAPA)
With RECs
1.8%
Page 26
IPP - SC&E
�8.3%
Nebo
_ 18.0%
Pleasant Valley
Wind
0.2%
Horse Butte Wind
9.00/.
mer
Stampede (WAPA) Produced
Without RECs Renewables
5.7% 0.0%
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Figure 4-14: 2012 Purchased Electricity COZ Emissions by Generation Facility
IP-S 20.0%
Nebo
21.8%
UAMPS Market
Purchases
51.8%
Stampede (WAPA)
Without RECs
6.4%
Page 27
Sierra Business Council
5 Comparison of 2012
Baseline Emissions
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Emissions to 2008
5.1 Actions Contributing to Emissions Reductions
From 2oo8 to 2012, the TDPUD took several significant steps to reduce the emissions associated with
their operations and the electricity delivered to customers. The most significant measure undertaken by
the TDPUD was the reduction in the carbon -intensity of the electricity consumed and delivered to
customers. Factors contributing to the reduction of the carbon -intensity of the TDPUD-supplied
electricity include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Reduced purchases of coal -generated electricity by over 50% from over 74,000,00o kWh to less
than 32,000,00o kWh
• Increased renewable electricity purchases from just under 7,000,00o kWh to over 45,000,000
kWh
• Increased purchases of additional Renewable Energy Credits to offset some of the remaining
fossil -fuel -based electricity generation.
The TDPUD also instituted several other reduction measures between 20o8 and 2012 including, but not
limited to, the following:
• Installation of LED lighting and a high efficiency natural gas boilers at the District Headquarters
• Extensive water conservation and efficiency initiatives to reduce water leaks, customer demand
and the energy required when delivering the water to customers
• Extensive electricity efficiency and renewable electricity incentives to reduce customers'
electricity demand
5.2 Overall Emissions Comparison
The TDPUD has been successful in significantly reducing their operations emissions and Scope 3
emissions associated with the electricity they deliver to customers and bulk transmission losses. Table 5-1
and Figure 5-1, present the change in operations emissions for both departments as well as Scope 3
delivered electricity and bulk transmission losses. As described above, the TDPUD has undertaken
several initiatives in an effort to reduce their GHG emissions. The most significant of these initiatives was
the reduction in the carbon -intensity of the electricity consumed in District operations and delivered to
customers.
Page 28
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 5-1: Overall Emissions Comparison
Category
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
% Change 2008-2012
Water Department Operations
7,389
2,611
- 65%
Electric Department Operations
5,528
1,784
- 68%
Delivered Electricity
88,302
38,061
- 57%
Bulk Transmission Losses
2,621
1,099
- 58%
Totals
103,840
43,555
- 58%
Figure 5-1: Overall Emissions Comparison
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
N
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000 7,381
2,611
Water Department
Subtotal
5,528
1,784
88,302
38,061
2,621 1,099
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
Electric Department Delivered Electricity Bulk Transmission
Subtotal Losses
Emissions Category
5.3 Electric Department Emissions Comparison
The Electric Department was successful in reducing emissions across the board from 20o8 baseline
emissions. The most significant reductions came from the local distribution losses, the District
Headquarters and the Corp Yard. One of the main factors for this change was the reduction in the
carbon -intensity of the TDPUD-supplied electricity. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2 present a comparison of
2oo8 and 2012 emissions attributed to the Electric Department by end use categories.
Page 29
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 5-2: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by End Use
Category
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
% Change
Local Distribution Losses
5,021
1,391
- 72%
Vehicle Fleet
160
157
- 2%
District Headquarters
207
110
- 47%
Employee Commute
127
121
- 5%
Corp Yard
13
5
- 63%
Totals
5,528
1,784
- 68%
Figure 5-2: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by End Use
Corp Yard 13
5
Employee Commute
ai
W)
District Headquarters
c
w
Vehicle Fleet
Local Distribution Losses
OT CO2e
OT CO2e
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
MT CO2e
Page 30
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3 present a comparison of Electric Department emissions by source.
