GR E ENHO U SE GAS E MISSIO N S

AU D IT FO R RE POR T IN G PER IO D

2 0 1 1 – 2 01 2

( S u m m e r 2 0 1 4 )

Study conducted by Erin Paeng, Harvey Mudd College, ‘17

1

Acknowledgments

The following people were instrumental in the completion of this inventory and should be

recognized as such. The GHG audit staff would like to express sincere thanks and gratitude for

their contributions.

Troy Hansgen Senior Director of Facilities

Euria Chung Assistant Director for Advancement and Executive Assistant to

Vice President

Mike Barber Grounds Manager, Facilities and Maintenance

Scott Martin Assistant Vice President for Business Affairs

Cynthia Beckwith Assistant Vice President for Human Resources

Elise Cherpin Assistant Director of Stewardship

Chi Herrington Business Affairs Coordinator

Steffanie Martinez Central Facilities Services

Elizabeth Bolivar-

Mercado

Human Resource Analyst

Theresa Lauer Senior Director of Operations and Emergency Preparedness,

Facilities and Maintenance

Isaac Quintero Sanitation Supervisor, Claremont City Services

John Moe

Justin Low

Senior FMCS Engineer, Central Facilities Services

Associate Director for Administration

Andrew Dorantes Vice President for Administration and Finance/Treasurer

Rhonda Chiles Director of Study Abroad

2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

A. Background and Scope ............................................................................................................ 4

A.1. Protocol ............................................................................................................................ 4

A.2. Reporting Period .............................................................................................................. 4

A.3. Institutional Changes ........................................................................................................ 4

B. Data Collection and Methodology .......................................................................................... 5

B.1. Scope I .............................................................................................................................. 5

B.1.1. Agricultural Sources .................................................................................................. 5

B.1.2. Direct Transportation Sources .................................................................................. 5

B.1.3. On Campus Stationary Sources ................................................................................. 6

B.1.4. Refrigerants and Chemicals ...................................................................................... 7

B.2. Scope II ............................................................................................................................. 8

B.2.1. Electricity ................................................................................................................... 8

B.3. Scope III .......................................................................................................................... 10

B.3.1. Commuting .............................................................................................................. 10

B.3.2. Directly Financed Outsourced Travel ...................................................................... 11

B.3.3. Study Abroad Travel ................................................................................................ 13

B.3.4. Solid Waste ............................................................................................................. 14

C. Results ................................................................................................................................... 15

C.1. 2009 – 2010 Emissions Estimates .................................................................................. 16

C.2. Further Pertinent Analysis.............................................................................................. 18

3

Executive Summary

As greater society becomes increasingly aware of the compounding environmental exigencies

we face in the 21st century, a coordinated effort to minimize our presence has begun to take

hold and assimilate throughout mainstream culture. It is becoming clear that a sustainable

relationship with the environment will be vital to maintaining high living standards in the next

generation, and that in order to preserve a natural balance among delicate ecosystems, we

must take action immediately or risk impending catastrophe. Colleges and Universities have

always been at the forefront of this movement, instrumental in clearing the way for legislative

policy advancement and industrial patronage of “green” projects.

In the Spring of 2008, Harvey Mudd’s President, Maria Klawe, signed the American College and

University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which outlines a timeline for

sustainability measures and sets attainable goals for participating institutions.1 Acting in

coordination with the ACUPCC plan, the current audit was undertaken for the years 2011-2012

with the intention of providing an update for our GHG emissions.

It should be noted that this audit is comprised of estimates, both from the 2008 baseline audit

and information gathered from 2011-2012. Results indicate a slight increase in energy

consumption and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions, but these rises are generally slight and

may be explained by statistical phenomena.

Additionally, we took into consideration the contribution of each source to the overall GHG

emissions of our college. From the baseline audit conducted in 2008, it was found that the

following sources did not contribute significantly: agriculture, refrigerants, co-generated

electricity, paper, and student commuting. Together, these sources summed to around a 1%

change, which is less than solid waste or direct transportation. It was therefore deemed most

conducive to not investigate in depth; this is operating under the assumption that uses of these

sources did not change drastically from year to year. It is believed this is a reasonable estimate.

