2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Transcription

1 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory A Summary of Dickinson College s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Prepared by: Marcus Welker, Center for Sustainability Education, Projects Coordinator Final: 08/04/17 1

2 Introduction Dickinson College categorizes greenhouse gas emissions into six major categories, Scopes 1, 2, and 3, gross emissions, offsets, and net emissions. Scope 1 emissions are those associated with activities the institution directly controls and manages (e.g., fuel consumption in the Central Energy Plant (CEP)), Scope 2 emissions are those associated with purchasing electricity from the grid, and Scope 3 emissions are those associated with College activities that produce emissions, but that the College does not directly control emissions reductions efforts (e.g., employee commuting and air travel). Gross emissions are the sum of Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Offsets are reductions in emissions by others that are enabled by actions of the College, e.g., purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates. Offsets are subtracted from gross emissions to calculate our net emissions. We improved our greenhouse gas accounting methods to include previously excluded emissions and to estimate emissions from employee commuting and college travel more accurately. The new methods were used to calculate 2016 emissions and have been applied to all previous years to revise emission estimates for 2008 through The revised estimates presented in this report supersede all previously reported emissions. We report all emissions data by fiscal year in this report (e.g., 2016 refers to the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) and in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (MT eco 2 ). Carbon dioxide equivalent units incorporate emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases into one value. Dickinson College s 2016 greenhouse gas emissions were 17,165 MT eco 2 gross and 9,601 MT eco 2 net (Fig. 1). Dickinson s 2016 gross and net emissions were 611 MT eco 2 (3 %) and 988 MT eco 2 (9 %) less than 2015 gross and net emissions. Dickinson s 2016 gross and net emissions were 1,729 MT eco 2 (9 %) and 5,321 MT eco 2 (36 %) less than 2008 gross and net emissions, our baseline year. Figure 1. Summary of Dickinson s greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Baseline Gross Emissions 2020 Target Net Emissions Fiscal year Emission reductions in 2015 and 2016 have moved us toward our climate change commitment, which calls for a 25% reduction in gross emissions from our 2008 baseline by the year A 2

3 variety of projects are in process or planned to meet our commitment, including development of a 2.9 MW solar electricity facility that will supply approximately 25% of Dickinson's electricity consumption beginning in early Dickinson s 2016 gross emissions were split among the three emissions scopes in the same order as in 2015: Scope 2 accounted for the largest percentage, followed by Scope 1 then Scope 3 (Fig. 2). Dickinson s 2016 Scope 2 emissions accounted for 7,323 MTeCO2, or 43 % of gross emissions, Scope 1 emissions accounted for 5,002 MT eco 2, or 29 % of gross emissions, and Scope 3 emissions accounted for 4,840 MT eco 2, or 28 % of gross emissions. Figure 2. Dickinson College's greenhouse gas emissions by emissions scope from 2008 to ,000 Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) 7,500 5,000 2,500 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope Fiscal year We continue to observe a decline in emissions in 2016, a decline that began in 2015 after emissions rose between 2012 and We observed 11 % and 3 % declines in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, while Scope 3 emissions rose 5 % from 2015 to We primarily attribute the continued reduction in gross emissions to reductions in on-campus natural gas (-592 MT eco 2 ) and fuel oil (-225 MT eco 2 ) consumption and off-campus energy-generation (-232 MT eco 2 ) related emissions, which accounted for 92 % of the reductions (Fig. 3). We attribute the remaining 8 % of emissions reductions to employee commuting (-45 MT eco 2 ), direct transportation 1 (-34 MT eco 2 ), Scope 2 transmission and distribution losses 2 (Scope 2 T&D losses, -24 MT eco 2 ), and other emissions 3 (-11 MT eco 2 ). 1 Direct transportation refers to travel paid for by the College, but operated by other companies 2 Scope 2 T&D losses are emissions associated with transmitting and distributing the College s purchased electricity 3 The other category of emissions includes biogas production and consumption, landfill waste-to-energy generation, paper purchasing, and student commuting 3

