Not Applicable

To put UF on an automated path to track GHG emissions. The tool was created around UF’s unique database systems. This will allow UF to track emissions per college, per department, per building, per space type, and better communicate shared ownership of the GHG problem.

Electricity emission rates associated with kWh consumption were borrowed from the U.S. Environmental Agency’s (EPA) Emissions & Generation Resource Database, eGRID, and reflect the emissions generated in the power control area (PCA) in which the University is located.

Water - emission rates associated with water consumption were provided by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and reflect the energy use associated with water extraction, treatment and pumping from the Murphree Water Treatment Plant to the UF Campus. Emission rates for GRU’s Power Control Area (PCA), as used in the production of drinking water, were borrowed from eGRID.

CFC’s & HFC’s - emission values for Chlorofluorocarbons and Hydrofluorocarbons used in HVAC cooling applications at the Universities central chiller facilities were sourced from The Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Technology Institute’s Refrigerant Database.

Steam -emission values for steam use were calculated using
WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Initiatives
Allocation of GHG emissions from a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, version 1.0

Liquid Fuels - emission values for Natural Gas, Diesel, Gasoline and Jet Fuel were sourced from Argonne National Laboratories’ Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model, commonly known as GREET. The values applied reflect the consumption of the fuels themselves, not the energies expended during recovery, processing and transportation of the fuels.

The inventory process started in November 2006, with the acquisition of data snapshots from various UF software systems. Three sets of data were acquired; air travel as it appears as an expense in the PeopleSoft financial software, fuel usage by the motor pool from the TRAK system, and utility usage as recorded by the Physical plant. The same software firm that helped create the 1996-2001 UF GHG inventory (http://www.icbe.com/uf_audit/default.asp) was hired to create the expanded 2.0 version. Meanwhile, interns and members of the Climate Neutrality Working Group (CNWG)
worked on identifying on the smaller, peripheral emissions of refrigerants, lab chemicals, fertilizers, live stock, waste streams and carbon sinks, for which data acquisition nodes had yet to be identified or for which quantification formulas were poor or lacking. As of September 2008, 18 information nodes have been identified. The nodes provide information to the external consultant, and the external consultant then works with the software firm to adapt the UF GHG Inventory database to the format and style of the information as supplied by the nodes.

All information that had GHG relevance was absorbed into the inventory. The only lab chemical that was purposely left out was dry-ice, of which just over 2,000 lbs were used in Shands Hospital. The time it took to communicate with various nodes, and hunt-down and process this information, was deemed excessive relative to the 1 tonne CO2e it would represent in the inventory.

Air travel – The travel expense module in People Soft is set up to capture point to point travel, independent of the mode. So, if a professor travels from Gainesville to Orlando by car, then from Orlando to London by plane, the expense module records only travel from Gainesville to London. This leads to a slight error in recorded air travel miles. Another limitation is introduced when a user tries to spell out an origin or destination, instead of using an IATA airport code. The UF GHG Inventory software is set up to configure flight distances based on the latitude and longitude of IATA codes, and cannot read or interpret origins such as GAINS, or LOSAN. Another variety of this is when a user enters a flight as GNV to GNV, assuming the origin and (eventual) destination are both Gainesville. About 12% of entries became unreadable due to this error. As a work-around, the average distance per dollar flown of the known values were used to approximate the unknown air travel records.

Commuter – The commuter footprint was derived from Googling all known addresses associated with parking decal sales, and associating that with listed vehicle make and model. There were two limitations to this approach. First, about 17% of decal addresses were sent to on-campus locations, and their true home addresses remained unknown. Another limitation was that though a user might buy an annual decal, it was not clear if that meant that users would commute 250 times a year. A survey has been introduced at the decal purchasing point to start acquiring this knowledge.

Any additional information on limitations and assumptions will be included in the forthcoming attached narrative.

These 13 tCO2e were for neutralization of the Campus and Community Sustainability Conference hosted by the University of Florida for 2 days in October 2006. These offsets were based on Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) credits but offered via the Conference Neutral product. Additional information will be included in the forthcoming attached narrative.

No information provided.

Carbon Sequestration – The University of Florida has over 18,000 acres in land holdings. Of that, about 9,000 acres fall within Alachua County, which will be chosen as the boundary for future AASHE GHG Report (though not for this 2006 report which uses the main campus as the boundary) . A graduate student volunteered to do a CQ analysis, using a 2003 LANDSAT image. The Florida wide image was processed by Fish and Game in 2005 for habitat distribution. The grad student then used literature research to associate each type of habitat with Net Primary Productivity (NPP), which expresses carbon uptake. Not all the NPP values are known yet, and they need to be calibrated using onsite visits, which are referred to as ‘ground truthing’ in forestry vernacular. As is, the unconfirmed sequestration rates are in the 100,000 tCO2/yr range.

As is stated by some of the other participating ACUPCC institutions, there is debate as to the additionality of these land holdings. The University of Florida leans in the direction that allows for these holdings and their land use management regimes to be included in carbon inventories as sequestration capacity. However, for the purposes of this 2006 Carbon Inventory Report, the University of Florida has temporarily decided to withhold reporting this sequestration number in Question #37 above as we internally review this situation and watch the discussion on an international stage.

To be provided with attached written narrative forthcoming.