Greenhouse Gas Inventory

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON

August 2014 2

LETTER FROM THE CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER

As North Carolina’s coastal university, the University of North Carolina Wilmington defines itself by a strong connection to the environment through teaching, research and community engagement. UNCW considers its surroundings more than a backdrop for the successes that characterize the university. The environment is the main stage that much be preserved in order to continue such great academics, research and service learning.

UNCW defines sustainability as individual efforts made by the community to ensure that the beauty and benefits of today’s world – economically, environmentally and socially – will be available for future generations to inherit. The university is committed to maintaining fiscal responsibility and believes that its efforts in sustainability reflect that.

Consequently, sustainability involved awareness and understanding of the complex interdependence between these social, economic and ecological systems. The choices we, as Seahawks, make in our daily lives affect the intricate interconnections between these systems both seen and unseen.

In recent years, the need to innovate and reduce the “talon-print” of our community, region and state became apparent. The initial wave of change may have originated on a political level, but as the movement has gained momentum, the tides have changed and the obligation to sustainability has developed as an individual as well as institutional commitment.

As you will see in this report, UNCW has taken great strides in areas of energy conservation, alternative transportation, recycling, as well as stewardship in natural areas. Much work remains; however, through the hard work of the Sustainability Council and collaboration with peers and partners, we will continues the process of improvement.

p. 2 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 3

LETTER FROM THE CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER

Stan Harts

Director Environmental Health & Safety Chief Sustainability Officer

p. 3 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared by Good Company (www.goodcompany.com), a Eugene, OR based sustainability research and consulting firm, and the Appalachian Energy Center (energy.appstate.edu), housed at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC.

The primary authors of the report are: David Ponder and Aaron Toneys of Good Company and Jason Hoyle and Joey Mosteller.

For additional information about UNC Wilmington’s sustainability efforts please contact Kat Polhman at [email protected].

p. 4 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW 7 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 7 KEY FINDINGS 9

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 11

OVERVIEW 11 BOUNDARIES AND METHODOLOGY 11 SCOPE 1 - DIRECT EMISSIONS 16 SCOPE 2 - PURCHASED ENERGY INDIRECT EMISSIONS 17 SCOPE 3 - OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (ACUPCC) 18 SCOPE 3 - OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (SUPPLY CHAIN) 19 GHG BENCHMARKING 20

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 25

OVERVIEW 25 BASELINE GHG EMISSIONS 25 THE INFLUENCE OF STATE AND NATIONAL POLICIES ON GHG EMISSIONS 27 MITIGATION STRATEGIES OVERVIEW 29 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION APPROACHES 31 APPLICABILITY TO UNC WILMINGTON 37

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE 38

OVERVIEW 38 SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM BEST PRACTICE 38 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING BEST PRACTICE 42 AASHE STARS REPORTING 44

APPENDIX A: GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY 43

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY 50

p. 5 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

p. 6 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

OVERVIEW

The Earth’s climate is changing and North Carolina already has seen the impacts. Scientists agree that greenhouse gasses (GHGs) are the primary cause of these changes. The most significant source of GHG pollution is carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels.

These change impact the North Carolina Coast in the form of rising sea levels and more frequent and extreme heat waves. Rising sea levels make vital infrastructure more vulnerable to storm surges, flooding, saltwater intrusion. More frequent and intense heat waves impact human health, increase demand for energy, and harm ecological systems. To reverse this trend, we must reduce GHG pollution globally by at least 50% by 2050.

Meeting these emission reduction targets will require substantial shifts in how we consume energy—toward more efficient transportation, manufacturing, buildings and appliances—and where that energy comes from— toward safer, cleaner renewable energy sources like the wind and sun.

To do its part to meet this challenge, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington has a goal to achieve climate neutrality. The University of North Carolina Sustainability Policy is the precedent for this goal. In addition to achieving climate neutrality, this policy calls for the integration of sustainability principles throughout the institution’s activities from planning, design and construction, operations and maintenance, transportation, recycling and waste management, and purchasing.

We embrace this policy for several reasons. First, it is sound environmental stewardship. Second, it reflects our commitment to address critical regional issues. Third, it helps us prepare students to engage in our global community. Finally, reducing GHG emissions and other sustainability actions results in reduced consumption and cost-savings.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

p. 7 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GHG Reduction GHG Inventory Analysis

To start charting a way forward in meeting this commitment we commissioned this report. The report consists of four Report sections. The first section is an inventory of our GHG emissions for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. The second Campus section is a projection of future GHG emissions and an Sustainbility Sustainability analysis of external and internal policies to reduce those Action Plan emissions. The third section reviews campus sustainability Benchmarking best practices at our peer and sister institutions. The fourth section is a sustainability action planning framework and a draft sustainability action plan.

p. 8 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

KEY FINDINGS

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

Between FY 2011 and FY 2014, gross GHG emissions associated with the university’s operations were virtually unchanged. The recent stability is attributable to declines in GHG emissions associated with some activities countering increases in GHG emission from other activities. Specifically, GHG emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion, the fugitive release of refrigerants and the purchase of electricity declined by 11%. Meanwhile, GHG emissions associated with business travel, employee and student commute and purchased goods and services increased by 16%.

While on its face a modest finding, the stability in emissions is notable because during this same period student enrollment increased by 7% and building square footage increased by 8%.

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ANALYSIS

Despite the recent stability, the university’s GHG emissions are projected to grow over the next 35 years by 22% as a result of as increased student enrollment and campus expansion, assuming the GHG intensity of electricity and transportation do not change.

However, external policies such as of federal vehicle fuel economy standards, North Carolina’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Rules would reduce the GHG intensity of electricity and transportation over time. If fully implemented these policies could actually result in slightly lower absolute GHG in 2050 than in 2014 even with substantial growth in campus population.

While these external policies would reduce future GHG emissions, they are not sufficient to achieve climate neutrality. In order to meet this goal, the university will need to implement a number of internal policies and programs. This report identifies continued implementation energy savings measures and increased diversions of solid waste from the landfill as two of leading opportunities for on-campus GHG reductions. In combination with the external policies discussed above, these strategies could reduce FY2050 GHG emissions by nearly 35% below FY2014.

There are number of additional GHG reduction strategies the university could pursue to achieve complete climate neutrality including switching to lower carbon transportation fuels, promoting alternative transportation, switching to lower GHG intensity refrigerants, and developing renewable energy projects or purchasing renewable energy certificates, and acquiring carbon offsets.

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY BENCHMARKING

A central element common among all of the surveyed institutions is a clear mandate from the chief executive articulating the rationale and goals for the program. Such policies demonstrate the commitment of the university’s top leadership to integrate sustainability concerns into the institution’s strategic thinking and day-today operations.

p. 9 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10

A centralized, standalone campus sustainability office with dedicated full time staff is another common feature of the sustainability programs at the peer and sister institutions examined for this study. These offices generally play a coordinating role, tracking and facilitating the various sustainability initiatives being pursued on campus.

Most sustainability program funding supports staff salaries and other indirect costs. This funding typically comes from a university’s general operating funds. Funding for program implementation comes from a variety of sources including student activity fees, capital and operating budgets, and proceeds from cost reduction measures.

The most common reporting framework for campus sustainability is the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). None of the twelve peer and sister institutions examined have completed and submitted self-evaluations under the STARS framework. These institution perform better than the national average, with three achieving a “Gold” ranking and four achieving a “Silver” ranking.

The chancellor’s or presidents at all twelve sister and peer institutions have also signed the American College & University President’s Climate Commitment.

p. 10 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 11

1 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

Greenhouse Gas Inventory

OVERVIEW

The chart below (Figure 1) shows the trend in UNC Wilmington’s GHG emissions from fiscal year 2007 (FY2007, June 2006 – July 2007) by emissions source.

Figure 1 UNC Wilmington Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source (FY2007-FY2014)

90,000

) 80,000

O 70,000

(

s 60,000

s 50,000

40,000

30,000

o 20,000

e 10,000

r G 0 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Direct emissions Purchased energy indirect emissions Other indirect emissions (ACUPCC) Other indirect emissions (supply chain)

BOUNDARIES AND METHODOLOGY

This inventory follows the accounting framework and guidelines set forth in the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (GHG Protocol). The GHG Protocol is the leading global standard for GHG accounting frameworks and serves as the basis for numerous sector-specific standards including the GHG

p. 11 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 12

1 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

reporting requirements of both the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and the American Colleges and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).

p. 12 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 13

REPORTING BOUNDARIES

This inventory estimates the GHG emissions associated with UNC Wilmington’s facility operations and activities located in the Wilmington, NC metropolitan area for fiscal years 2011 to 2014. The fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. The inventory includes those facilities that UNC Wilmington exercises operational control over, including the buildings and equipment at the University’s main campus and the Center for Marine Science.

GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING REPORTING SCOPES

The GHG Protocol distinguishes emissions sources among three different reporting “Scopes,” as represented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 2 Greenhouse Gas Accounting Reporting Scopes

Courtesy: GHG Protocol

Scope 1—Direct Emissions

Direct GHG emissions that originate from equipment and facilities owned or operated by the reporting entity. Typical activities that result in Scope 1 emissions include the stationary and mobile combustion of fossil fuels, and the release of refrigerants, a source of halocarbons (HFCs and PFCs).

p. 13 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 14

Scope 2—Purchased Energy Indirect Emissions

Indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of energy in the form of electricity, steam, heating and cooling.

Scope 3—Other Indirect Emissions

All other indirect GHG emissions resulting from the activities of the institution but that originate from sources owned or controlled by another entity. Typical activities that result in Scope 3 emissions include business travel, employee commute, embodied emissions in purchased goods and services, emissions from the disposal of solid waste, and the commuting habits of institution employees.

The GHG Protocol only requires the reporting of Scopes 1 and 2 emissions sources, though many organizations include Scope 3 emissions sources in their reporting in order to more fully understand, disclose and mitigate their contribution to climate change. In fact, ACUPCC calls on universities to include certain Scope 3 emissions sources—specifically business travel, solid waste disposal and employee and student commute.

Departure from ACUPCC Reporting Boundaries

In addition to meeting the minimum requirements of ACUPPCC and the GHG Protocol, UNC Wilmington has chosen to also to report the embodied GHG emissions in purchased goods and services.

This report also deviates from ACUPCC GHG reporting guidelines by excluding the sequestration of carbon dioxide in forestlands owned by the University. While forestlands play an important role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, generally speaking these removals “offset” other sources of GHG emissions only if there is some intervention to prevent either the removal trees or other biomass that would otherwise be removed (e.g., placing a forest in a conservation easement) or to increase the number of trees or other biomass (e.g., reforest). Since UNC Wilmington does not actively manage the forestlands owned by the University to enhance carbon sequestration, we do not give credit for additional sequestration.

UNIT OF ANALYSIS

The GHG Protocol requires for the accounting of seven types of GHGs—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Each of these gasses traps heat in the atmosphere differently, with some far more potent than others. For example CH4 traps 21 times more heat in the atmosphere than CO2. In order to account for this relative potency, the emission of any single GHG is presented in this report in terms of metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) based on that GHG’s global warming potential (GWP), as defined in the in the U.S. EPA Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule. While these GWPs do not represent the most up-to-date scientific understanding, as reflected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth assessment Report, these values were chosen to provide consistency with past GHG inventories.