4 Figure 3. Dickinson College's greenhouse gas emissions reductions between 2015 and Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, ,554 Purchased electricity 7,323 4,749 4,156 Natural gas Employee commuting Scope 2 T&D losses Direct transportation Greenhouse gas emissions category Fuel oil Other We observed a 553 MT eco2 increase in emissions from six categories (Fig. 4). We attribute 57% of the increase in emissions to increases in travel-related activities (314 MT eco 2 ) and 42% of the increase to refrigerants and chemicals (234 MT eco 2 ). Figure 4. Dickinson College's greenhouse gas emissions increases between 2015 and Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, ,991 1,723 Study abroad air travel Employee air travel Refrigerants & chemicals Employee bus, car, taxi, and train travel Greenhouse gas emissions category Agriculture Wastewater Methodological Revisions We report updated greenhouse gas emissions for 2008 to 2016 in this report. We used the Clean Air Cool Planet Version 9.0 greenhouse gas calculator in 2016 versus Version 8.0 in 2015; the new calculator has updated emissions factors for many of the emissions sources we take into account. We will only explicitly address the Scope 2 emissions factors in this report. We added new and better data plus updated our calculations when possible. We included data back to our 2008 baseline year when possible or estimates when necessary. We refer to the greenhouse gas emission estimates from 2015 as the original method and the updated estimates using the improved data and updated calculator as the revised method. 4

5 Overall, we revised gross emissions for our 2008 baseline to 18,894 MT eco 2, a 2 % reduction from the 19,256 MT eco 2 estimate in the 2015 report (Table 1). Dickinson now needs to reduce its gross emissions by 17 %, or 2995 MT eco 2, to 14,171 MT eco 2 to meet its 2020 target. Table 1. Changes in Dickinson College's greenhouse gas emissions scopes between original and revised methods from 2008 to 2016 in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Emissions scope Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Total of all scopes Calculation method Original 4,988 4,636 4,380 4,419 3,762 5,003 5,859 5,678 Revised 4,980 4,625 4,369 4,409 3,752 4,995 5,844 5,617 5,002 Original 8,660 7,692 7,960 8,315 8,415 8,506 9,203 9,068 Revised 8,500 7,549 7,747 8,087 7,018 7,093 7,679 7,554 7,323 Original 5,607 5,575 4,638 5,056 5,115 5,105 5,005 4,596 Revised 5,414 5,380 4,384 4,761 4,967 4,794 4,786 4,604 4,840 Original 19,256 17,902 16,978 17,791 17,292 18,614 20,067 19,343 Revised 18,894 17,554 16,501 17,257 15,737 16,882 18,310 17,776 17,165 More specifically, we revised Scope 2 and 3 emissions and found the following results. Scope 2 Revisions and Results Revisions For 2008 to 2016, we eliminated grid-purchased electricity for buildings that Dickinson leases to others from our inventory because we do not control the behavior of the tenants and thus are not responsible for their emissions. In the past, we included emissions from both buildings that we leased plus buildings that were leased to us. For 2012 to 2016, the emissions factors for grid-purchased electricity decreased 14% in the updated Clean Air Cool Planet Calculator (Table 2). The emissions factors for 2008 to 2011 remained the same as those in the Version 8.0 calculator. Results For 2008 to 2016, removing buildings Dickinson leases reduced our consumption by MWh, equivalent to decreases in emissions of 143-1,523 MT eco2 (Table 2). For 2008 to 2016, our revisions reduced emissions associated with grid-purchased electricity by 1-9 % (Table 2). 5

6 Fiscal Year Table 2. Changes in Dickinson College's grid-purchased electricity, i.e., Scope 2, emissions factors, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions between the original and revised methods. Emissions factors (MT eco2/kwh) Electricity consumption (MWh) GHG emissions (MT eco2) Original Revised Difference Original Revised Difference Original Revised Difference % 17,844 17, ,660 8, % % 17,700 17, ,692 7, % % 17,335 16, ,960 7, % % 18,108 17, ,315 8, % % 18,325 17, ,415 7,018-1,397-9% % 18,524 17, ,506 7,093-1,413-8% % 20,041 19, ,203 7,679-1,523-8% % 19,748 19, ,068 7,554-1,514-9% % 18,574 7,323 % Change Scope 3 Revisions and Results Revisions For 2008 to 2016, we revised travel-related emissions: o We used College-wide expenditure data, instead of piece-meal data from different departments, to calculate College employee business travel miles using six different transportation modes. We include a detailed description of the changes made and the results in the Scope 3 section of this report. o We used the results of an employee commuter behavior survey conducted in April 2016 to update employee commuting estimates. We include a detailed description of the changes made and the results in the Scope 3 section of this report. o We assumed that College employee business travel and commuting behaviors remained the same as those calculated from the 2016 financial records and commuting survey, respectively, for our revisions to 2008 through 2015 emissions. For 2008 and 2009, we estimated the amount and type of paper consumed, two years that were previously unaccounted for, by multiplying 2010 s consumption by the difference in the amount of money spent in 2008 and 2009 from 2010; this approach assumes that paper costs were the same in these three years (see Table 2 and 3 for results). For 2008 to 2016, we eliminated wastewater consumption for buildings that Dickinson leases to others from our inventory because we do not control the behavior of the tenants and thus are not responsible for their emissions (see Table 2 and 3 for results). We did not calculate the difference for each Scope 3 emissions source for 2016 because we did not use the old CACP calculator to do these calculations. 6