As Harvey Mudd College continues to act upon its commitment to the environment, these

numbers will decline and reflect a general trend towards more sustainable practices.

1 American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/

4

A. Background and Scope

A.1. PROTOCOL

Harvey Mudd used the ACUPCC implementation guide as a reference while completing its

emissions assessment.2 The ACUPCC recommends using Clean Air Cool Planet's (CA-CP)

Campus Carbon Calculator3 to perform inventories as it complies with the Greenhouse Gas

Protocol (GHG Protocol) of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

and the World Resources Institute (WRI).4

A.2. REPORTING PERIOD

This report covers the years 2011 to 2012, specifically ranging from January 2011 to December

2012.

A.3. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

When considering the emissions profile of an institution it is important to recognize any

considerable changes that occurred over the period of analysis that might have influenced

emissions. Troy Hansgen and Theresa Lauer, Senior Director of Facilities and Senior Director of

Operations and Emergency Preparedness, provided the following list of significant structural

modifications and construction projects between 2011 and 2012.

1. 2011: construction of the new Teaching and Learning Center, to be the major academic

building on campus, begins.

2. 2012: Upgrades to the central plant take place (two new cooling towers, two new

chillers).

2 “Implementation Guide, v1.0.” American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. September 2007. http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/pdf/ACUPCC_IG_Final.pdf. 3 Clean Air-Cool Planet, Inc. http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/ 4 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/.

5

B. Data Collection and Methodology

The following sections describe the methodology of data collection and the considerations for

each area of subcategory. The organizational structure follows that of the CA-CP Calculator and

is accordingly arranged by scope.

B.1. SCOPE I

B.1.1. Agricultural Sources

The measurement of emissions due to agricultural sources is limited to the on-campus

application of fertilizer by Harvey Mudd grounds personnel. Mike Barber, Grounds Manager,

confirmed with his supplier that the college has annually purchased 3,000 pounds of synthetic

fertilizer with 16% nitrogen content every year. Given that these numbers are the same from

the 2008 audit, we can conclude that it has minimal impact on the overall greenhouse gas

emissions (in line with the cumulative results found in that baseline report).

B.1.2. Direct Transportation Sources

B.1.2.1. Gasoline

The college-owned fleet at Harvey Mudd includes cars utilized by the President, Facilities and

Maintenance, Dean of Students, Upward Bound, and the Engineering department. A small

portion of gasoline is contributed by students driving personal vehicles, which were not

considered significant enough to warrant a re-survey (student travel did not vary much year by

year, and had little impact on overall GHG emissions in the 2008 audit). The 0.1 percent

increase in gasoline is yet unaccounted for, but the difference is statistically insignificant as an

increase.

Figure B-1 Gasoline Usage for College-Owned Fleet at Harvey Mudd, 2011-2012

3,932 3,937

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2011 2012

Gal

lon

s

Year

GASOLINE CONSUMPTION

6

B.1.2.2. Diesel

Mileage records do not exist for diesel-powered vehicles and landscaping equipment on

campus, so instead of compiling data which may be incomplete, using archived fuel receipts

was the most practical way of collecting data for diesel fuel consumption.

In addition to grounds equipment, a secondary source of diesel for Harvey Mudd came from

generators that were used to supply electricity during scheduled outages. Harvey Mudd owns

several generators, but they are largely powered by natural gas and rarely used except during

routine testing. In the case of the scheduled outages, generators were rented from an outside

company and do not represent a regular source of diesel emissions for the college.

From 2011 to 2012, 130 gallons of diesel were used per year. These figures remained consistent

from 2011 to 2012 due to similar conditions on campus during those years.

B.1.3. On Campus Stationary Sources

B.1.3.1. Natural Gas

Harvey Mudd’s on-campus stationary sources of emissions are limited to those produced by the

burning of natural gas, purchased by the college and used mainly for heating water on campus,

but are a substantial portion of Harvey Mudd’s overall profile because of the large number of

boilers in use at the college. Aside from providing hot water for use in sinks, showers and

kitchen equipment, most of the school’s heating systems depend on hot water to maintain

climate control. There was a 10 percent decrease from 2011 to 2012.