CONFORMITY WTH PREVIOUS GHG INVENTORIES

p. 14 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 15

For reference, this report also includes emissions reported in UNC Wilmington’s November 2011 GHG Inventory prepared by the Brendle Group, which covers the period FY2007 to FY2010. The boundaries of analysis and methodological approach between that report and this one are largely the same, though there are some minor differences that are described more fully described in Appendix A: GHG Inventory Methodology.

p. 15 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 16

SCOPE 1 - DIRECT EMISSIONS

In FY2014, UNC Wilmington’s direct emissions of GHGs associated with fossil fuel consumption, both stationary and mobile, and the fugitive release of refrigerants, totaled 11,631 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). This represents a 15% decrease compared to FY2007—primarily a result of a reduction in the fugitive release of refrigerants.

STATIONARY COMBUSTION

This category includes emissions from the combustion of natural gas to meet the campus’s heating and cooling requirements and non-mobile diesel fuel for emergency generators. The combustion of natural gas is UNC Wilmington’s largest source of direct (Scope 1) emissions.

Notably, the emissions associated with natural gas combustion have remained relatively constant over the last seven years. This is notable because during this same period the University’s enrollment increased by 15% and gross building square footage increased by 36%. This stability is largely attributable to the energy efficiency and conservation measure put in place under the 2011 Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC). The ESPC measures results in annual savings of approximately 12,350 million British thermal units (MmBtu) of natural gas, or about a 7% reduction compared to FY2011 levels.

FUGITIVE EMISISSIONS

The second largest source of direct (Scope 1) emissions from UNC Wilmington’s operations is the fugitive release of refrigerants used in heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and fleet vehicle air conditioning systems. As noted above, the overall reduction in total direct emissions between FY2007 and FY2014 is a result of a reduction in the fugitive release of these emissions. UNC Wilmington reported no fugitive releases in FY2013 and FY2014. While it is not uncommon to see year-to-year variation in the refrigerant releases since equipment maintenance cycle vary, it is unexpected to have no releases in a given year. Therefore the results for FY2013 and FY2014 are more likely the result of data reporting errors than a real elimination of fugitive refrigerant releases.

MOBILE COMBUSTION

The smallest source of direct (Scope I) emissions from UNC Wilmington’s operations is from the combustion of fossil fuels to power fleet vehicles and equipment. GHG emissions associated with mobile combustion declined nearly 25% over the last seven years. It is unclear to what extant this change is a result of fleet “right sizing” efforts (i.e., the replacement of larger, less fuel efficient vehicles with smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles better suited to perform the needed functions), or changes in travel policies (e.g., the introduction of travel purchasing cards in 2011) that may have shifted refueling to off-campus filling stations (purchases captured under University-sponsored travel below).

DETAILED REPORTING OF DIRECT EMISSIONS BY SOURCE

The table below details the sources of direct emissions from FY2007-FY2014

p. 16 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 17

Scope 1 (tCO2e) Stationary Combustion FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Trend

9,185 8,648 7,380 6,910 8,945 8,308 8,850 9,936

Mobile Combustion FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Trend

744 1,032 933 904 812 649 631 567

Fugitive Emissions FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Trend

3,701 2,009 1,870 1,943 1,807 1,466 - -

SCOPE 2 - PURCHASED ENERGY INDIRECT EMISSIONS

The GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption, including transmission and distribution line losses, or purchased energy indirect emissions, totaled 29,2343 tCO2e in FY2014.

UNC Wilmington’s purchased energy indirect emissions have declined by 16% over the last seven years—again this is notable given the University’s growth during this period. The decline in purchased energy indirect emissions is attributable both to the 2011 ESPC energy efficiency and conservation measures, as well as a decline in the GHG intensity of electricity purchased from Duke Energy. The ESPC measures result in an annual saving of approximately 3,840 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity, or about a 5% reduction compared to FY2011 level.

DETAILED REPORTING OF PURCHASED ENERGY INDIRECT EMISSIONS

The table below summarizes purchased energy indirect emissions from FY2007-FY2014.

Scope 2 (tCO2e) Purchased Electricity FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Trend

34,707 37,326 37,226 38,422 33,413 29,405 29,668 29,234

p. 17 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 18

SCOPE 3 - OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (ACUPCC)

The GHG emissions associated with solid waste disposal, student and employee commute, and university- sponsored travel totaled 18,602 tCO2e in FY2014. This represents a 92% increase compared to FY2007—primarily a result of the difference in solid waste disposal methods, as described below. These emissions are denoted as “Other indirect emissions (ACUPCC)” since they are required elements of the American Colleges and University President Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) GHG reporting requirements

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The GHG emissions associated with solid waste disposal increased substantially during the last seven years— more than 2,700%. This change is not a result of major changes in the reported quantity of solid waste generated on campus, which was virtually unchanged between FY2007 and FY2014, but the changes in final disposal methods. From FY2007 to FY2010, solid waste from UNC Wilmington was disposed of at the New Hanover County’s WASTEC incineration facility. After the WASTEC facility was closed in April 2011, the University began disposing of its solid waste at the New Hanover County Landfill. The landfill does not capture fugitive methane emissions, a potent GHG with 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide, which results from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials (e.g., paper goods, food scraps and landscape trimmings). It is the difference between the GHG intensity of these different disposal methods that accounts for the change in reported GHG emissions.

UNIVERSITY-SPONSORED AIR TRAVEL

In the performance of their job responsibilities, UNC Wilmington employees occasionally travel out of town for conferences or to carry out research activities. Likewise, UNC Wilmington students occasionally travel out of town in the pursuit of their research interests, academic and cultural exchanges, and for athletic competitions. UNC Wilmington also brings guest lecturers, performing artists and others to campus to enrich campus life.

In FY2014, the GHG emissions associated with university-sponsored air travel totaled an estimated 2,087 tCO2e, a 31% increase compared to FY2007.

It should be noted that current data for this category was unavailable at the time of the writing of this report and the results presented are therefore extrapolated from data collected for UNC Wilmington’s previous GHG inventory. Additionally, in this report this category does not include air travel from student study abroad trips or other ground transportation (e.g., rental cars, trains, etc.). The data available from the last report for these sources was insufficient to make a forward projection.

Finally, there appear to be differences in the assumptions about the GHG intensity of air travel between the current report and the previous report. For the sake of making meaningful year-to-year comparisons, this report calculates the GHG emissions from university-sponsored air travel for all reporting periods using the same GHG intensity factor.

p. 18 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 19

COMMUTE

In the course of their commute to and from campus, UNC Wilmington student and employees utilize a variety of transportation modes including single occupancy vehicles, carpools, public transit, bicycling and walking. This category includes emissions associated with personal vehicle use and Seahawk Shuttle routes sponsored by UNC Wilmington.

UNC Wilmington’s emissions associated with employee and student commute and business travel have remained stable over the last seven years. While the average annual emissions during the current inventory period (FY2011-FY2014) show a modest drop in employee and student commute-related GHG emissions compared to UNC Wilmington’s previous GHG inventory period (FY2007-FY2010), this change is a result of differences in the methodological approaches used to estimate emissions. These difference are discussed in more detail in Appendix A: GHG Inventory Methodology. Indeed, over the current reporting period, employee and student commute-related emissions have increased slightly, which is a function of increases in total campus population.

DETAILED REPORTING OF OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (ACUPCC)

The table below details other indirect emissions required by ACUPPC’s reporting guideline from FY2007-FY2014.

Scope 3 (Supply Chain) (tCO2e) Purchased Goods, Services, and Construction FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Trend

- - - - 7,799 14,941 25,353 11,950

SCOPE 3 - OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (SUPPLY CHAIN)

In addition to reporting the indirect emissions sources required by ACUPCC, UNC Wilmington is now reporting the GHG emissions embodied in purchased goods, services and construction materials. This often-overlooked source of GHG emissions represents the upstream GHG emissions associated with raw material extraction, production and manufacture, and transportation of goods and services.

While the UNC Wilmington does not have direct control over the production processes driving these emissions, it does share in the responsibility of these emissions as the university relies on these goods and services to fulfill its mission.

The embodied GHG emissions associated with UNC Wilmington’s purchase of goods, services and construction materials totaled 11,950 tCO2e in FY2014. This represents a 35% increase compared to FY2011, the first year for which estimates from this source are available, though there is considerable variation in year-to-year emissions,

p. 19 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 20

driven by fluctuations in construction spending (see Figure X below). For example, the increase in FY2012 and FY2013 in construction-related emissions reflects the building of the MARBIONIC research facility.

DETAILED REPORTING OF OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (SUPPLY CHAIN)

The table below details other indirect emissions, specifically those associated with the purchase of goods, services and construction materials, from FY2011-FY2014 that are beyond ACUPPC’s reporting requirements.

Scope 3 (Supply Chain) (tCO2e) Purchased Goods, Services, and Construction FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Trend

- - - - 7,799 14,941 25,353 11,950

GHG BENCHMARKING

This section discusses UNC Wilmington’s GHG emissions relative to changes in campus population and building square footage over time and in comparison to select peer and sister institutions. Because UNC Wilmington is a leader among its peers in reporting supply chain emissions that are not required by ACUPCC, this emissions source is left out of the benchmarking analysis to allow for more consistent boundaries of comparison.

While campus-level comparisons of total emissions can provide some limited insight in changes in performance over time and overall performance relative to other institutions, in the future UNC Wilmington should consider reporting and tracking emissions intensities at a more granular level, such as for particular emissions sources or for buildings of a particular type.

BUILDING AREA GHG EMISSIONS INTENSITY

Figure 3 (below) shows UNC Wilmington’s direct emissions (Scope 1) and purchased energy indirect emissions (Scope 2) relative to changes in building square footage between FY2007 and FY2014. Other indirect emissions (ACUPCC) (Scope 3) are excluded from this metric because they are not directly related to building management.

p. 20 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 21

Figure 3 Total GHGs versus GHG Intensity per 1,000 sq. ft.

18 50,000

15 37,500

. 12

, 9 25,000 O

C 6

t 12,500 3

0 0 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

Total GHGs (Scopes 1 & 2) GHGs per 1,000 sq. ft.

As discussed above, it is notable that the tCO2e/1,000 sq. ft. has remained stable given the increase of xx sq. ft.. in total campus square footage over this same period. A caveat to keep in mind is that this increase in square footage includes a number of relatively low energy intense buildings such as a new parking deck and apartment- style student housing. In the future, UNC Wilmington should consider reporting tCO2e/1,00 sq. ft. by building type (e.g., student housing, laboratory, parking, warehouse, etc.) in order to better understand and track building area emissions intensity.