7 Results For , we found that emissions increased substantially from College business travel by air, bus, car, taxi, and trains using our revised methodology (Table 3). For , we found that employee commuting decreased substantially using our new methodology (Table 3). For , our revisions to College business air travel increased our greenhouse gas emissions estimates by MT eco 2, while our estimates for employee commuting decreased emissions estimates by MT eco 2 (Table 4). For , our revisions to College business air travel increased our gross emissions estimates by 5-6 %, while our estimates for employee commuting decreased our gross emissions estimates by 7-9% for 2008 to 2015 (Table 4). For , we found that revisions to paper consumption and wastewater production emissions caused very small changes in emissions (Table 3 and 4). Table 3. Dickinson College s Scope 3 emissions between the original and revised methods from 2008 to 2016 in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Emissions source Air travel Bus, car, taxi, and train travel Employee commuting Paper Wastewater Calculation method Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised

8 Table 4. Dickinson College s Scope 3 emission differences between the original and revised methods and the change the difference makes as a percentage of the gross emissions. 4 Emissions source Calculation Air travel Difference Bus, car, taxi and train travel Employee commuting % change 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% Difference % change 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Difference -1,273-1,286-1,308-1,461-1,474-1,466-1,448-1,266 % change -7% -7% -8% -8% -9% -9% -8% -7% Paper Difference % change 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Wastewater Difference % change 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Scope 1 Emissions Dickinson s 2016 Scope 1 emissions were 5,002 MT eco 2, 0.4 % greater than in 2008 and 11 % less than in 2015 (Table 1 and Fig. 5). Dickinson s Scope 1 emission sources include on-campus stationary (boilers, furnaces, etc.) combustion of fossil fuels (natural gas, fuel oil, and propane), mobile combustion of fossil fuels by institution owned or controlled vehicles, fugitive emissions from the leakage of refrigerants, and agricultural emissions from fertilizer consumption and animal husbandry. We found that on-campus stationary and direct transportation emissions declined, while refrigerant and agriculture related emissions increased between 2015 and 2016 (Figs. 3-5). Overall the declines in emissions outweighed the increases and resulted in lower Scope 1 emissions overall in 2016 than We attribute the increases in refrigerant and agricultural emissions to a lapse in refrigerant data collection in 2015 and the subsequent improved tracking system in 2016 and to increasing livestock numbers at the College s Farm. Dickinson s primary Scope 1 emissions source is burning fossil fuels in the Central Energy Plant (CEP). The CEP burned 78,174 MMBtu of natural gas and 13,604 gal of #4 fuel oil in 2016; emissions from these two sources accounted for 25 % and 1 % of Dickinson s gross emissions and made up 83 % and 3 % of Scope 1 emissions, respectively. Dickinson s vehicle fleet accounted for 7%, leaking refrigerants for 6 %, agriculture for 1%, and propane consumption for 1 % of Scope 1 emissions. 4 Difference values are in metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent. Positive values represent increases in emissions and negative values represent reductions in emissions. 8