Table 5-3: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by Source
Source
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
% Change
Local Distribution Losses
5,021
1,391
-72%
Employee Commute
127
121
-5%
Diesel
83
105
26%
Consumed Electricity
150
62
-58%
Propane/Natural Gas
70
52
-26%
Gasoline
73
47
-36%
Refrigerants
5
6
27%
Totals
5,528
1,784
-68%
Figure 5-3: Electric Department Emissions Comparison by Source
Refrigerants
Gasoline
u Propane/Natural Gas
3
0
Consumed Electricity
0
.N
W Diesel
Employee Commute
Local Distribution Losses
5
6
73
47
70
52
150
62
83
105
127
121
1,391
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
MT CO2e
5.4 Water Department Emissions Comparison
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
5,021
5,000 6,000
With the exception of emissions from the vehicle fleet, the Water Department was successful in reducing
emissions from all categories as compared to 20o8 baseline emissions. The most significant reductions
came from the water delivery system and the District Headquarters. One of the main factors contributing
to this change was the reduction in the carbon -intensity of the TDPUD-supplied electricity. Table 5-4 and
Figure 5-4 present a comparison of emissions attributed to the Water Department by end use categories.
Page 31
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 5-4: Water Department Emissions Comparison by End Use
Category
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
% Change
Wells
4,294
1,141
-73%
Booster Stations
2,616
1,096
-58%
Vehicle Fleet
159
167
4%
District Headquarters
207
110
-47%
Employee Commute
103
94
-9%
Other Water Transport Infrastructure
9
4
-55%
Totals
7,389
2,611
-65%
Figure 5-4: Water Department Emissions Comparison by End Use
Other Water Transport Infrastructure 9
4
Employee Commute 103
94
District Headquarters 207
110
W 159 Vehicle Fleet
2008 MT CO2e
167 2012 MT CO2e
Booster Stations 2,616
1,096
Wells 4,294
1,141
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
MT CO2e
Page 32
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Table 5-5 and Figure 5-5 present a comparison of Water Department emissions by source.
Table 5-5: Water Department Emissions Comparison by Source
Source
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
% Change
Electricity
7,049
2,282
-68%
Diesel
114
90
-21%
Employee Commute
103
94
-9%
Gasoline
47
87
85%
Propane/Natural Gas
70
52
-26%
Refrigerants
6
6
7%
Propane Backup Generators
-
0.4
N/A
Totals
7,389
2,611
-65%
Figure 5-5: Water Department Emissions Comparison by Source
Propane Backup Generators 0.4
Refrigerants
6
6
Propane/Natural Gas
50
3
0
LA
c Gasoline
47
87
0
Ln
w Employee Commute
103
94
Diesel 114
90
Electricity
- 1,000
2008 MT CO2e
2012 MT CO2e
7,049
2,282
2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
MT CO2e
5.5 Power Deliveries Emissions Comparison
The TDPUD was successful in reducing emissions from both the delivered electricity and bulk
transmission losses as compared to 2oo8 baseline emissions. This change was almost exclusively due to
the 57% reduction in the emissions factor of the TDPUD-supplied electricity, since bulk transmission
electricity losses saw only a 2% reduction between 20o8 and 2012, and delivered electricity actually
increased slightly, by 0.3%. Table 5-6 presents a comparison of 2oo8 and 2012 CO2 emissions factors for
Page 33
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
TDPUD delivered electricity. Table 5-7 and Figure 5-6 present a comparison of electricity and emissions
attributed to the TDPUD's power deliveries by end use categories.
Table 5-6: Power Deliveries COZ Emissions Factor Comparison
2008
2012
% Change
COZ Emissions Factor (Ibs/MWh)
1,410.5
606.8
-57%
Table 5-7: Power Deliveries Emissions Comparison by End Use
Electricity (MWh)
Emissions (MT CO2e)
Category
2008
2012
% Change
2008
2012
% Change
Delivered Electricity
137,323
137,742
0.3%
88,302
38,061
-57%
Bulk Transmission Losses
4,076
3,980
-2%
2,621
1,099
-58%
Figure 5-6: Power Deliveries Emissions Comparison by End Use
2,621
Bulk Transmission Losses 2008 MT CO2e
1,099 2012 MT CO2e
a
r
f0
U
C
O
.0
41
LU
W 88,302
Delivered Electricity
38,061
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
MT CO2e
Page 34
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
6 Conclusion
The data presented in this report is intended to provide valuable information for the District to use to
inform future planning efforts. Key findings from the work are summarized below:
• The 2012 CO, emissions factor for TDPUD power deliveries was 6o6.8 lbs/MWh. This represents
a 57% reduction from the 2oo8 emissions factor. Decreased purchases of coal -generated
electricity, increased purchases of renewable electricity, and increased purchases of RECs all
contributed to the emissions factor reduction. The reduced carbon -intensity of the TDPUD's
delivered and self -consumed electricity contributed significantly to reductions in each emissions
category between 2oo8 and 2012.