Figure 4 below shows UNC Wilmington’s FY2014 building area emissions intensity compared to select peer and sister institutions.

p. 21 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 22

Figure 4 UNC Wilmington GHG Intensity per 1,000 sq. ft. Compared to Peer and Sister Institutions

UNC Wilmington’s building area emissions intensity is similar to most of its sister and peer institutions. The relatively high building area emissions intensity of the large research institutions is unsurprising. These institutions have a different academic mission, which requires different types of facilities and equipment. These institutions also frequently operate large central station energy plants used to supply energy to both the main campus and affiliated institutions (e.g. a hospital).

CAMPUS POPULATION GHG EMISSIONS INTENSITY

Figure 5 (below) compares UNC Wilmington’s direct emissions (Scope 1), purchased energy indirect emissions (Scope 2) and other indirect emissions (ACUPCC) relative to changes in student population (student full-time equivalents plus faculty, staff and administrators) between FY2007 and FY2014. Emissions associated with supply chain are omitted at this time because similar data for sister and peer institutions is largely unavailable.

p. 22 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 23

Figure 5 Total GHGs versus GHG Intensity per Student FTE

6 70,000

60,000 5

E 50,000

F 4

e e 40,000

3 C

30,000 M

C 2

M 20,000

1 10,000

0 0 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

Total GHGs (ACPUCC Scopes) GHG intensity

UNC Wilmington’s campus population emissions intensity is also similar to most of its sister and peer institutions. As shown in Figure 6 below. Again the relatively high campus population emissions intensity of large research institutions is attributable to fundamental differences in academic mission and the presence of affiliated institutions.

p. 23 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 24

Figure 6 UNC Wilmington GHG Intensity per Student FTE Compared to Peer and Sister Institutions

p. 24 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 25

2 GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS

GHG Reduction Analysis

OVERVIEW

It is the official policy of the University of North Carolina System (UNC System) to become climate neutral as soon as practicable and no later than 2050. Climate neutrality generally means that an organization has zero net GHG emissions. To achieve zero net GHG emissions organizations reduce their own emissions to the extent feasible and then purchase emission reductions from a third party to offset the balance.

This section provides a high-level overview of UNC Wilmington’s projected GHG emissions through 2050, referred to as “baseline” emissions, projects the emissions impact of implementing selected GHG reduction strategies, and highlights additional approaches that UNC Wilmington might put in place in order to progress towards achievement of the carbon neutrality goal. Finally, this section concludes with a discussion of the financial implications associated with the reduction strategies.

Importantly, this analysis should be considered as a high-level assessment rather than definitive plan for achieving climate neutrality. UNC Wilmington’s Sustainability Action Plan and consideration of available mitigation activities should be periodically revised and fine-tuned as additional information becomes available, and as technology- and market-driven opportunities change over time. These periodic revisions to GHG mitigation strategies could easily be incorporated into future planning studies (e.g., strategic energy plan, campus transportation plan, solid waste management plans, etc.), since as the UNC System Sustainability Policy implies, sustainability and GHG emissions do not stand alone but rather result as impacts from the policies and decisions implemented in all departments across the campus.

BASELINE GHG EMISSIONS

Baseline GHG emissions are the emissions expected to occur without any mitigation activity, or in other words, the level of future emissions if business continues as usual. While a detailed description of the methods and assumptions to derive baseline emissions and other emissions projections can be found in Appendix B: GHG Mitigation Analysis Methodology, the projected emissions baseline, in simple terms, relates all emissions sources in the inventory to the primary driver of university activity – student enrollment – using the available historical data on emissions and university activities.

Baseline emissions are however, only a starting point when considering the implementation of GHG mitigation strategies necessary for UNC Wilmington to meet the General Administration’s stated goal of carbon neutrality by FY2050. The UNC System sustainability policy does not specify what emissions sources should be evaluated to

p. 25 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

A 26

2 GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS

determine success at achieving its carbon neutral goal. So, for the purpose of this analysis, it assumed that the carbon neutral goal includes the same emissions sources included in the GHG inventory, with direct (Scope 1), purchased-energy indirect (Scope 2), ACUPCC indirect (Scope 3) emissions sources, and indirect (Scope 3) supply chain emissions.

p. 26 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 27

As shown in Figure 7 (below), baseline emissions are projected to rise to nearly 97,300 tCO2e by FY2050. Juxtaposed to this projection is the target emissions level required for UNC Wilmington to become carbon neutral by 2050. As indicated in the chart, baseline emissions are projected to increase by about 28.6% over FY2014 levels by FY2050, an increase attributable to projected growth in student enrollment of nearly 80% over the period. So, achieving the goal of carbon neutrality while continuing to grow at historical rates will require UNC Wilmington to not only mitigate at the scale of current GHG emissions, but also to mitigate the expected 21,600 tCO2e of emissions growth in the future.

Figure 7 - Historic and Baseline GHG Emissions Versus Target Emissions Level

100,000

90,000

80,000

)

2 70,000

(

n 60,000

E 50,000

u 40,000

r 30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049 Year

Historic GHG Emissions Baseline GHG Emissions Target Emissions Level

THE INFLUENCE OF STATE AND NATIONAL POLICIES ON GHG EMISSIONS

Although the baseline projection indicates an expectation of substantial growth in GHG emissions, the burden of reducing emissions may not fall on UNC Wilmington alone. Since common practice for GHG inventories is to represent the GHG footprint of an organization by including not only emissions directly released by the organization, but also indirect emissions, or emissions which are not produced by activities that UNC Wilmington owns, manages or controls, the sources of these indirect emissions will also play a role in reducing UNC Wilmington’s GHG footprint.

There are a number of policies, regulations, and plans that are either proposed or anticipated to come into force with a reasonable degree of certainty that will impact UNC Wilmington’s GHG footprint. These policies and

p. 27 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 28

regulations affect GHG emissions in practically all cases by reducing the emissions intensity of a source area. The policies and regulations with the highest degree of certainty that we include in the policy-adjusted forecast of UNC Wilmington’s emissions projection include accelerated improvement in vehicle fuel economy and reduced carbon intensity of electricity generation.

Figure 8 shows the impact on UNC Wilmington’s baseline emissions if these expected policies are implemented. Policies and regulations that reduce the carbon intensity of electricity generation, including Duke Energy’s post- merger power generation strategy and compliance with EPA’s proposed GHG rules for existing power plants, will reduce emissions attributable to purchased electricity by an estimated 49.6% by FY2050. Combined with accelerated increases in vehicle fuel economy these policies result in a reduction of UNC Wilmington’s emissions from the projected baseline level of 97,300 tCO2e in FY2050 to a policy-adjusted baseline of 67,500 tCO2e in FY2050 – a reduction of nearly 31%.

Perhaps most importantly for the implementation of mitigation strategies is that reductions in the GHG intensity of activities like electricity use and transportation will have a long-term multiplier effect on other mitigation activities UNC Wilmington implements. Accelerated improvements in passenger vehicle fuel economy standards are estimated to increase fuel economy – and reduce GHG emissions – more rapidly in the next few decades than would otherwise occur, resulting in emissions reductions below the baseline level of as much as 20.1% over the next 20 years, and by about 12.9% below the baseline level in FY2050.

The carbon intensity of purchased electricity is expected to be reduced as a result of Duke Energy’s merger with Progress Energy as the now-combined utility implements its revised generation resource plans and continues to replace coal-fired generation with natural gas and nuclear over the next 10 to 15 years. Then, starting in 2030, the impact of the EPA’s proposed GHG limits for existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act will further lower the carbon intensity of purchased electricity until the emissions rate of purchased electricity reaches about half its current level.

Figure 8 - Policy-Adjusted GHG Emissions

100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tCO2e) Emissions Gas Greenhouse 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050 Year Baseline Emissions Target Emissions Policy-Adjusted Emissions

p. 28 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 29

MITIGATION STRATEGIES OVERVIEW

The policy-adjusted baseline results in a projection of roughly 67,500 tCO2e annually in 2050. Further reductions to meet the 2050 carbon neutrality goal must result from active mitigation of those remaining emissions. This analysis evaluates the impact of two principal strategies that are already being considered by or implemented at UNC Wilmington as a starting point to mitigate emissions: energy efficiency and solid waste management.

The potential of a given mitigation strategy to reduce overall GHGs is a function of that the strategy’s ability to reduce GHG emissions per unit of activity, the amount of the activity, or some combination of both. For example, consider indirect emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste. These emissions can be reduced by diverting landfilled solid waste to a landfill that has equipment in place to capture and flare fugitive methane emissions. Additionally, reducing the total volume of waste destined for the landfill will further reduce solid waste-related emissions.

Figure 9 shows how the two selected mitigation strategies will further reduce emissions below the level of both the baseline emissions and the policy-adjusted emissions. The implementation of these two selected strategies are estimated to reduce UNC Wilmington’s FY2050 emissions to roughly 49,600 tCO2e, or about 49% below the projected FY2050 baseline level and reduce FY2050 emissions 34.5% below FY2014 levels.

Figure 9 - Mitigation Strategies' Impact on Baseline Emissions

100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tCO2e) Emissions Gas Greenhouse 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050 Year Baseline Emissions Target Emissions Policy-Adjusted Emissions Mitigation Strategies

ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING

p. 29 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 30

The energy efficiency strategy consists of the continued implementation of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) through FY2050. The university’s first ESPC covered about 10% of the oldest buildings on campus and achieved reductions of about 10 kWh of electricity use and 0.2 therms of heat load per gross square foot covered under the ESPC. The ESPC mitigation strategy assumes similar scale and results from a series of additional ESPCs, with a new ESPC implemented approximately every four years. ESPCs are a particularly valuable tool because they 1) require no up-front investment by the university, 2) are carefully evaluated for conservativeness and accuracy by outside engineering firms, and 3) can cover a broad range of energy saving opportunities from central hot/cool water distribution to lighting and automated building controls.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

The solid waste management mitigation strategy includes a few implementation steps. First, the mitigation strategy assumes that UNC Wilmington begins disposing of landfilled waste at a facility where methane is captured and flared. Second, diversion of solid waste increases dramatically, with the rate of recycling increasing from the estimated current level of about 13% to 33% within the next decade, and the implementation of a composting facility that will divert organic or biogenic solid waste up to about 5% of total solid waste generated within the next 10 to 15 years. These waste diversion strategies yield GHG emissions reductions by avoiding emissions associated with landfill disposal, but also by adding a positive emissions reduction benefit through sequestering GHGs or reducing life-cycle materials emissions.

EMISSIONS IMPACT IN FY2050 OF POLICIES & MITIGATION STRATEGIES

The previously discussed policies and mitigation strategies only address some of the emissions sources included in the GHG inventory. As shown in Figure 10 (below), fugitive emissions, air travel, and purchasing emissions are unchanged from the baseline – not because they are insubstantial emissions sources, but rather because they are emissions sources for which there are few if any direct approaches to mitigation; unsurprisingly, emissions from these areas are also some of the most difficult to quantify and track.

p. 30 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 31

Figure 10 - Projected Emissions Impact in FY2050 by Source

Solid Waste 8,193 15,505 2,633 Purchased Electricity 25,882

Mobile Combustion and Commute 12,393 14,234

Stationary Combustion 13,102 13,665

Fugitive Emissions 1,154 1,154

Business Travel 7,263 7,263

Purchased Goods and Services 19,584 19,584 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tCO2e) Mitigation Strategies Baseline

The policies and mitigation strategies impact 77.4% of FY2014 emissions sources—solid waste, purchased electricity, transmission and distribution losses, mobile combustion/commuting, and stationary combustion. The largest reductions are associated with purchased electricity, followed by solid waste – two sources that together accounted for more than half of all emissions in FY2014 – and two sources over which UNC Wilmington has the most opportunity to influence.