Figure B-2 Purchased Natural Gas, 2011-2012

383,217346,736

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

2011 2012

The

rm

Year

NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION

7

B.1.3.2. Solar Co-Generation

60 BP Solarex MST-43MV multi junction thin film photovoltaic panels with a Xantrex SunTie

XR2500 inverter is essentially an emissions-free source of power, but it is included in the report

because it impacts our power output. There was an insignificant variation in the total power

output by the solar panels between 2011 and 2012, of power output for this specific year, so

the numbers from 2009 and 2011 were averaged as a projected value.

Figure B-3 Solar Energy generated, 2011-2012

B.1.4. Refrigerants and Chemicals

Refrigerants and chemicals for Harvey Mudd’s equipment are maintained and serviced by the

Claremont Colleges Central Facilities Services (CFS).

The data used in this report is based on refrigerant purchases in 2011 and 2012, received from

CFS. The values stayed consistent between the years indicated. For each year, 2,212 lbs. of

refrigerants were purchased and distributed among various locations on campus as depicted

below. However, due to the consistency in equipment and use between 2008 and the period of

this audit, we can similarly conclude an insignificant impact on GHG emissions due to both

chemicals and refrigerants.

2,432

1,212

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2011 2012

kWh

Year

SOLAR CO-GENERATION

8

Figure B-4 Refrigerants purchased, 2011-2012

B.2. SCOPE II

B.2.1. Electricity

Emissions as a byproduct of electricity use at Harvey Mudd are calculated by converting the

kilowatt hours (kWh) that the college uses into an estimate of gases produced by the sources of

power generation that compose the local fuel mix. Total electricity in this report refers to both

directly purchased electricity and the inferred amount of electricity that is needed to provide

water to the campus community (mainly that of electricity due to water consumption).

B.2.1.1. Purchased Electricity

Records of electricity usage are maintained by Central Facilities Services (CFS), a support service

of CUC, the consortium office for the colleges. Electricity is purchased directly from Southern

California Edison (SCE) by the CUC and routed to the colleges, each of which is billed separately

by the CUC. Individual metering at each college is also performed by the CUC since SCE’s billing

is based on centralized meters through CFS. The figure below describes Harvey Mudd’s

electricity use over the period of 2011 to 2012. There was a +7.8% change between these years.

Parsons, 3%Kingston,

7%

Platt, 7%

Marks, 4%

Libra, 38%

Libra General,

41%

REFRIGERANT USE

9

Figure B-5 Purchased Electricity at Harvey Mudd, 2011-2012

B.2.1.2. Electricity and Water

The 2007 Sustainability Audit calculated the local energy intensity of the Claremont Colleges

water supply, ascertaining that each 100 ft3 of water, referred to as centum cubic feet (CCF),

was responsible for 6.12 kWh of electricity usage.5 Thus, in order to obtain the electricity use

due to water, the Harvey Mudd College utility bills were summed by year and that amount

multiplied by the 6.12 kWh/CCF value above. We consumed 13% percent more water in 2011

than in 2012, resulting in a proportional increase in energy consumption.

Figure B-6 Electricity due to water consumption, 2011-2012

5 “Chapter 2: Sustainability in a Desert: Water and Landscaping at the Claremont Colleges.” Sustainability Audit of the Campuses of the Claremont Colleges. The Claremont Colleges. October 16, 2007. http://sustainability.claremont.edu/audit/chapter6.pdf. Pages 8-9.

8,349,8899,003,228

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

2011 2012

kWh

Year

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY

296,318338,589

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

2011 2012

kWh

Year

ELECTRICY DUE TO WATER CONSUMPTION

10

B.2.1.3. Fuel Mix

The fuel mix used for this inventory is the local default mix for the Western Electricity

Coordinating Council (WECC) region, which is preloaded into the CA-CP calculator. Although the

WECC’s territory includes nearly the entirety of California, it should be noted that the local fuel

mix of electricity provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) contains less carbon–based fuels

and more sustainable sources of power generation. Between 2011 and 2012, SCE experienced a

massive shift from nuclear energy to purchased fossil fuels (which in the more recent year

comprised of 41%). For both years, however, gas was one of the primary categories.