• Emissions for all TDPUD activities totaled approximately 43,555 MT COZe in 2012, a 58%
reduction from 2oo8 emissions levels. As in 20o8, the largest source of emissions, by a wide
margin, was Scope 3 electricity delivered to customers.
• Emissions from Electric Department operations totaled approximately 1,784 MT COZe in 2012, a
68% reduction from 2oo8 emissions levels. As in 2008, the largest source of emissions was the
local distribution losses between TDPUD substations and retail customers' meters.
• Emissions from Water Department operations totaled approximately 2,611 MT CO2e in 2012, a
65% reduction from 20o8 emissions levels. As in 2oo8, the largest source of emissions was from
electricity consumed within the water delivery system.
• Emissions from electricity delivered to customers and from bulk transmission losses totaled
39,16o MT CO2e, a 58% reduction from 20o8 emissions levels, tracking closely with the emissions
factor reduction. This reduction can be attributed to a 2% reduction in total electricity losses on
the system as well as a 57% reduction in the associated emissions factor due to the actions taken
by the TDPUD to source more renewable, zero -emissions electricity.
These findings identify the major sources of GHG emissions within the District's operations and present
the changes in emission levels from the 2oo8 baseline. Going forward, we recommend District staff
continue to update these inventories and track progress as additional data become available.
As TDPUD moves forward with planning efforts, the District should identify additional emission
reduction strategies that could be implemented in the future including: energy efficiency upgrades to
District facilities and infrastructure, increasing renewable energy sourcing or local generation, vehicle
fleet fuel efficiency, idling and vehicle trip reduction and community conservation strategies. Through
these efforts and others the District can achieve benefits beyond reducing emissions, including saving
money and improving services.
Page 35
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
7 Appendices
7.1 Appendix A — Entity Summary from CRIS Emissions
Detailed Report Export
The Climate Registry Information System (CRIS) is the Climate Registry's online calculation, reporting,
and verification tool. CRIS was used to calculate the majority of emissions reported in this inventory. In
the following pages, this appendix presents the entity -level emissions section of the CRIS Detailed Report
export. The full Detailed Report export is available under separate cover, as Appendix G. Note that
employee commute emissions were calculated outside of CRIS using an employee commute survey and
standard emission factors for mobile fuel combustion and VMT then entered into CRIS as CO2, CH4 and
N2O emissions.
Page 36
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
RIS: Climate Registry Information System
Entily Emissions Detailed Report
Truckee Donner pudic Utility Dlstdct
;Pr;Mate)
&2SY2012213&36 GNz
C R
Entity Name
Truckee Donner Public Utility district
Entity Address
1157-D Donner Pare Rd
Truckee California
951151 United Slates
Emily Webrite
www_bdpud.org
Entity Contact
Hichalar Martin
Contact Ernail
nmarlin@sbooundl.org
Contact Pho-ne
5305824800
Emily Type
Nb-,prDM C,nvemmenl w Academic
Description
The Truckee Donner Public Utility DistrirL offers electric and waler service in the Truckee area. We are a non-profit. publicly owned
utility goyemed by officials elected by the registered Voters of the Dislricl. All the benefits of public power remain in the Dis,rict in the
farm of reliable a lectric service and high q uafily water at fair. reasonable prices.
Reporting Protocol The Climate Registry's General Reporting Protocol u_ 1.1 (May 2008) and associaled updates and clarifications
Canrolidation Methodoiny Operalional Conlrol Only
Reporting 5latus Saved as Draft
Page 1 9 54
Page 37
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
CMS: Climate Registry Information System
Entity Emissions Detailed Report
Truckee Danner Public Utility Distirld
qp�ivam]
5r13 f 3 i5 3fc?9 GW
C
Suworrary f,3ffN 1j%bOrh . Scope 1
119.82591
1 19.159"
0.004
4.0019E
L. 0
WON gorninauon - Scope i
J12.49R3
314.R544
00456
Q.W451 0
0 0
Proeass-Seopa 1
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Fk464e - Empe 1
12 22
C.
C.