ADDITIONAL MITIGATION APPROACHES

The following sections describe some strategies through which UNC Wilmington could make additional progress towards achieving the UNC General Administration’s goal of carbon neutrality by FY2050. The additional strategies include options that address emissions from stationary combustion and purchased electricity via on-site power generation, mobile combustion and commuting via transportation alternatives, waste management, and offsetting emissions.

ON-SITE ENERGY OPTIONS

Energy Efficiency

Using energy more efficiently is an obvious starting point for mitigating energy-related GHG emissions, particularly since many energy efficiency options save more money than they cost. The university’s Energy Service Performance Contracts (ESPCs) included in the previous section’s mitigation scenarios is only one example of how energy efficiency opportunities can be identified, implemented, and financed. ESPCs however, are not the only option to increase energy efficiency.

p. 31 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 32

The value of some energy efficiency options is not always in energy cost savings. Solid-state lighting like LEDs, for example, are comparatively more expensive than other high-efficiency lighting alternatives, and the dramatic reduction in electricity consumption alone is often insufficient to justify the additional cost. In the case of LEDs, which have an operating life several times longer than that of other high-efficiency lighting options, the cost savings associated with lower maintenance hours – particularly in difficult-to-access locations like streetlights – can be larger than cost savings from reduced electricity consumption.

Other efficiency opportunities can be found in maintenance and regular equipment replacement. In North Carolina, HB 1292 allows energy cost savings produced by investments in these types of efficiency opportunities to be returned to the university – a portion of which is required to support additional energy efficiency investments, but about 40% of which can be allocated by discretion.

Solar Power

Renewable energy technologies, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, reduce GHG emissions by displacing grid-purchased electricity with zero-carbon electricity. These technologies are increasingly cost-effective options as electricity prices increase and technology costs decrease. North Carolina has become one of the leading solar markets in the country, with the 3rd largest solar PV market in 2013 and ranking 4th in the country for total solar capacity installed, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association1.

Indeed, the cost of installing solar PV in North Carolina has fallen by about 67% in the last five years, from about $6/Watt to about $2/Watt for commercial-scale facilities with several hundred kW of nameplate generating capacity. North Carolina’s market is boosted in part by high-value state income tax credits and the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard, a policy that requires utilities to source a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy and has a specific set-aside requirement for solar.

The solar resource in Wilmington is capable of producing about 1,275 kWhAC per year for every kWDC of installed capacity, according to estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s PVWatts2 software. Solar PV can be installed on rooftops – helping shade buildings in addition to powering them, on open ground area, or over parking lots and walkways. Although still a bit pricier than grid-purchased electricity, solar PV does offer fixed prices over a long-term period, minimal maintenance due to few moving parts, and can not only reduce peak kWh consumption but also reduce demand capacity. Based on FY2014 consumption, every kW of solar PV installed would reduce annual GHG emissions by nearly 0.54 tCO2e.

Solar Thermal

The other solar energy technology gaining ground in the marketplace is solar thermal technology. Solar thermal technology captures the sun’s energy and stores it in the form of hot water, allowing the user to reduce consumption of heating energy. Solar thermal systems have always been more cost-effective than solar PV, but until recently have been much less commoditized. Today, North Carolina is home to FLS Solar, an award-

1 See http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/north-carolina 2 See http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/download-results.php?type=monthly

p. 32 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 33

winning company that has modernized the solar thermal business model by installing, owning and operating solar thermal systems and then selling the hot water to large-scale customers on a dollars per mmBtu basis.

According to the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation3, a typical solar water heating system of about 100 square feet produces roughly 18 mmBtu per year, depending on local conditions and collector type. Solar thermal technology could easily be integrated with UNC Wilmington’s boiler systems to pre-heat water and reduce natural gas or other fuel consumption, and for buildings where electric water heating is used – particularly those buildings with a daytime hot water load – rooftop solar thermal systems could be integrated to reduce electricity consumption. UNC Wilmington paid an average of about $6.16/mmBtu for natural gas in FY13-14, so every 100 square feet of solar thermal collector installed could reduce UNC Wilmington’s natural gas bill by $111 at current natural gas prices, while also acting as a hedge against future price increases, and reducing GHG emissions by about 0.495 tCO2e per year.

Combined Heat & Power

A combined heat and power (CHP) system generates both electricity and useful heat, typically using some fossil fuel like natural gas. These systems can be more than twice as efficient as an electricity generator alone since they capture useful heat that would otherwise be lost. In a CHP system, steam first passes through a turbine to generate electricity and is then sent for use in a heating or cooling system. The result is an overall reduction in fuel use compared to providing the same amount of electricity and thermal energy from separate systems, and therefore lower GHG emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a Spark Spread Estimator4 calculator tool for estimating the benefit of installing a CHP system. Based on current fuel consumption and costs as well as current electricity consumption and costs, and assuming a single CHP system could serve the entire campus, UNC Wilmington’s net savings from a CHP system would be approximately $763,700 per year. This estimated CHP system would increase natural gas consumption by about 87%, since natural gas would be used for electricity generation as well as serving the thermal load, but in exchange the system would reduce electricity purchases by almost 34,600 MWh per year. While CHP would increase UNC Wilmington’s direct emissions due to increased natural gas combustion, the overall gains in energy efficiency from heating water and generating electricity with the same fuel mean that net GHG emissions fall by 5,216 tCO2e per year.

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative transportation fuels

Increasing the use of lower-carbon alternative transportation fuels reduces GHG emissions by displacing the consumption of conventional petroleum-derived transportation fuels. Conventional transportation fuels tend to have higher GHG intensities than alternative fuels, especially when the full life-cycle impacts are considered.

3 See http://www.solar-rating.org/facts/Energy_Production.pdf 4 Available at http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/economics.html

p. 33 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 34

Transitioning UNC Wilmington’s current fleet of vehicles and Seahawk Shuttle to lower-carbon alternatives such as compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel or electricity could provide significant life-cycle GHG reductions. Recent prices, in dollars per gallon of gasoline-equivalent ($/GGE), reported by the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report5 for January 2014, for alternative fuels are shown in Figure 11 (below). CNG use in heavy-duty vehicles like shuttle buses is increasingly common and typically a significant source of reductions in both GHG emissions and transportation costs. Also, electricity is an increasingly available option, and can be particularly cost-effective when electric utility vehicles are used in place of gasoline-burning on-campus utility vehicles.

Figure 11 - Alternative Fuel Prices Per Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent

$4.5

$4.0

$4.31 $4.29

$3.5 $4.22

$3.0

$3.62 $3.49 $2.5 $3.34

$2.0 Equivalent

$1.5 $2.09

$1.0 Price Price per Gallon Gasoline of $0.5 $0.0 Gasoline Diesel CNG E85 Propane B20 B100

Commute alternatives

Increasing the use of commute alternatives reduces GHGs by decreasing the number of single-occupancy vehicles commuting to campus and the associated combustion of transportation fuels. Alternative commute strategies, many of which were identified in the Campus Master Plan, include enhancing walk-ability and bike-ability on campus and in areas adjacent to campus, providing incentives to utilize alternative modes, increasing access to transit options, and parking management. Other options include carpooling, ride-sharing, adjusted parking fees, parking space/lot assignment priority, etc.

SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Commingled Single-Stream Recycling

Increasing the quantity of materials diverted from the landfill and recycled into newly manufactured products reduces GHG emissions in two ways. First, the organic portion of those materials (paper, cardboard, etc.) no

5 Available at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_january_2014.pdf

p. 34 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 35

longer decomposes anaerobically, thus avoiding the release of methane. Second, recycling those materials displaces the production of virgin materials and the associated energy consumption and the related GHG emissions.

UNC Wilmington currently collects and recycles a number of materials in a multi-stream recycling system, where individual materials are collected in separate containers. These materials include cardboard, paper, metals, glass, plastic, and electronic wastes. The estimated GHG reductions from implementing the recommendations in, identified in the recent report commissioned by UNC Wilmington, Recycling Center Improvements Schematic Design Report (Recycling Design Report), result from increasing the quantity of materials captured and recycled and are included in the preceding section. There is a second recycling-based alternative not addressed in the Recycling Design Report.

The second alternative is to switch to a commingled collection system, where all recyclables are collected in a single container and transported together to a regional material recovery facility where they are sorted in an automated process. Currently, there are single-stream material recovery facilities located in Jacksonville and Fayetteville6. Although commingled recycling collection will reduce or possibly eliminate revenue to UNC Wilmington from the sale of recyclables, it will save the university considerable cost in labor and equipment for collection, and often can dramatically increase the rate of recycling which will reduce GHG emissions and also reduce solid waste disposal costs.

Food and other organic waste diversion

Increasing the quantity of food and other organic waste, such as landscape trimmings, diverted from the landfill reduces GHG emissions by avoiding the anaerobic decomposition of those materials in the landfill and thus the release of methane.

There are a number of treatment options for organic materials, but their availability is dependent on the local and regional solid waste infrastructure. One option discussed in the Recycling Design Report is anaerobic digestion, the process by which microorganisms break down organic material in the absence of oxygen, producing methane- rich gas called biogas and a sludge called digestate. The biogas can be captured and combusted to generate electricity or heat, or cleaned and compressed for use as a transportation fuel. Likewise, the digestate can be further processed into compost and used as a soil amendment.

In the right context, anaerobic digestion can be an effective strategy for managing organic wastes, however UNC Wilmington likely does not generate sufficient quantities of material to support even a small scale anaerobic digester. Developing an anaerobic digestion facility is capital-intensive and the cost-effectiveness of developing such a facility would depend on partnerships with other public institutions (e.g., local government, primary schools, hospitals, etc.) as well as private companies (e.g., food processors) that generate large quantities of food and yard wastes.

Unfortunately, the Recycling Design Report appears to confuse anaerobic digestion technology with aerobic food waste digesters, commercial kitchen equipment that decomposes food waste by introducing heat, agitation,

6 See http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/deao/mrf. The Jacksonville facility is operated by Sonoco Recycling, and the Fayetteville facility is operated by Pratt Industries.

p. 35 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 36

biological enzymes or some combination thereof in order to accelerate the rate of decomposition. This equipment does not produce biogas but does produce a digestate that, depending on local circumstance, can be composted or potentially discharged to a wastewater treatment facility. While the deployment of such equipment may result in increased diversion from the landfill, it is unclear if these technologies result in a net reduction in GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis.