9 Figure 5. Dickinson College's Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2016 Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) Fiscal year Agriculture Fuel Oil Refrigerants & Chemicals Vehicle Fleet Natural Gas Scope 2 Emissions Dickinson s 2016 Scope 2 emissions, comprised exclusively of grid-purchased electricity, were 7,323 MT eco 2 in 2016, 14 % less than in 2008 and 3 % less than in 2015 (Table 1 and Fig. 6). Dickinson consumed 18,573,774 kwh of electricity in 2016, 6 % more than in 2008 and 3 % less than in Dickinson purchases electricity from a grid that has become more efficient and less greenhouse gas intense; therefore, although Dickinson consumed more electricity in 2016 than 2008, our Scope 2 emissions were actually lower in 2016 than Figure 6. Dickinson College's Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions and electricity consumption from 2008 to Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) 9,000 6,000 3, ,500 17,514 7,549 17,371 7,747 16,872 Greenhouse gas emissions 8,087 17,611 7,018 17,801 7,093 17,992 MWh 7,679 19,478 7,554 19,161 7,323 18, Fiscal year 22,500 15,000 7,500 0 Meggwatt hours (MWh) Scope 3 Emissions Dickinson s 2016 Scope 3 emissions were 4,792 MT eco 2 in 2016, 12 % less than in 2008 and 5 % greater than in 2015 (Table 1 and Fig. 7). Dickinson s Scope 3 emission sources include College business travel (separated as air travel and bus, car, taxi, and train travel), student study abroad travel, employee commuting, Scope 2 transmission and distribution losses (T&D losses, i.e., emissions associated with the loss of electricity as it is transmitted and distributed to 9

10 Dickinson), and other small emission sources of paper purchasing, solid waste, student commuting to the College s farm, and wastewater production from campus water consumption. We found that emissions from employee commuting, paper purchasing, Scope 2 T&D losses, solid waste, and student commuting decreased (Figs. 3 and 7), while College business travel, study abroad travel, and wastewater increased (Figs. 4 and 7) between 2015 and Figure 7. Dickinson College's Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to Greenhouse gas emissions (MT eco2) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Fiscal year Other College business bus, car, taxi, and train travel Scope 2 T&D losses Employee air travel Employee commuting We made major revisions to two Scope 3 emissions categories, employee commuting and College business travel. Revisions to employee commuting Methods We conducted a commuter behavior survey of Dickinson employees in April 2016 because it is a large contributor to our GHG footprint and we had poor data. We sent the survey to the 925 employees of the College and received 477 responses, 52% of employees. We determined the commuting distance of 450 employees and the transportation mode of 448. We developed zip code specific average commuting distances for each transportation mode and transportation mode utilization rates. We used these zip code averages from 2016 to extrapolate to the entire employee population from using zip code data on employees home address from Human Resources for all employees. We updated our greenhouse gas inventory commuting data using the survey results (Table 5). Results Revising our employee-commuting-calculation methods substantially changed our mileage estimates for automobiles, carbon-free modes, and buses (Table 5). We increased the accuracy of our estimates for commuting distance and frequency, which lead to major reductions in automobile mileage estimates. We used the distances reported in the survey to estimate the 5 The other emissions category represent paper purchasing, solid waste, student commuting, and wastewater. 10

11 distances all employees commute, whereas previously we used Google Maps to estimate the distance traveled between the center of an employee s zip codes and work. We revised the commuting frequency based on the number of College vacation days and the results of the survey that indicates that many employees who live further from campus do not drive to work every day, like we previously assumed, but instead telecommute one to three days a week or have a second, closer residence to work and only commute from their further residence once in a while. We found that employees predominantly drive to work, like we previously assumed, but approximately one third of employees live within walking or biking distance of campus and frequently use carbon free modes of transportation. We found that few employees report using public transportation regularly. Our analysis reduced our automobile commuting estimates by approximately 60 %, while we included carbon-free and bus mileages for the first time. Employee commuting remains a substantial contributor to our greenhouse gas emissions; employee commuting now contributes between 4-6 % of the College s gross emissions versus the original method s estimates of 9-12%. Table 5. Dickinson College commuting mileage using the original and revised calculation methods from 2008 to Original Revised Fiscal Year Automobile (miles) MT eco2 Commuting % of gross emissions Automobile (miles) Carbonfree (miles) Bus (miles) MT eco2 Commuting % of gross emissions ,278,911 1,722 9% 2,221,971 81,935 1, % ,325,055 1,741 10% 2,427,167 92,089 1, % ,370,225 1,759 10% 2,410,920 84,864 1, % ,846,595 1,951 11% 2,841,489 98,422 1,920 1,040 6% ,946,178 1,991 12% 2,777,716 98,688 1,951 1,015 6% ,900,100 1,973 11% 2,788,826 96,099 1,888 1,019 6% ,850,351 1,953 10% 2,751,193 93,308 1,837 1,004 5% ,375,161 1,761 9% 2,633,925 88,749 1, % ,509,646 80,592 1, % Revisions to College business travel Methods We updated our methodology for calculating College business travel, i.e., air, bus, car, taxi, and train travel that College employees pay for, but that someone else operates, e.g., flying on Delta airlines or riding Amtrak. For the first time, we used College-wide expenditure data versus collecting piece-meal data from different College departments to account for a larger percentage of the College s travel. 11