C. 1222
0 0
Purchased Eleeuicily• Scope 2
3.735.04294
3.720.40059
(1.0502
'3.04325
0
0 0
FururuoadK)a1ing-6oep62
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Furehaead G, OM - Scope 2
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
purchased Skmm - Scope 2
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Slatiarrary 9iorrraea 03n*m9tion ' Bnmass Q
Mobile Bgrross Ccrnbuslim - Bicrnass C.
F '
Page 2 C1 S#
Page 38
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
RIS: Climate Registry Information System
Entity Ennissians Detailed Report F
er Truckee DonnPublic Utility District
(PrIVO )
S2M0f323.'M'35 (HOT
SEMS TGUI ['CO20P 2R 55131
Scrape 1 [Optional] 6 6
Sonpe 2 (000f0l o R u 4
Scrape 3 (00-K 39.2w 89 0.53135 0.46 u 9 u
Bgmass (Op worm 6 6 6 6 a 6 6
Page 39
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
7.2 Appendix B — Buildings and Facilities
Table B-1: Buildings and Facilities Data Inputs
Electricity
Natural Gas
Diesel Consumption
Facility Name
Consumption
Consumption
(kWh/Yr)
(Therms/Yr)
(Gallons/Yr)
District Headquarters — Water
207,600
9,664
59
Department
District Headquarters — Electric
207,600
9,664
59
Department
Corp Yard — Electric Department
17,565
0
0
Totals
432,765
19,328
118
Table B-2: Refrigerants and Fire Suppression Data Inputs and Emissions Factors
Full
District Headquarters Air
Refrigerant / Fire
Charge
Operating
Fugitive
Conditioning, Fire Suppression and
Suppressant
Capacity
Emissions
Emissions (MT)
Refrigeration
(kg)
Factor
HVAC Systems (Information Item)
R-22
100
10%
0.05
Refrigerators
R-134a
0.5
0.5%
0.000008
Vending Machines
R-134a
6.00
15%
0.0009
Table B-3: Buildings and Facilities Emissions Factors
Emissions Category
Units
CO2
CH4
N20
Emissions Factors Source
TDPUD-supplied
kWh
606.80
9.55
7.02
TDPUD-specific, REC-adjusted CO2,
Electricity
Ib/MWh
Ib/GWh
Ib/GWh
CH4 & N20 Emissions Factors
53.02
0.90
0.90
GRP Table 12.1 & 12.9 - U.S. CO2,
Natural Gas
Therms
kg/MMBTU
g/MMBTU
g/MMBTU
CH4 & N20 Default Emissions Factors
10.21
10.00
0.60
GRP Table 12.1 & 12.9 - U.S. CO2,
Diesel
Gallons
kg/gal
g/MMBTU
g/MMBTU
CH4 & N20 Default Emissions Factors
Electricity and propane activity data was collected from TDPUD purchase records for the District
Headquarters and Corp Yard. Diesel activity data was estimated using a simplified estimation method
based on run time and estimated fuel use rates provided by TDPUD staff. The District Headquarters is
shared by the Electric and Water Departments. The split was determined to be 50/50, and therefore
electricity and fuel use was split equally between the Electric and Water Departments. The Corp Yard was
used solely by the Electric Department and therefore electricity and fuel use were attributed i00% to the
Electric Department.
The TDPUD supplied all of the electricity consumed at the District Headquarters and Corp Yard. The
TDPUD-specific. REC-adjusted 2012 emissions factors (calculated by Sierra Business Council as part of
this inventory) were used to calculate emissions from electricity consumption. For more information on
Page 40
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
how the TDPUD-specific emissions factors were calculated, refer to Appendix F. U.S. default emissions
factors were used to calculate emissions from propane and diesel consumption.
Activity data was not available for the District Headquarters' air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment therefore the simplified estimation methodology was used to calculate fugitive emissions
using the full charge capacity of existing equipment and standard operating emissions factors.