At this time, the most viable strategy for UNC Wilmington appears to be diversion to a composting facility. UNC Wilmington’s foodservice contractor, AARMARK, currently collects some food waste for processing at a regional composting facility, and is actively considering an expansion of this program. With increased composting, through the foodservice program and other efforts on campus, UNC Wilmington could avoid waste disposal costs and use the compost to avoid landscaping expenses, as well as reduce GHG emissions several-fold over landfill disposal.

OTHER MITIGATION OPTIONS

Fugitive Emissions

The GHG inventory includes emissions from various types of high global warming potential (GWP) Freon, which are used as refrigerants. While emissions attributable to this source represents only about 1,154 tCO2e per year on average over the past four years, these gases have a 100-year GWP of about 1,800, or CO2e emissions of about 0.77 7 tCO2e per pound. The Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed listing acceptable alternatives for high GWP refrigerants, including those that UNC Wilmington currently uses. The alternatives include: ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A.

The EPA proposal would not require substitution of these alternatives for high GWP Freon refrigerants, but merely add these alternatives to the list of approved refrigerants and allow their use. Switching to these alternatives once they are approved would virtually eliminate the 1,154 tCO2e per year attributable to refrigerant use, since the alternatives all have a GWP of less than 10, or only about 0.5% that of Freon, resulting in a GHG emissions reduction of about 95.5%.

Land- and forest-based carbon sequestration

There is no practical way to emit no carbon emissions whatsoever, regardless of how efficient an organization may be. So, the portion of GHG emissions that simply can’t be avoided or mitigated must be offset in order to achieve carbon neutrality. There are two general types of GHG offsets – the first type represent voluntary reductions of GHG emissions from activities such as capturing and burning methane from a landfill when it isn’t required, and the second type of offsets, which are the focus here, are from carbon sequestration activities.

Living plants, including forests full of growing trees, act as a carbon sink since carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is captured and stored, or sequestered, in the trees as they grow. There are a variety of methods to

7 EPA Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748; FRL-9906-56-OAR. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, prepublication released June 26, 2014.

p. 36 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 37

account for the amount of carbon sequestered in forests, some more controversial than others, but generally an existing forest must be protected from development through a conversion easement or other designation of preserve status in order to qualify, and new tree plantings must be permitted to grow for a minimum amount of time in order for carbon offsets to be awarded without penalty. Many factors affect the amount of carbon sequestered in a forest – size and age of trees, type of trees, density of trees, etc. – but a typical conversion factor8 would be a little more than 1 tCO2e per acre of preserved forest.

APPLICABILITY TO UNC WILMINGTON

Fundamentally, the university’s GHG footprint is largely a measure of how efficiently and productively the university accomplishes its mission. As the mitigation chart demonstrates, even substantial reductions – reducing GHG emissions from the baseline by 130% of current emissions – is insufficient to reduce projected future emissions to the UNC System’s carbon neutral target of net zero emissions by FY2050. The projected growth in campus population and square footage is the primary reason that such large reductions do not eliminate the university’s GHG footprint in FY2050. For example, if campus square footage and population grow at 1% per year on average, the emissions intensity would have to decrease by 2% per year to achieve a 1% reduction in overall emissions.

The year 2050 is a long way into the future – far enough that it is difficult to predict emissions based on the future of technology, its efficiency and its cost effectiveness. However, there are ample opportunities available to UNC Wilmington today. Many of these have already been identified – fully interconnected centralized hot/cool water piping, ESPCs, HB 1292 improvements, composting, recycling, student-led renewable energy funds, a walk-first campus mentality, and more – and are available for consideration, but perhaps lack a centralized source of organization or support to drive their development and implementation. Although implementation and ideas readily flow from the bottom up, this missing link of leadership and institutional support is often provided only from the top-down.

Funding is always a challenge and often the ultimate constraint on GHG mitigation measures. This challenge can be managed in several ways at UNC Wilmington, including:

 Enable student funded sustainability activities;

 Incorporate campus sustainability into research and curriculum development efforts, including grant- seeking; and,

 Revise the manner in which HB 1292 savings are calculated; incorporating demand-based charges could nearly double the savings returned in this budget line for just the HB 1292 activities proposed in the prior year.

8 Appalachian State claims almost 1.24 tCO2e per acre for its on-campus forest conservation reserve

p. 37 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

Sustainability Common Practice

OVERVIEW

This section reviews the campus sustainability programs of twelve sister and peer institutions, as identified by UNC Wilmington staff, in order to provide context and understanding of standard practices as UNC Wilmington develops its sustainability program. The findings are presented in two parts—the first part describes how different institutions structure their sustainability programs while the second part identifies best practices for university sustainability reporting.

KEY FINDINGS

 Benchmark institutions tend to have a centralized, standalone sustainability office

 Benchmark institutions tend to employ dedicated full time staff

 Benchmark institutions utilize a campus sustainability committee in some form

 The average salary for campus sustainability professionals in the Southeast in 2012 was about $55,000 per year

 Seven of the twelve benchmark institutions have a student activity “green” fee to support sustainability initiatives

 Appalachian State University provides a valuable case study of university sustainability practices

 All 12 sister/peer institutions are ACUPCC signatories

 Nine of the twelve peer institutions are STARS participants, with three achieving a Gold rating, four achieving Silver, and two designated as reporters

SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM BEST PRACTICE

There are multiple ways in which universities choose to structure a sustainability office or sustainability efforts. This section describes how the twelve benchmark institutions structure and organize their sustainability programs. It includes a review of common features such as staffing levels and qualifications, administrative structure, organizational placement, budgets and funding sources.

CAMPUS SUSTAINBILITY POLICY

p. 38 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

These campus sustainability policies typically include a description of the institution’s motivation, a vision statement that describes what the campus aspires to achieve, a commitment to consider life-cycle environmental, social, and financial impacts in decision-making, and establishes goals and priorities for action. These policies also often designate a Chief Sustainability Officer or “policy owner “charged with oversight and implementation of the policy.

STANDALONE SUSTAINABILITY OFFICE

All twelve of the benchmark institutions, have centralized, standalone sustainability offices or units charged with planning, tracking, facilitating and integrating sustainability activities on campus. While the central focus of these offices tends to be on facilities and operations, the scope of their responsibility also includes student affairs, especially in relation to outreach, engagement, and academics, primarily in the form of highlighting existing programs and research initiatives.

Despite their cross-departmental functions, these offices tend to be housed administratively in a “Facilities” department with direct reporting to an Associate Vice Chancellor or equivalent. Notably, several of the surveyed intuitions house the sustainability office one-level up in a “Business Affairs” department with direct reporting to a Vice Chancellor or equivalent.

DEDICATED STAFFING

Eleven of the twelve benchmark institutions employ dedicated full time staff responsible for the coordination and implementation of their campus sustainability program. In fact, most offices have more than one FTE, with a typical office staffed by a full-time “Director” or “Coordinator” supported by additional full- or part-time support staff.

The role of “Director” or “Coordinator” is generally charged with executing the mission of the sustainability office, that is planning, tracking, facilitating and integrating sustainability activities on campus. The distinction in title between “Director” and “Coordinator” is typically a function of qualifications and related experience. A “Director” is more likely to have an advanced degree and significant related work experience (10 or more years). A “Coordinator” is also likely to have obtained an advanced degree, though a number have a Bachelor-level degree, and will have at least some related professional experience (3-10 years).

Support staff typically provides assistance in campus outreach, education and communication. These individuals tend to have lower levels of educational attainment, though it is not uncommon for these individuals to also possess an advanced degree, and typically have less than 5 years of related professional experience.

Interestingly, a number of institutions have incorporated staff members that are typically housed in other departments into the sustainability office to support certain sustainability activities (e.g., recycling staff, energy managers and alternative transportation program coordinators).

In addition to permanent employees, most sustainability offices also employ paid graduate assistants or undergraduate interns. The use of unpaid graduate and undergraduate interns is also quite common.

p. 39 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

The table below summarizes the job title, organizational position and staffing levels of the 12 benchmark institutions. It should be noted that estimates of FTEs was difficult to ascertain and there were often discrepancies in the reported number of FTEs within a given institution.

Centralized Full Time Institution Lead Staff Job Title Lead Staff Reports To Office Employees Appalachian State Yes Director, Office of Vice Chancellor for Business 6 Sustainability Affairs Cal State Chico Yes Director, Institute for Office of the President 4 Sustainable Development College of Yes Director, Office of Executive Vice President of 3 Charleston Sustainability Business Affairs Duke Yes Environmental Executive Vice President 3 Sustainability Director Elizabeth City No n/a n/a 0 State Fayetteville State Yes Director of Sustainability Assoc. Vice Chancellor for 1 Facilities Management James Madison Yes Ex. Director, Office of Vice President of Access, 2 Environmental Enrollment and Management NC State Yes Director,Stewardship University and Asst. Vice Chancellor for 5 Sustainability Office Facilities Operations UNC Chapel Hill Yes Director Sustainability Facilities Services 2 Office UNC Charlotte Yes Director, Sustainability Assoc. Vice Chancellor for 2 Office Facilities Management UNC Greensboro Yes Sustainability Coordinator Assoc. Vice Chancellor for 2 Facilities Management Western Yes Campus Sustainability Facilities Management 4 Washington Manager Director

SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Another common feature is a campus sustainability committee, with all 12 benchmark universities having some version. These committees tend to serve as the primary hub of campus sustainability activities. The committees are typically comprised of a diverse set of campus stakeholders including students, faculty, staff and administrators. These committees are an important venue for stakeholders to identify areas of concern and develop collaborative, cross-functional relationships to solve problems. These committees are also in important venue for developing collegial relationships among stakeholders that may have divergent perspectives. The committee venue gives each stakeholder the opportunity to not only express their perspective but also to listen

p. 40 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

and learn from others, leading to an increased understanding, higher Appalachian State Case Study levels of trust and ultimately a shared vision for action. Appalachian State University is widely recognized as regional and national leader campus sustainability. Appalachian is consistently FUNDING ranked in the top twenty of the nation’s greenest universities as measured by the Sierra Club’s Cool Schools rating system. Additionally Appalachian has a Gold-level rating from AASHE Acquiring benchmark data on the STARS, achieving at the time the fourth-highest score recorded. This scale of sustainability office budgets success is in large part attributable to work of the university’s and sources of funding proved sustainability office. surprisingly difficult. None of the benchmark institutions disclose Sustainability Office their budgets as a part of their public reporting and staff The Appalachian State University Office of Sustainability was created interviewed for this study reported in July 2009. Initially, the Office had one full-time employee (who differing ways of looking at currently serves as Sustainability Director) and one full-time temporary funding. However based on these staff employee. Currently, six full-time permanent employees and a limited responses and other surveys number of temporary graduate assistants and student employees staff of higher education sustainability the office. Funding for the office is supported by general operating professionals, it is possible to draw funds. some broad conclusions about the scale and sources of funding for The Sustainability Office Director reports directly to the Vice campus sustainability programs. Chancellor for Business Affairs, providing monthly progress reports. Recently, an informal reporting line was established between the First, most program funding comes Sustainability Office and Office of the Provost and Executive Vice from the university’s general Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Sustainability Office also operating funds. This was prepares a presentation for the Chancellor’s Cabinet once per semester. consistently reported by the Sustainability Council benchmark universities and is consistent with the findings of a The Sustainability Council began with a come-as-you-wish type of national survey of higher education membership policy. After the creation of the Office of Sustainability, sustainability professions conducted the Sustainability Council was restructured to have the Sustainability by AASHE. Director as Co-Chair with the other Co-Chair elected by faculty members on the Council. The Co-Chair serves a two-year term and the Second, most program funding faculty members are appointed by the deans of each college. supports staff salaries, benefits and Permanent positions are typically held by university staff members, other indirect costs, and not project and at-large positions are reserved for community or university implementation. This is somewhat representatives. The Council currently meets twice per semester, with surprising but not entirely 11 subcommittees meeting individually once per month. inconsistent, given that the central responsibility of campus Sustainability Fellow sustainability offices is program Beginning in the Fall ’14 semester, a professor selected from the facilitation and not project Department of Management in Appalachian’s Walker College of implementation. Funding for project Business will work to promote academic sustainability programs, implementation is generally broaden sustainability across the curriculum, and support research supported from the operating initiatives as a sustainability fellow. This newly implemented, hybrid position, funded by the Office of Academic Affairs and the Office of Sustainability, specifies a half-time teaching schedule and half-timep. 41 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

budgets of other departments and external grants or sponsorships. As discussed below, an increasingly important source of implementation funding is student activity fees specifically designated to support sustainability-related projects. These so-called “green fees” are discussed in greater detail below.