12 We evaluated Dickinson employee s 2016 travel using purchasing-card and ledger-transaction records received from Dickinson s Financial Operations Department. Many of the individual purchasing card records, i.e., unique transactions for air, bus, car, taxi, and train travel contained the origin and destination of the trip (i.e., an itinerary); for example, the departure and arrival airports or train stations of a trip. For air travel records with itineraries, we estimated the distance between airports using great circle distances, i.e., the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere. Although great circle distances are not the exact route airlines take between airports, they are commonly used to approximate the distances. For bus and train travel records with itineraries, we estimated the distances traveled using Google Map directions. For car travel, we separated and calculated mileages differently for taxis, vehicle rentals from Enterprise, and vehicle rentals from other providers. We estimated vehicle rental and taxi mileages separately because we believe it will generate more accurate estimates; we estimate that taxis are 8.3 times more expensive per mile traveled than vehicle rentals. Taxi rates are not solely based on a linear price-per-mile pricing scheme. Taxi prices are a blend of initial costs to get in the taxi, surcharges, time spent in slow traffic or stopped, toll prices, and distances traveled. The cost per mile to take a taxi declines as distances increase, i.e., it is more expensive per mile to travel short distances than long distances. To determine the distance traveled by Dickinson employees in taxis, we estimated Dickinson employees spent an average of $40 per taxi trip in We used taxi prices from the top 40 cities in America in to calculate the average distance traveled for Dickinson s average amount spent, $40. We estimate for a $40 trip that the average cost per mile is $2.40. We used this average price per mile of taxi travel to estimate the taxi mileage for all transactions. For vehicle rentals from Enterprise, we received mileage directly from Enterprise for the College s accounts (Table 6). We assumed Enterprise mileage for 2008 and 2009 were the same in order to include data in our baseline year. For all travel records with dollar amounts spent but no itineraries, including vehicle rentals from providers other than Enterprise, we estimated mileage based on estimated miles per dollars from the respective travel mode records with itineraries. For example, for vehicle rentals without itineraries, we used the average miles traveled per dollar spent from the Enterprise rentals in 2016 (3.48 miles/dollar, Table 6) to determine the miles traveled using other vehicle rentals in See: 12

13 Table 6. Dickinson College Enterprise vehicle rentals from 2008 to Fiscal year Number of rentals Miles driven Cost Miles/dollar ,914* ,914 $10, ,068 $10, ,685 $15, ,585 $16, ,623 $21, ,307 $24, ,224 $34, ,568 $33, * 2008 miles driven were estimated to be the same as 2009 miles driven We estimated personal mileage reimbursement from two types of data, gasoline purchases and mileage reimbursements. For gasoline purchases, we estimated the distances traveled by dividing the dollar amounts spent on gas by the monthly price per gallon of gas for the respective month to give us gallons of gas. We then multiplied the gallons of gas by the average miles per gallon for all US vehicles. We used the average monthly price per gallon for all gas formulations from the US Energy Information Administration to convert dollar amounts of gas purchased to gallons of gas purchased. 7 We used the US Department of Transportation s average fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles, i.e., the type of vehicles Dickinson employees operate, for the calculations. 8 For direct mileage reimbursements, we estimated the distances traveled by dividing the amounts reimbursed by the IRS reimbursement rate. We used $0.54 for calendar year 2015 dates and $0.55 for 2016 dates. 9 We also identified two other categories of travel, travel by multiple modes and travel by unknown travel modes. We did not assign mileage to these two travel categories and therefore did not include them in our previous year s mileage calculations and greenhouse gas emissions. We calculated previous years travel amounts back to our baseline year, 2008, using our revised estimates for We estimated mileage for previous years by multiplying the 2016 per capita travel for each travel mode by the College s previous employee populations. We included Enterprise miles directly. 7 U.S. Energy Information Authority (2017) U.S. Gasoline and Diesel Retail Prices. Available at: 8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2017) Highway Statistics, Table Available at: 9 U.S. Internal Revenue Service (2017) Standard Mileage Rates. Available at: 13