Page 41
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
7.3 Appendix C — Water Delivery Infrastructure
Table C-1: Water Delivery Equipment Data Inputs
TDPUD-Supplied
Liberty -Supplied
Diesel
Propane
Equipment Type
Electricity
Electricity
Consumption
Consumption
Consumption
Consumption
(kWh/Yr)
(kWh/Yr)
(Gallons/Yr)
(Gallons/Yr)
Wells — Water Department
3,940,884
138,385
0
0
Booster Stations — Water
3,889,363
14,768
1,474
74
Department
Other Water Transport
Infrastructure — Water
9,601
3,334
0
0
Department
Totals
7,839,848
156,487
1,474
74
Table C-2: Water Delivery Equipment Emissions Factors
Emissions Category
Units
CO2
CH4
N20
Emissions Factors Source:
TDPUD-Supplied
kWh
606.80
9.55
7.02
TDPUD-specific, REC-Adjusted CO2, CH4
Electricity
Ib/MWh
Ib/GWh
Ib/GWh
& N2O Emissions Factors
SPPC Supplied
819.21
15.29
12.5
EPA eGRID 2012 — 2009 WECC NWPP
Electricity
kWh
Ib/MWh
Ib/GWh
Ib/GWh
Sub -region Grid Average COD CH4 &
N2O Emissions Factors
10.21
10.00
0.60
GRP Table 12.1 & 12.9 - U.S. Default
Diesel
Gallons
kg/gal
g/MMBTU
g/MMBTU
CO2, CH4 & N2O Emissions Factors
5.79
10.00
0.60
GRP Table 12.1 & 12.9 - U.S. Default
Propane
Gallons
kg/gal
g/MMBTU
g/MMBTU
COZ, CH4 & N20 Emissions Factors
Electricity activity data was collected from TDPUD purchase records for electricity supplied by both
TDPUD and Liberty Utilities, formerly Sierra Pacific Power Company. Diesel and Propane activity data
was calculated using a simplified estimation method using run hours and the manufacturer specified
maximum fuel rate to be conservative. All water delivery equipment electricity and fuel use was
attributed to the Water Department.
The TDPUD supplied the electricity consumed for water delivery infrastructure within the TDPUD
electricity service territory. The TDPUD-specific 2008 emissions factors (calculated by Sierra Business
Council as part of this inventory) were used to calculate emissions from this electricity consumption. For
more information on how the TDPUD-specific emissions factors were calculated, refer to Appendix F. For
water delivery infrastructure outside of the TDPUD electricity service territory, electricity is supplied by
Liberty Utilities. For this electricity, regional grid average emissions factors reported by the US EPA were
used to calculate emissions, since there was no utility -specific emissions factor available for Liberty
Utilities. U.S. default emissions factors were used to calculate emissions from diesel and propane
consumption.
Page 42
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
7.4 Appendix D — Vehicle Fleet
Table D-1: Vehicle Fleet Data Inputs
Vehicle Group
Gasoline Consumption
Diesel Consumption
VMT
(Gallons/Yr)
(Gallons/Yr)
(Miles/Yr)
Vehicle Fleet - Electric Department
5,270
9,922
164,577
Equipment Fleet — Electric Department
7
288
N/A
Vehicle Fleet - Water Department
9,816
6,402
169,598
Equipment Fleet —Water Department
7
852
N/A
Totals
15,099
17,463
334,175
Table D-2: Vehicle Fleet Refrigerants Data Inputs and Emissions Factors
Full Charge
Operating
Fugitive
Vehicle Group
Refrigerant
Emissions
Capacity (kg)
Emissions (MT)
Factor
Electric Department
R-134a
1.5
20%
0.0042
Water Department
R-134a
1.5
20%
0.0043
Totals
0.0085
Table D-3: Vehicle Fleet Emissions Factors
Emissions
Units
CO2
CH4
N20
Emissions Factors Source
Category
Gasoline
Gallons
8.8. 78
N/A
N/A
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default CO2 Emissions Factors
kggal
Diesel
Gallons
21
10.10.gal
N/A
N/A
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default CO2 Emissions Factors
VMT
Miles
N/A
Varies
Varies
GRP Table 13.5 - U.S. Default CH4 & N20 Emissions
Traveled
Factors by Fuel Type, Vehicle Type and Model Year
Table D-4: Equipment Fleet Emissions Factors
Emissions
Units
CO2
CH4
N20
Emissions Factors Source
Category
8.78
0.50
0.22
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default COZ, CH4 & N20
Gasoline
Gallons
kg/gal
g/gal
g/gal
Emissions Factors
10.21
0.58
0.26
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default CO2i CH4 & N20
Diesel
Gallons
kg/gal
g'gaI
g/gal
Emissions Factors
Gasoline and diesel activity data was collected from TDPUD purchase records for vehicles and
construction/mobile equipment. Vehicles and equipment were categorized by department use, as either
i00% Electric Department, i00% Water Department, 5o% Electric/50% Water, 75% Electric/25% Water
or 37.5%Electric/62.5% Water, depending on the Department designation listed in fuel records. Vehicle
Page 43
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Miles Traveled (VMT) and Power Take Off hours (PTO hours) were collected from TDPUD vehicle fleet
maintenance records.