Third, while annual budget amounts were unavailable, AASHE does conduct a bi-annual salary survey that allows for some inferences about the scale sustainability office budgets. The average salary for campus sustainability professionals in the Southeast in 2012 was about $55,000 per year. Assuming an additional 30% for fringe benefits and an additional 30% for indirect costs, it is reasonable to assume a cost of about ~$88,000 per FTE. At two FTE’s this translates to a base budget of about $175,000 per year. It is safe to assume that in addition to staff and overhead there are other expenses such an office might incur such as printing, stipends, travel, consulting services, etc., leading one to reasonably expect a total budget for a two-person office on the order of $200,000 to $250,000 per year.

Student Green Fees

As mentioned above, student activity fees are an increasingly important source of funding for campus sustainability programs. Seven of the 12 benchmark institutions have a student activity fee to support initiatives such as renewable energy projects, energy efficiency projects, and sustainability education. The fees among the benchmark institutions range from $1.50 per semester up to $10 per semester and generate between approximately $60,000 and $290,000 annually.

These green fee funds are typically administered by either a committee consisting of students, faculty, and administrators or a student-led committee. Regardless of the committee makeup, deference is typically given to student funding priorities with other members playing a more advisory role.

SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING BEST PRACTICE

ACUPCC GHG REPORTING

The American College & University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPPCC) is an initiative enlisting colleges and universities to address global climate change via programs geared towards eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from specified operations, while promoting a mission of climate research and education.

It is notable that all of sister and peer institutions examined have become signatories of the ACUPCC and submitted at least one GHG inventory. The frequency of reporting varies considerably, though have submitted periodic updates to their GHG emissions inventories. ACUPCC stipulates that member universities submit a GHG inventory once every two years. Most peers submit GHG reports every two to three years, with four having submitted reports on an annual basis. Two peers are listed as being past due for their current GHG report. Only Elizabeth City State has submitted a single GHG report, with the remaining 11 institutions having submitted between two and eight reports each.

p. 42 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

ACUPCC “TANGIBLE ACTIONS”

Upon becoming a signatory, each institution must also pledge to initiate two or more “tangible actions” to reduce GHG emissions as a measure of good faith until the institution develops a comprehensive action plan, which is required within two years of signing. The table below summarizes the seven actions institutions can initiate as a commitment of good faith.

Descriptions of ACUPCC Tangible Actions

Establish a policy that all new campus construction will be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Silver standard or equivalent. Adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products in all areas for which such ratings exist. Establish a policy of offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions generated by air travel paid for by our institution.

Encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution. Within one year of signing this document, begin purchasing or producing at least 15% of our institution's electricity consumption from renewable sources. Establish a policy or a committee that supports climate and sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where our institution's endowment is invested. Participate in the Waste Minimization component of the national RecycleMania competition, and adopt 3 or more associated measures to reduce waste.

The number actions pledged among the benchmark institutions ranged from two to five. UNC Greensboro and Western Washington chose the minimum of two. Appalachian State chose five. Fayetteville State and NC State chose three. The remaining institutions chose four.

Among the 12 surveyed institutions the most common actions chosen were to adopt LEED silver building standards and to provide access to and encourage the utilization of public transportation to the university community, both of which were selected by 11 of the 12 benchmark institutions. This was followed by adopting an Energy Star appliance purchasing policy, which was chosen by 10 of the 12 benchmark institutions.

None of the benchmark institutions pledged to review their investment policies for alignment with sustainability principles - an interesting point since divestiture initiatives by universities have historically played an important role in advancing environmental and social justice causes (e.g., fair labor conditions for university-branded apparel).

p. 43 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

Tangible Actions Institution LEED Energy Air Travel Public Renewable Sustainable Recycle

Silver Star Offset Transportation Energy Investments Mania

Appalachian     - -  State

Elizabeth City   -  - -  State

Fayetteville   -  - - - State

N.C. State   -  - - -

UNC Chapel   -  - -  Hill

UNC   -  - -  Charlotte

UNC - - -  - -  Greensboro

Cal State   -  - -  Chico

College of   -  - -  Charleston

Duke   -  - - 

James   -  - -  Madison]

Western  - - -  - - Washington

AASHE STARS REPORTING

STARS OVERVIEW

The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) is an assessment tool that examines sustainability in the areas of education and research, operations, and planning administration, and engagement. It is the leading sustainability performance measurement standard for colleges and universities.

p. 44 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

The primary strength of the AASHE STARS framework is its comprehensiveness. The framework prompts participating institutions to examine a wide range of sustainability related topics. This breadth is particularly helpful for less mature sustainability programs for two reasons. First, it tends to raise issues the campus community may not yet have considered. Second, it fosters cross-departmental collaboration.

One shortcoming of the framework is that it does not direct the organization to consider the materiality—that is, the relative importance and significance of the issue to internal and external stakeholders—of the issues the framework brings forward. In this regard the framework does not offer a reporting institution any guidance on prioritizing the work of its sustainability program. Indeed, if accepted just on its face, the framework may lead an organization to pursue costly initiatives that have relatively little impact.

HOW STARS SCORES ARE CALCULATED

Participating institutions self-report data on their performance related to education and research, operations, and planning administration, and engagement. Based on the criteria for a given credit, the institution accrues points. To generate the total score, the four major STARS categories are averaged to arrive at a number out of a maximum of 208. For analysis in this report, the total number of points available was considered. In this context, there are 208 points available in the entire framework distributed among the various categories. Based on the total number of points accrued, a reporting institution is awarded a rating of platinum (a minimum of 85 of 208 points), gold (minimum of 65 of 208 points), silver (minimum of 45 of 208 points), or bronze (minimum of 25 of 208 points).

PEER & SISTER INSTITUTION AASHE STARS PARTICIAPTION

As noted in the table below, all of the surveyed institutions are AASHE members. Membership in AASHE offers university representatives access to a community of likeminded professionals with whom they can share sustainability ideas and information but does not required STARS reporting. Nine of the 12 peer institutions have completed and submitted self-evaluations under the STARS framework with three achieving STARS Gold, four achieving Silver, and two designated as reporters.

PEER & SISTER INSTITUTION AASHE STARS PERFORMANCE

On average, the twelve sister and peer institutions included in this analysis scored better than the national average of all participating institutions, achieving an average score of 184 compared to the national average of 147 (see chart below).

p. 45 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

AASHE Status Institution

Elizabeth City State Member College of Charleston UNC Charlotte STARS Registration none STARS Reporter Fayetteville State N.C. State STARS Bronze none James Madison STARS Silver UNC Chapel Hill UNC Greensboro Western Washington Appalachian State STARS Gold Cal State Chico Duke STARS Platinum none

Interestingly, scores were higher both nationally and among UNC Wilmington’s sister and peer institutions for the “Education & Research” and “Planning, Administration &

Engagement” categories than for the “Operations” as might be expected given the location of sustainability offices with a facilities division.

p. 46 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

SUSTAINABILITY COMMON PRACTICE

STARS INDIVIDUAL CREDIT RATINGS

While the summary of institutional scores by category offers a high-level view of performance, in order to identify “best-practice” in campus sustainability activities we took a closer look at which credits peer and sister institutions were consistently scoring maximum available points. The table below shows the 23 credits where peer and sister institutions, on average, earned at least 85% of the available points.

Average Percent of Credit Available Points Scored Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign 100% Undergraduate Program in Sustainability 100% Graduate Program in Sustainability 100% Hazardous Waste Management 100% Stormwater Management 100% Sustainability Coordination 100% Physical Campus Plan 100% Climate Action Plan 100% Diversity and Equity Coordination 100% Measuring Campus Diversity Culture 100% Support Programs for Underrepresented Groups 100% Affordability and Access Programs 100% Sustainable Compensation 100% Sustainability in New Employee Orientation 100% Community Sustainability Partnerships 100% Inter-Campus Collaboration on Sustainability 100% Sustainability Outreach and Publications 98% Electronic Waste Recycling Program 92% Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 92% Sustainability Course Identification 89% Sustainability Research Identification 89% Strategic Plan 89% Cleaning Products Purchasing 87%

p. 47 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

Appendix A GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

Sustainability Action Plan Appendix A: GHG Inventory Methodology

OVERVIEW

This Appendix describes the data, methods and assumptions that were used to estimate UNC Wilmington’s GHG emissions calculations, by emissions source.

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

Figure 12 Global Warming Potential of the GHG Protocol’s seven greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential

Carbon Dioxide - CO2 1

Methane - CH4 21

Nitrous Oxide - N2O 310

Nitrogen Trifluoride - NF3 17,200

Sulfur Hexafluoride - SF6 23,900 Hydroflurocarbons - 12,000-11,700 HFCs Perfluorocarbons - PFCs 6,500-9,200

p. 48 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

Appendix A GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

The calculation of CO2e for each GHG is represented in the equation below:

푪푶ퟐ풆 = 푮푯푮풊 × 푮푾푷풊

Where:

CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent

GHGi = Mass emissions of a given GHG

GWPi = Global warming potential of a given GHG풆

p. 49 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX A: GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

STATIONARY AND MOBILE COMBUSTION

The stationary and mobile combustion of fossil fuels results in the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). The quantity of each GHG released during combustion is based on the mass or volume of fuel combusted (in gallons for liquid fuels or in standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels), the fuel’s high heating value (MMBtu per applicable unit of measure) and the fuel’s specific emissions factor (kg CO2, CH4 or N2O per MMBtu). The fuel-specific values for high heating value and stationary combustion emissions factor used to calculate emissions reported here are from the U.S. EPA’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The mobile combustion emissions factors for CH4 and N2O are from the U.S. EPA’s U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2011.