Figure B-7 Subregion Resource Mix for SCE (interior circle is 2012), 2011-2012

B.3. SCOPE III

B.3.1. Commuting

B.3.1.1. Faculty/Staff Commuting

There is an insignificant amount of change, both in total miles traversed and mode of

transportation between the years 2011 and 2012, as indicated in the figure below. Despite the

fact that commuting information was gathered solely by survey and participant levels did not

achieve 100%, we extrapolated the proportions of the data available to establish a general idea

of the commuting miles.

7

21

15

7

819

41

8%

27%

1%

8%24%

7%

1%

9%

15%

SCE FUEL MIX Coal

Gas

Biomass

Hydro

Nuclear

Wind

Solar

Geo-thermal

Unknown/Otherpurchased fuel

11

Figure B-8 Commuting miles per mode of transportation, 2011-2012

B.3.2. Directly Financed Outsourced Travel

B.3.2.1. Staff and Faculty Travel

Our main source for collecting travel information was the Business Affairs office, which had

records of college-funded travel. Summing the mileage for each individual travel ticket provided

a reasonable sum for the college financed travel for staff and faculty. Total mileage shrank from

2031994.4 miles in 2011 to 1778362.5 miles in 2012 (-13%).

38

2 66

0

12

2

4,1

61

5,3

25

38

0 65

7

12

1

4,1

42

5,3

00

B I K E C A R P O O L S U B W A Y P E R S O N A L C A R T O T A L

MIL

ES

MODE OF TRANSPORTATION

FACULTY/STAF COMMUTING

2011 2012

12

Figure B-9 Financed Travel per department, 2011-2012

B.3.2.2. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (CMS) Athletics

Harvey Mudd’s student athletes do not participate on college-inclusive sports teams and are

instead part of a collective program that groups athletes from three of the Claremont Colleges.

Sports teams comprise athletes from Harvey Mudd, as well as Claremont McKenna College and

Scripps College. Harvey Mudd’s individual contribution to overall CMS athletics travel was

determined by calculating an overall mileage total for each team and finding the proportion of

players from Harvey Mudd participating on the team. Then, the percentage of Harvey Mudd

players was multiplied by the total number of miles to calculate Harvey Mudd’s contribution.

This methodology was adopted as there was no record of how many of Harvey Mudd’s athletes

travelled to each tournament, so the overall team numbers were used. It should be noted that

the data available for this period was incomplete, so the mileage contributed to this sector is

largely an approximation.

1,056,384.4

1,998,508.0

1,746,722.0

41,973.4

33,486.4

31,640.5

TOTAL, 1,098,357.8

TOTAL, 2,031,994.4

TOTAL, 1,778,362.5

2 0 0 8 ( B A S E L I N E ) 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

MIL

ES

FINANCED TRAVEL MILEAGE

AIR CAR

13

Figure B-10 Athletic Miles per mode of transportation, 2011-2012

B.3.3. Study Abroad Travel

Emissions for study abroad travel were estimated using much of the same techniques as the

staff and faculty travel, with the help of a list of students who have participated in study abroad

programs along with their destinations. A majority of this data was supplied by Rhonda Chiles,

Director of Study Abroad. There was around a 69% increase in the miles traveled in 2011 to

2012, likely attributable to an increase in the program’s participants.

Figure B-11 Miles traveled by study abroad students, 2011-2012

25

0,3

02

.50

79

,45

2.8

2

24

2,0

95

.00

91

,77

6.0

0

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Air Bus

Mile

s

Mode

ATHLETIC MILEAGE

2011 2012

148,498

251,270

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2011 2012

MIL

ES

YEAR

STUDY ABROAD MILEAGE

14

B.3.4. Solid Waste

B.5.4.1. Waste and Recycling

Waste at Harvey Mudd is serviced by the City of Claremont Community Services Department

which is contracted through the CUC to provide waste pick-up for the Claremont Colleges. This

arrangement makes estimating Harvey Mudd’s individual waste difficult because solid waste is

not weighed on pick-up. Trash from overweight containers are billed separately by the city.

Both green waste and trash collected from these containers weighed a generally unvarying 2 to

3 tons per annum. According to the 2008 baseline audit, solid waste contributed less than 1% to

the overall GHG emissions of the College. It was thus deemed appropriate to include an

estimate of our annual tonnage in this report.