Vehicle fleet CO, emissions were calculated using U.S. default fuel use emissions factors by fuel type.
Vehicle fleet CH4 and N20 emissions were calculated using U.S. default vehicle miles traveled emissions
factors by fuel type, vehicle type and model year. For heavy trucks with PTO hours, an adjusted VMT was
calculated using the vehicle's annual fuel use and MPG estimate of 5.8 miles per gallon.
Equipment fleet CO,, CH4 and N2O emissions were calculated using U.S. default fuel use emissions
factors by fuel type and equipment type.
Activity data was not available for the Vehicle Fleet air conditioning emissions therefore the simplified
estimation methodology was used to calculate fugitive emissions using the full charge capacity of existing
vehicles and standard operating emissions factors for mobile air conditioning. It was assumed that all
vehicles used R-134a as their air conditioning refrigerant. This was done because all vehicles with air-
conditioning were model years of 1995 or newer as 1995 was the most common year that automakers
transitioned from R-12 to R-134a.
Page 44
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
7.5 Appendix E — Employee Commute
Table E-1: Employee Commute Data Inputs
Department
Gasoline Consumption
Diesel Consumption
Ethanol
Consumption
(Gallons/Yr)
(Gallons/Yr)
(Gallons/Yr)
Employee Commute - Electric
10,955
2,240
113
Department
Employee Commute — Water
Department
8,554
1,749
88
Totals
19,509
3,989
201
Table E-2: Employee Commute Emissions Factors
Emissions
Units
COZ
CH4
N20
Emissions Factors Source
Category
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default COZ Emissions Factors
Gasoline
Gallons
8.78
5.32E-05
4.69E-05
and GRP 2.0 Table 13.9 General CH4 & NZO per
kg/gal
MT/MT
MT/MT
metric ton of COZ Emissions Factors
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default COZ Emissions Factors
Diesel
Gallons
10.21
5.32E-05
4.69E-05
and GRP 2.0 Table 13.9 General CH4 & NZO per
kg/gal
MT/MT
MT/MT
metric ton of COZ Emissions Factors
GRP Table 13.1 - U.S. Default COZ Emissions Factors
Ethanol
Gallons
5.75
5.32E-05
4.69E-05
and GRP 2.0 Table 13.9 General CH4 & NZO per
kg/gal
MT/MT
MT/MT
metric ton of COZ Emissions Factors
Gasoline, diesel and ethanol activity data was estimated using an employee commute survey responded
to by 57 current employees in 2012. Annual VMT was estimated by multiplying reported daily round trip
VMT by the average number of days an employee drives to work and 52 weeks adjusted for estimated
vacation, holiday and sick days per year based on the average number of days an employee drives to
work. Fuel use was estimated using annual VMT and reported vehicle fuel efficiency estimates.
Respondents indicated whether they worked in the Water Department or the Electric Department, and
Emissions were assigned to each department accordingly. Finally, 2012 data was approximated by
multiplying these totals by the ratio of 65:57 which is the ratio of # of 2012 employees : # of responses.
Employee commute CO, emissions were calculated using U.S. default fuel use emissions factors by fuel
type. Employee commute CH4 and N2O emissions were calculated using simplified estimation method
emissions factors.