The calculation of the quantity of each GHG emitted is represented in the equation below:

−ퟑ 푮푯푮풊 = ퟏ × ퟏퟎ × 푭풖풆풍 × 푯푯푽 ∗ 푬푭풊

Where:

GHGi = Mass emissions of a given GHG

Fuel = Quanity of fuel combusted

HHV = High heating value of the fuel

EFi = Fuel-specific emissions factor for a given GHG

FugIitive Emissions

The calculation of GHG emissions from the fugitive release of refrigerants is a function of the mass of fugitive emissions multiplied by the appropriate GWP.

PURCHASED ENERGY INDIRECT EMISSIONS

The GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity are a function of the GHG intensity of that purchased electricity multiplied by the total electricity used. The calculation of CO2e from purchased electricity is represented in the equation below:

푪푶ퟐ풆 = 풌푾풉 × 푬푭

Where:

CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent

kWh = Quantity of purchased electricity in kilowatt-hours

EF = Electricity emissions factor, CO2e/kWh

p. 50 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX A: GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

The electricity emissions factors used to calculate emissions reported here are from the U.S. EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGrid) for the Virginia/Carolina subregion.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The GHG emissions from the disposal of solid waste are determined by the GHG intensity of the disposal method. The calculation of CO2e from purchased electricity is represented in the equation below:

푪푶ퟐ풆 = 푾풂풔풕풆풊 × 푬푭풊

Where:

CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent

Wastei = Quantity of waste disposed via a given disposal method

EFi = Emissions factor for a given disposal method (CO2e/kWh)

The emissions factors for a given disposal method used to calculate emissions reported here are derived from the U.S. EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM). The default emissions factors from the WARM model have been adjusted to remove the credit given to landfills for carbon sequestration and to waste-to-energy incinerators for the displacement of conventional fossil fuel fired power plants. The result is an emissions factor that only accounts for gross emissions.

The basis for this change is consistency with entity-level carbon accounting that quantifies direct effects from direct and indirect activities (i.e., attributional life-cycle analysis (LCA)) called for in the GHG Protocol. Such an approach asks the same question of all activities: What is the effect of this activity on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases? Using WARM’s emissions factors and including a credit for carbon sequestration in landfills or the displacement of electricity from conventional power plants for incinerators would, instead, represent a consequential LCA approach that “takes credit” for activities in other life-cycle stages.

To provide consistent comparison over time, this approach was used to recalculate UNC Wilmington’s solid waste-related emissions reported in the university’s 2011 GHG inventory.

COMMUTE

The GHG emissions associated with employee and student commute are based on estimates of commuter miles traveled, by transportation mode (i.e., single occupancy vehicle, carpool, bus, and walk or bike) and transportation mode fuel efficiency, by commute mode. While the emissions estimates provide a useful sense of scale, the estimates are less precise than estimates in other sections of this study because of the methodology underlying the estimates of commuter miles.

Employee-related commuter miles travelled by transportation mode were determined as follows:

 Employee counts by zip code were provided by UNC Wilmington’s Human Resources Department.

p. 51 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX A: GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

 Average distance travelled to campus by zip code was determined using Google maps.

 Annual commuter miles by zip code was calculated by multiplying annual workdays, which were assumed to be 250, by the number of employees residing in the zip code and the average distance travelled. Employees residing in zip codes further than 100 miles from campus were excluded since they represent less than 2% of employees.

 Commuter miles were distributed by transportation mode according to U.S. Census “Journey to Work” data for the Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area. Commuter miles for carpooling were discounted by 50% to account for “sharing” of miles with other passengers.

 All commuter miles for each zip code by mode were summed to yield a total commuter miles by transportation mode.

Student-related commuter miles travelled by transportation mode were determined as follows:

 A count of student parking permits by zip code was obtained from Parking Department as a proxy for the number of students residing in a given location.

 Average distance travelled to campus by zip code was determined using Google maps.

 Annual student single occupancy vehicle miles travelled by zip code was calculated by multiplying annual instruction-days, which were assumed to 140, by the number of parking permits in a zip code and the average distance travelled. Parking permits with no associated zip code were excluded from the analysis because these were overwhelmingly permits for freshman that likely lived on campus. It was further assumed that zip codes further than 100 miles represented the student’s permanent address. Instead of calculating commute distance based on this remote distance it was assumed that the actual distance traveled by these permit holders matched the distribution of permit holders with address within 100 miles.

 Annual miles travelled via Seahawk Shuttle were calculated by dividing annual operating hours by an average operating speed for Wave Transit. Wave Transit’s average operating speed was determined by dividing annual vehicle revenue miles by annual vehicle revenue hours as reported to Federal Transit Administration.

 Fuel consumption for single occupancy vehicles and carpooling was then estimated by multiplying the number of commuter miles by U.S. fleet average fuel efficiency as reported by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This fuel consumption was then multiplied by standard emissions factors to yield estimated GHG emissions. Fuel consumption from bus transit was estimated using a similar approach but used a bus transit fuel efficiency factor from the American Public transit Association. No GHG emissions were assigned to walk, bike and other transit modes.

UNIVERSITY-SPONSORED TRAVEL

The GHG emissions associated with university-sponsored travel are a function of the amount of travel by a given mode (i.e., miles travelled) and GHG-intensity of that transportation mode (i.e., CO2e per passenger mile). As

p. 52 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX A: GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

noted in the main body of the report, acquiring data on the miles travelled by a given mode proved difficult. Since a current report of miles travelled by mode was unavailable the historic miles travelled reported for UNC Wilmington’s prior GHG inventory were used as a proxy. That historic data was adjusted to account for increases in student enrollment and university employment.

These estimated air travel miles were then multiplied by the U.S. average air carrier economy to calculated total fuel consumption. Finally, this fuel consumption was then multiplied by standard emissions factors to yield estimated GHG emissions.

OTHER INDIRECT EMISSIONS (SUPPLY CHAIN)

For estimating the emissions associated with the production of goods and services purchased by UNC Wilmington, this analysis relied on Economic Input-Output Life-Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA), a public-domain tool developed by Carnegie Mellon University.

The EIOLCA tool provides an estimate of the quantity of greenhouse gasses generated per dollar of expenditures for the goods or services produced within 428 industrial sectors of the U.S. economy. For each product category, the tool takes into account the entire supply chain involved in the production of the goods and services and estimates the greenhouse gasses generated at each stage of production up to the point of purchase.

For example, the supply chain for a piece of furniture would extend from the impacts of mining ore for any metal components or harvesting timber for any wood components through the supply chain to the impacts of activities at the product’s final assembly point.

This report relies upon data from UNC Wilmington’s accounting system to portray the expenditures made by UNC Wilmington for goods and services. Transfer payments such as employee salaries, payroll taxes, and employee health benefits were are not included. UNC Wilmington’s accounting system organizes expenditure data by “budget code,” which provides the initial basis for grouping expenditures into categories of activities that can be analyzed by the Carnegie Mellon model.

A significant issue confronted in the analysis was that the accounting data is structured to meet UNC Wilmington’s established information needs rather than the requirements of an EIOCLA analysis. In order to group expenditures into useful categories for the EIOLCA analysis, resource code transaction ledgers were examined to determine the most frequent type of expenditures and a qualitative assessment was made regarding the most suitable EIOLCA category to assign to those transactions.

In some cases, UNC Wilmington’s resource codes had clear analogs in the EIOLCA database but certain resource codes captured a variety of goods and services. In those cases where UNC Wilmington’s resource codes captured a range of goods and services, rough estimates of the distribution of categories of goods and services were made and dollar values were assigned accordingly.

Given the limitations in the data and in the EIOLCA model, it is essential to regard the GHG estimates for this part of the report as a sense of scale estimate rather than an exact calculation of the quantity of associated emissions. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the estimated GHG emissions associated with purchased goods and services, the implications of the purchasing activity are serious and compelling.

p. 53 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX A: GHG INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

DATA SOURCES

The raw data provided by UNC Wilmington staff along with supplemental calculations and external resources used to complete this inventory are catalogued in an audit trail. The purpose of the audit trail is to provide transparency in the reporting and to assist those who conduct future GHG inventories and allow third-party verification as desired.

The documents and resources used to complete the report have been assigned a serialized three-digit call number. Documents with a call number preceded by the letters “DF” are original data files as received from UNC Wilmington. Documents with a call number preceded by the letters “CF” are calculation files that sort, summarize or otherwise assemble data for entry into Good Company’s Carbon Calculator.

The table below lists all of the documents in the audit trail.

Call # Original File Name Renamed File Name DF- ELECTRIC YTD (4) DF-001-UNC Wilmington- Elec-FY10_DF- 001DF- FUEL OIL YTD (4) 051514.xlsDF-002-UNC Wilmington-Stationary_Fuel- 002DF- GAS YTD (4) FY10_DFDF-003--UNC051514.xls Wilmington -Gas-FY10_DF- 003DF- PROPANE YTD (5) 051514.xlsDF-004-UNC Wilmington-Onsite_Propane- 004DF- Annual Fuel Consumption FY10_DFDF-005--UNC051514.xls Wilmington -Mobile_Fleet_Fuels- 005DF- byFreon.xlsx Type.xlsx 051614.xlsxDF-006-UNC Wilmington-Refrigerants- 006DF- 2012 University Spending 060514.xlsxDF-007-UNC Wilmington-Expenditures- 007DF- Report.xlsNCAMPO Shuttle Growth 060514.xlsDF-008-UNC Wilmington-Commute-Shuttle- 008DF- Charts.xlsxEnrollment_by_Type_Fall_2 060514.xlsxDF-009-UNC Wilmington-Students_Headcount- 009DF- 013.xls2010 UNC -GA Bldg 060514.xlsDF-010-UNC Wilmington-Building_Sq_Footage- 010CF- Report 060514.pdfCF-001-UNC Wilmington-Gas_Calculation-FY2011- 001CF- 060614.xlsxCF-002-UNC Wilmington-Gas_Calculation- 002CF- FY2012CF-003-060614.xlsxUNC Wilmington -Gas_Calculation- 003CF- FY2013CF-004-060614.xlsxUNC Wilmington -Gas_Calculation- 004CF- FY2014CF-005-UNC.xlsx Wilmington-Elec_Calculation-FY11- 005CF- FY14CF-006-060914.xlsx-UNC Wilmington - 006CF- Stationary_Fuel_CalculationCF-007-UNC Wilmington- -FY11-FY14- CF- CF-008-UNC Wilmington-CommuteMiles- 007 060914.xlsxMobile_Fleet_Fuels_Calculation -FY11-FY14- 008CF- CalculationsCF-009-UNC-072414.xlsx Wilmington -SolidWaste-Calculation- 060614.xlsx 009 FY11-FY14-060614.xlsx

p. 54 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

Appendix B GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

Appendix B: GHG Reductions Methodology

OVERVIEW

The mitigation analysis section serves several purposes, including:

 Provide a forecast of future GHG inventory emissions levels based on current trends (i.e., baseline emissions projection), changing policy and regulatory context, and UNC Wilmington’s implementation of strategies to mitigate GHG emissions;

 Support the inclusion of GHG emissions impacts in decision-making and planning processes (e.g., sustainability, energy, facilities, transportation, etc.) at UNC Wilmington; and,

 Assist UNC Wilmington achieve the 2050 carbon-neutral goals established by the UNC General Administration by conveying the scale and timing of GHG mitigation efforts necessary to meet the goal, and providing insight into the primary factors upon which GHG emissions are dependent.