14 Results Revising our employee-travel-calculation methods substantially increased our mileage for each travel category (Table 7, see Appendix 1 for a more comprehensive breakdown of employeetravel mileages). Mileages for air, car, and personal mileage reimbursements all increased twofold or greater from original estimates. We primarily accounted for bus and train travel mileages for the first time in this year s inventory, therefore there were very large increases in these mileage categories. Our College travel-related greenhouse gas emissions increased as a result of our increased mileage estimates. Dickinson s employee-travel-related greenhouse gas emissions increased approximately twofold due to increased mileage estimates (Table 8). Our doubling of air travel miles resulted in a MT eco 2 per year increase in emissions for Our doubling of bus, car, personal mileage reimbursement, and train travel mileages resulted in a MT eco 2 per year increase in emissions for Overall, employee-travel-related emissions increased on average 583 MT eco 2 per year. We now estimate that employee-travel emissions contribute 6-7 % of the College s gross emissions, double what was previously estimated. Offsets Dickinson offsets GHG emissions through the purchasing of wind power renewable energy certificates (RECs) and composting at the College s farm. Dickinson s 2016 RECs offset 7,323 MT eco 2 and reduced our gross emissions by 43 % in Dickinson s Organic Farm composting operation offset an additional 73 MT eco 2, less than 1 %, of gross emissions in For 2016, Dickinson purchased RECs from two companies, Green Mountain Energy Company for July-Sept and Renewable Choice Energy for Oct June We purchased $1,380 of certificates from Green Mountain at $0.92 per MWh and $11,990 of certificates from Renewable Choice at $0.8 per MWh. Dickinson s purchasing of RECs increased from 8 million kwh in 2008 and 2009 to 18 million kwh in to 19 million kwh in Both Green Mountain s and Renewable Choice s RECs are independently certified by Green-e, one of the strictest standards available on the REC market. 14

15 Table 7. Dickinson College employee-travel mileage using the original and revised calculation methods from 2008 to We report all values in this table in miles. The car travel category includes rental cars from Enterprise and other companies plus taxis travel. Fiscal Year Air Bus Car Personal mileage reimbursement Train Original Revised Original* Revised Original^ Revised Original Revised Original* Revised ,941 1,537,044 12,314 33, ,157 67, ,444 27, ,376 1,559,720 12,495 33, ,054 72, ,118 28, ,532 1,589,297 12,732 36, ,138 66, , , ,308 1,629,720 13,056 47, ,085 56, , , ,914 1,646,480 13,191 62, ,965 70, ,521 29, ,868 1,682,959 13,483 70, ,235 79, ,214 30, ,297 1,634,649 13,096 79, ,932 66, ,648 29, ,667 1,724,368 13,815 95, ,351 86, ,270 31, ,847 1,758, , , ,281 61, ,817 4,709 31,650 * Original bus and train travel estimates were from early estimates from Admissions ^ Car mileages were originally just mileage from Dickinson's main rental car company, Enterprise 15

16 Table 8. Dickinson College s original and revised greenhouse gas emissions from College business travel in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. We included bus, car rentals, personal mileage reimbursements, taxis, and train travel in the Other category per CACP nomenclature. Fiscal Year Air Other Total Travel Emissions % of Gross Emissions Original Revised Difference Original Revised Difference Original Revised Difference Original Revised , % 6% , % 6% , % 7% , % 6% , % 7% , % 6% , % 6% , % 6% , % 7% 16

17 Appendix 1. Dickinson College travel revision broken down by transactions with and without itineraries, i.e., origins and destinations, for Transactions without Transactions with itineraries itineraries Record Ledger Travel Total Total Travel Mode Number Number Source Category Miles Cost ($) of Miles Dollars of Dollars Miles records traveled spent Miles/$1 records spent traveled Air travel Ledger Other ,508 3, Transportation , , ,539 18,962 P-Card N/A 1,170 1,591, , ,224 45,163 1,636, ,829 Bus Ledger Field Trips , ,777 Other 0 3 1, ,875 Transportation 80 11, , , ,079 P-Card N/A , ,893 1,822 2,139 26,673 Car Ledger Other Transportation ,855 79,608 79,608 22,855 P-Card N/A ,568 33, , , ,748 63,088 Gas Ledger Transportation 111,801 11, ,801 11,623 Multiple Ledger Transportation Modes , ,359 Reimbursed Ledger Field Trips mileage Other ,441 2,683 2,683 1,441 Transportation ,182 15,237 15,237 8,182 Taxi P-Card N/A 365 6,090 14, ,090 14,615 Trains Ledger Transportation P-Card N/A ,140 13, ,920 8,294 31,434 18,649 Transportation Ledger Other 0 1 5, ,560 Total 2,239, ,307 17