Page 45
Sierra Business Council
Attachment 1
TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
7.6 Appendix F — Electric Power Sector
Table F-1: Electric Power Sector Data Inputs
Electricity
Electricity Metric
Load Data (kWh)
Equation
Consumed
(kWh)
Total Electricity
162,544,425
From Contract Records
n/a
Scheduled
Load at TDPUD
Substations
= Total Electricity Scheduled —
In -Balance Electricity (Sold
including Bulk
155,027,911
Load at TDPUD Substations
7,516,514
back to NV Energy)
including Bulk Transmission
Transmission
Losses
Losses
Bulk Transmission Losses
Load at TDPUD
151,047,524
Tariff Percentage of Load at
3,980387
(Scope 3)
SubstationTDPUD
Substations'
Local Distribution Losses
Retail Sales
146014,478
'Retail
= Load at TDPUD Substations —
5,033046
Sales'
Total Delivered Electricity
Self -Consumed
8,272,613
= Retail Sales — Self Consumed
137,741,865
Table F-2: Electric Power Sector Emissions Factors
Contract
Electricity
Purchased
(kWh)
CO2 Emissions
Factor
(grams/kWh)
CH4 Emissions
Factor
(grams/kWh)
NZO Emissions
Factor
(grams/kWh)
Source
Stampede (WAPA) With RECs
2,972,000
-
-
-
N/A
Trans Jordan Landfill Gas
18,177,885
-
-
-
N/A
UAMPS Market Purchases
74,347,172
426.10
0.006935
0.005670
CARB
IPP - SC&E
13,480,692
905.21
0.009708
0.015502
CARB
Nebo
29,271,772
456.04
0.008601
0.000860
CARB
Pleasant Valley Wind
346,170
-
-
-
Horse Butte Wind
14,701,306
-
-
-
Excess Customer Produced
Renewables
51,799
-
-
-
Stampede (WAPA) Without
RECs
9,195,629
426.10
0.006935
0.005670
CARB
Total kWh
161,173,209
Additional RECs Purchased
43,622,115
Table F-3: TDPUD-specific Emissions Factors
Greenhouse Gas
Units
Unadjusted EF
REC-Adjusted EF
CO2
(lbs/MWh)
829.38
606.80
CH4
(lbs/GWh)
13.05
9.55
N20
(lbs/GWh)
9.6
7.02
Page 46
Attachment 1
Sierra Business Council TDPUD 2012 GHG Emissions Re -Inventory
Calculation of Emissions Factors
TDPUD-specific emissions factors were developed in order to accurately quantify the emissions
associated with the electricity consumed at District facilities and delivered to retail customers by the
District, as opposed to using the regional average electricity emissions factor. In order to calculate
emissions factors for TDPUD-supplied electricity, it is necessary to determine the sources of electricity
purchased by TDPUD. For purchases from specified facilities and unspecified market purchases,
emissions factors developed for the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Electric Power Entities
mandatory GHG reporting for electricity imports to California were used. Additionally, the TDPUD does
not receive all of the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) associated with the renewable electricity
purchased from the Stampede Hydroelectric facility. In order to account for the electricity for which the
District does not receive RECs, the unspecified market purchase emission factors were applied to the
difference between the total electricity purchased from Stampede and the number of RECs received. The
TDPUD-specific emissions factors were calculated by taking the amount of electricity purchased from
each source and multiplying it by the GHG emissions factors shown in Table F-2 and then dividing by the
total electricity purchased by the District.
The TDPUD also purchased RECs from the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems for Pleasant Valley
WECC Green-E Wind RECs, Trans Jordan Landfill Gas RECs, and WAPA CVP RECs. We chose to adjust
the emissions factors to account for the REC purchases, following guidance in the EPS protocol. This was
done by: 1) multiplying the kWh of RECs purchased by the calculated TDPUD-specific emissions factors
2) subtracting this from total emissions from all electricity purchases and 3) dividing by the total kWh of
electricity purchased. Table F-3 presents the unadjusted and the final, REC-adjusted TDPUD emissions
factor.
Local Distribution Losses
The TDPUD owns and operates the local substations and distribution circuits but does not own or
operate any bulk transmission lines or generating facilities. Therefore, under the Climate Registry's EPS
protocol, the TDPUD is not responsible for bulk transmission losses but is responsible for local
distribution losses. As shown in Table F-1, bulk transmission losses (kWh) are calculated by based on a
tariff percentage of the electricity delivered to TDPUD substations. These losses are reported as Scope 3
for completeness. Also shown in Table F-1, local distribution losses (kWh) are calculated by subtracting
the total retail sales from the load at TDPUD substations. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the
local distribution losses by the calculated TDPUD-specific emissions factors.
Delivered Electricity
TDPUD consumes electricity at its facilities in addition to delivering electricity to retail customers. In
order to calculate the Scope 3 emissions from delivered electricity it is necessary to subtract the total self -
consumed electricity at TDPUD facilities, which includes both the Water and Electric Departments'
TDPUD-supplied electricity use, from the total retail sales. These calculations are shown in Table F-1.
The delivered electricity total was then multiplied by the TDPUD-specific emissions factors (REC-
adjusted), resulting in the final emissions from delivered electricity.
Page 47