*Note: Mr. Isaac Quintero, Sanitation Supervisor for the City of Claremont, provided the

following numbers as an annual average. When questioned, he said that waste amounts varied

little year by year. It should be additionally noted that individual load characterizations per

campus is nearly impossible, as trash is combined across the Consortium prior to relocation.

Figure B-13 Tonnage per waste type, 2011 - 2012

B.5.4.2. Landfills

Waste from Harvey Mudd (and as a consequence the Consortium) is delivered to separate

destinations according to type. Green waste is taken to Recycled Wood Products in Pomona,

CA; recyclable materials are taken to Mission Recycles in Pomona, CA; general waste is

distributed to both Rialto Landfill Mid-Valley in San Bernardino County, CA and Burrtec Landfill

in Fontana, CA. Exact proportions of division are unknown.

8736

27

ANNUAL WASTE TONNAGE

Trash Recycling Green waste

15

C. Results

As with any attempt to quantify emissions, the following figures should be considered

estimates only and not an absolute measurement of Harvey Mudd’s greenhouse gas

production. Numerical values certainly contain some margin of error, which is further widened

by the quality and quantity of data available for this period (2011 to 2012). However, despite

the limitations of this study, the findings presented here should be valuable for efficient future

action.

This reporting period saw significantly changed sources of emissions than previously. Scope I

was the major source of emissions (45%) in 2011, which changed to Scope II in 2012 (42%). The

largest contributors were natural gas purchased by the Mudd and purchased electricity for

2011 and 2012 respectively. This large shift may be explained by SCE (our electricity supplier)

and their shift towards purchased fuels in their 2012 fuel mix6.

In line with our baseline study, Scope I presented a large source of emissions via the college’s

purchases of natural gas (on campus stationary). This particular sector shrank from 45% in 2011

to 27% (-18%) in 2012 while electricity purchases grew (+34%). We certainly purchased more

electricity in 2012, but this does not fully explain the significant change. We suspect that the

dramatic change in the fuel mix from 2011 to 2012 may have contributed to purchased

electricity composing a much higher portion of our emissions. While natural gas and nuclear

were the main sources of energy in 2011, these were largely replaced by purchased fuel in

2012.

The final area that contributed significantly to our GHG emissions was directly financed air

transportation (Scope III) - it shrank from 26% in 2011 to 16% in 2012 due to electricity’s

growing portion.

Overall, Harvey Mudd experienced mixed performance, both in terms of CO2 emitted and in

total energy use. This is reflected in the decreased values for energy consumption in terms of

total students and community members (indicating not only a general decrease, but a decrease

in consumption and emission per person) but also an increase in eCO2 emissions. Renovations

that took part in 2011 and 2012- the construction of the Teaching and Learning Center and

upgrades to the central plant- may partially explain the changes. Without structured and

thorough metering, however, this cannot be confirmed.

6 See Figure B-7 for more details.

16

C.1. 2011 – 2012 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES

2011 vs 2012 EMISSIONS SUMMARY

Energy Consumption CO2 CH4 N2O eCO2

MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes

Scope 1

Other On-Campus Stationary

38,321.7

34,673.6

2,031,816.5

1,838,394.3

202.1

182.9

4.0

3.7

2,038.1

1,844.1

Direct Transportation

505.0

505.6

36,077.0

36,121.3

7.4

7.4

2.5

2.5

37.0

37.0

Agriculture -

-

-

-

-

-

6.8

6.8

2.0

2.0

Scope 2

Purchased Electricity

64,234.2

69,260.2

374,209.8

2,780,938.2

68.1

39.5

35.2

68.9

386.4

2,802.5

Purchased Steam / Chilled Water

1,323.8

1,259.5

83,806.6

79,739.7

10.4

9.9

0.5

0.5

84.2

80.1

Scope 3

Faculty / Staff Commuting

6,884.4

6,779.4

483,428.5

486,136.5

101.5

101.1

34.0

33.9

496.1

498.8

Directly Financed Air Travel

6,051.3

5,351.7

1,180,186.7

1,043,740.9

11.7

10.3

13.4

11.9

1,184.5

1,047.5

Other Directly Financed Travel

517.2

561.2

37,803.3

41,084.7

4.0

4.1

1.5

1.6

38.4

41.6

Study Abroad Air Travel

399.6

676.1

77,932.5

131,867.7

0.8

1.3

0.9

1.5

78.2

132.3

Solid Waste -

-

-

-

7,204.4

7,204.4

-

-

180.1

180.1

Scope 2 T&D Losses

6,422.5

2,719.9

41,420.6

110,745.1

7.3

2.0

3.5

2.7

42.6

111.6

Totals Scope 1

38,826.7 35,179.2

2,067,893.5

1,874,515.6

209.5

190.3

13.3

12.9

2,077.1

1,883.1

Scope 2

65,558.0 70,519.8

458,016.4

2,860,677.9

78.5

49.4

35.6

69.4

470.6

2,882.6

Scope 3

20,275.0 16,088.4

1,820,771.6

1,813,574.9

7,329.6

7,323.2

53.3

51.5

2,019.9

2,012.0

All Scopes

124,659.7 121,787.4

4,346,681.6

6,548,768.4

7,617.6

7,562.9

102.2

133.8

4,567.6

6,777.7

Net Emissions:

4,567.6

6,777.7

Table C-1 Harvey Mudd’s 2011-2012 Green House Gas Emissions Profile

17

Figure C-1 Emissions by source year comparison, 2011-2012

Figure C-2 Emissions by scope year comparison, 2011-2012

45%

1%8%2%11%

26%

2%4%1%

Other On-Campus Stationary

27%

Direct Transportation

0%

Purchased Electricity

42%

Purchased Steam / Chilled Water

1%

Faculty / Staff Commuting

7%

Directly Financed Air Travel

16%

Study Abroad Air Travel

2%

Solid Waste3%

Scope 2 T&D Losses2%

EMISSIONS BY SOURCE

2012

2011

46%

10%

44%

Scope 128%

Scope 242%

Scope 330%

EMISSIONS BY SCOPE

2012

2011

18

C.2. FURTHER PERTINENT ANALYSIS

Figure C-3 eCO2 emissions separated by source, 2011-2012

Figure C-4 eCO2 emissions per student and per community member, 2011-2012

254.7 42.6 111.6178.7

180.1 180.1138.3

78.2 132.3

839.1 1222.8 1089.2

50.6 37 37604.3 496.1 498.2

0 84.2 80.1

2575.6

386.4

2802.5

1.7

2

2

1825.7

2038.1

1844.1

TOTAL, 8476.7

TOTAL, 4567.5

TOTAL, 6777.1

2 0 0 8 ( B A S E L I N E ) 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

MET

RIC

TO

NN

ES E

CO

2CO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE

On-Campus Stationary

Agriculture

Purchased Electricity

Purchased Steam / Chilled Water

Commuting

Direct Transportation

Directly Financed OutsourcedTravel

Study Abroad Air Travel

Solid Waste

Scope 2 T&D Losses

8.8

6.4

5.9

4.2

8.7

6.2

P E R S T U D E N T P E R C O M M U N I T Y M E M B E R

MET

RIC

TO

NN

ES O

F EM

ISSI

ON

S

CO2 EMISSIONS BY PERSON

2008 (BASELINE) 2011 2012

19

Figure C-5 Energy use separated by consuming category, 2011-2012

Figure C-6 Energy use per student and per community member, 2011-2012

7971.9 6422.5 2719.9

706.4 399.6676.1

4436.1 6568.55912.9

8311.5 6884.46779.4

1323.81259.5

80605

64234.2 69260.2

688.5

505 505.6

34328

38321.7 34673.6

TOTAL, 137047.4

TOTAL, 124659.7TOTAL, 121787.2

2 0 0 8 ( B A S E L I N E )

2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

MM

BTU

EN

ERG

Y U

SE

ENERGY USE BY SOURCE

On-Campus Stationary

Direct Transportation

Purchased Electricity

Purchased Steam / ChilledWater

Commuting

Directly Financed OutsourcedTravel

Study Abroad Air Travel

Scope 2 T&D Losses

18

4.2

13

4.816

0.6

11

5.7

15

6.6

11

2

P E R S T U D E N T P E R C O M M U N I T Y M E M B E R

MM

BTU

EN

ERG

Y U

SE

ENERGY USE PER PERSON

2008 (BASELINE) 2011 2012