The mitigation analysis was conducted using a custom-built model created in Microsoft’s Excel software. As with all forecasting, the analysis model is subject to degrees of uncertainty with the uncertainty level increasing as the projections extend to cover time further into the future. In practice, the model relates all GHG emissions included in the inventory to university activity levels – gross square feet, FTE-Student (FTE-s) enrollment, and FTE- Personnel (FTE-p) employment. As a starting point, the model uses data from both the previous and current GHG inventory (dating back to FY2007 for the most part) and supplements these data with records of student enrollment, university employment, and building area. Where available, the model incorporates UNC Wilmington’s existing plans for the immediate future (typically the next 5 to 10 years), such as the 2010 Campus Master Plan Update, to project activity levels. Where existing plans are unavailable or for time periods beyond the scope of existing plans, the analysis model projects activity levels on historical trends derived from the primary activity driver of any university – student enrollment.

For the purposes of the analysis, the model first projects a baseline level of emissions through FY2050 based on the core metric of student enrollment and other activity measures based on student enrollment. The baseline emissions level is then compared against the target emissions level of carbon neutral by 2050 – the linear trend starting with inventory emissions in FY2011 and ending with zero net GHG emissions in FY2050. Next, the baseline is adjusted to reflect likely changes in the GHG intensity of emissions-producing activity (i.e., stationary combustion, purchased electricity, transportation/commuting, etc.) attributable to changes in local, state, or federal policies or regulations to produce a forward projection of likely emissions after those policy changes are

p. 55 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

Appendix B GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

implemented. The remaining difference between the target emissions level and the policy-adjusted emissions projection are those GHG emissions whose mitigation will require direct intervention by UNC Wilmington.

The analysis model then incorporates various GHG mitigation activities bundled as strategies over a couple of forward emissions projections to create future emissions scenarios. Each scenario builds on the previous scenario so that it represents GHG mitigation in addition to that already presented. The ultimate objective of this analysis is not to find a mix of strategies or mitigation activities that will yield net-zero GHG emissions in FY2050, but

p. 56 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

rather to illustrate the extent to which emissions reductions are necessary and both the scale and scope of the long-term effort necessary to progress towards the FY2050 goal. Projecting Baseline GHG Emissions

UNIVERSITY ACTIVITY MEASURES

Projecting baseline emissions begins with basic measures of university activity – students, personnel, and facility square footage – and forecasting the level of activity through FY2050. As the core of the university, all activity measures are based on student enrollment. Starting with current enrollment figures for FY2014 from UNC Wilmington’s OIRA reports, full-time equivalent student enrollment (FTE-s) is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.64% per year through 2050, based on UNC Wilmington’s recent share of UNC System-wide enrollment and statewide population growth from the Census Bureau.

University employment (i.e., FTE-p) is projected relative to student enrollment. Based on data provided by UNC Wilmington, between FY2007 and FY2014, for every FTE-Personnel employed at the university there have been an average 6.17 FTE-Students enrolled; the baseline projections assume this ratio remains constant through FY2050.

Projecting future square footage of university facilities is not quite as straightforward as projecting students and personnel. Between FY2007 and FY2014, according to the N.C. Utility Savings Initiative report, the university added nearly 1.1 million square feet – more than a 36% increase – while increasing FTE-Student enrollment by only about 16.5%. Clearly this rate of growth is unsustainable. So, to project future gross square footage the analysis uses two forecasting periods, present through FY2021 and FY2022 through FY2050. For the period through FY2021 the analysis relied on UNC Wilmington’s Campus Master Plan near-term construction projections, and from FY2022 through FY2050 gross square footage was projected based on maintaining the average square feet per the combined FTE-Students and FTE-Personnel, or full-time equivalent combined (FTE-c), from the period FY2010-FY2021 of 268 gross square feet per FTE-Combined.

The historical and future projections of student enrollment (FTE-Students) and gross square feet used as the baseline of university activity in all scenarios is shown in Figure 14.

p. 57 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

Figure 13 - Student Enrollment & Gross Square Feet Projections

25,000 8,000,000

7,000,000

20,000 6,000,000

5,000,000 15,000

4,000,000

10,000

3,000,000

Gross Square GrossSquare Feet

Equivalent Equivalent Student Enrollment -

2,000,000

5,000 Full TimeFull 1,000,000

0 0

FTE-Students Gross Square Feet

University Activity Measure Baseline Forecasting Period (unit) FY2014 FY2021 FY2050 Full Time Equivalent Student 14,691 13,110 23,547 Enrollment (FTE-s)

Full-Time Equivalent 2,381 Personnel Employment 2,024 3,816

(FTE-p)

Full-Time Equivalent 17,073 15,134 27,263 Combined (FTE-c)

Facility Square Footage (1,000 4,580,608 4,000,762 7,340,554 sq. ft.)

p. 58 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

GHG EMISSIONS BASELINE

The GHG emissions baseline is a projection of expected future emissions assuming few, if any, changes to mitigate or reduce emissions beyond what is already required or in place. The emissions baseline is constructed as the sum of the GHG Inventory’s emissions sources and is generally calculated as the historical GHG emissions intensity of university activities multiplied by the projected future activity level.

STATIONARY COMBUSTION

Scope 1 emissions include stationary combustion, mobile combustion and fugitive emissions. The primary source of emissions in Scope 1 is stationary combustion, which consists almost natural gas combustion, and is closely related to building energy requirements. The FY2014 rate of emissions for stationary combustion was about 2.484 metric tons of CO2e (tCO2e) per thousand square feet. Stationary combustion emissions were projected through FY2050 assuming that the current rate of emissions would decline over time as new buildings are constructed in fulfillment of the Performance Standards for Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Public Buildings (N.C.G.S. §143- 135.37(b)) requirement that new construction consume 30% less energy than the same non-energy-efficient building. So, the existing gross square footage was assumed to maintain the current energy and emissions intensity, but new square footage was assumed to emit 30% fewer GHGs per square foot. The resulting emissions attributable to stationary combustion are based on the weighted average emissions rate of existing and new square footage, which declines from the present rate of 2.484 tCO2e/thousand sq. ft. to 1.862 tCO2e/thousand sq. ft. in FY2050. As a result, stationary emissions are projected to increase by about 37.5% while building square footage is expected to increase by about 83.5% through FY2050.

MOBILE COMBUSTION

Mobile emissions are from the university-owned transportation fleet, which has been shrinking in vehicle count at the same time as it has demonstrated slight changes in fuel mix. Diesel consumption has risen by about 50% since FY2011, while gasoline consumption has decreased by about 27% over the same period and the combined total gallons of fuel consumed for mobile combustion has decreased by about 24%. The current trends – declining total fuel consumption, and the changing percentage shares of total consumption between gasoline and diesel – were assumed to continue through FY2027 when both gasoline and diesel are consumed in approximately equal quantities, and post-FY2027 total consumption rises in proportion to the increase in university employment.

FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

Fugitive emissions are attributable to the use of refrigerants, like Freon, that are refilled or replaced sporadically – between FY2007 and FY2014 annual fugitive emissions accounted for a minimum of 213 tCO2e and a maximum of 3,701 tCO2e. For the baseline emissions projection, fugitive emissions were assumed to remain at their FY2011- FY2014 average level of 1,154 tCO2e/year through FY2050.

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY

p. 59 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

Scope 2 emissions represented nearly 40% of total GHG emissions in FY2014 – all 29,234 tCO2e of which are attributable to the purchase of electricity from Duke Energy Progress – and are UNC Wilmington’s single largest source of ACUPCC-required inventory emissions. Purchased electricity emissions are projected based on the forecast of FTE-Combined (FTE-c) (a representation of the number of people on campus), or FTE-Students plus FTE-Personnel. Electricity consumption is calculated as the number of FTE-Combined multiplied by the average MWh of electricity used per FTE-c during the three most recent years (to account for any changes in the electricity use rate attributable to the first Energy Services Performance Contract), which yields an electricity intensity of about 4.92 MWh/FTE-c. This electricity intensity rate is then multiplied by the GHG intensity of North Carolina’s electricity, or tCO2 per MWh, as reported and projected in the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014, which accounts for current trends and state-level policies such as North Carolina’s Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. The baseline projection then adjusts the projected electricity consumption to account for the higher energy efficiency of new construction as required by the state’s policy on Performance Standards for Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Public Buildings (N.C.G.S. §143- 135.37(b)). This projection assumes that energy efficient building design can return at least a 15% reduction in electricity use, and recalculates GHG emissions attributable to purchased electricity based on the adjusted electricity consumption figure.

Over the period through FY2050, total GHG emissions attributable to Scope 2 purchased electricity are projected to decline by more than 17.4% from more than 29,000 tCO2e in FY2014 to just over 24,300 tCO2e in FY2050. This baseline reduction in GHG emissions is primarily due to the reduction in electricity emissions intensity from the higher energy efficiency of new construction, but also due to the projected reduction in the GHG intensity of North Carolina’s electricity supply.

TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LOSSES

Scope 3 emissions include emissions attributable to commuting by students and personnel, university business- related air travel, purchasing expenditures, solid waste management (including recycling, composting and landfilling), and transmission & distribution losses from electricity purchases. The simplest of Scope 3 emissions to project are the transmission & distribution losses from purchased electricity. An estimated 6.5% of generated electricity, and associated emissions, is lost between the generating plant and the final consumer since power lines, substations, and transformers are not perfectly efficient – this rate is assumed constant through FY2050.

PURCHASING

Purchasing-related emissions also present challenges in forecasting, due to the variety of different purchasing categories, each category’s respective average emissions per dollar of expenditure, and the limited amount of historical purchasing data. The purchasing-related emissions projection is based on three subcategories of purchasing activity. The first subcategory includes the general purchasing categories of “IT Equipment and Maintenance”, “Research and Operational Supplies”, “Food, Lodging and Conferences”, “Printing and Office Supplies”, and “Professional Services” for which total expenditures have increased by 63% from $11.8 million in FY2011 to $19.2 million in FY2014, though expenditures per FTE-Combined have only increased by 53% over the same period to $1,272/FTE-c in FY2014. Combined with the decrease in emissions intensity – represented in kilograms of CO2e per dollar of expenditure – of about 7.8% for purchases in this subcategory, the net rate of emissions for this subcategory of purchasing has risen by almost 41% from 251 kgCO2e/FTE-c in FY2011 to almost

p. 60 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

354 kgCO2e/FTE-c in FY2014. A simple plot-fitted linear regression line given as y = 0.1028x – 1199 has an R2 value of 0.9572 and serves as the basis for forecasting GHG emissions associated with this subcategory of purchasing.

Different spending trends are evident within the two remaining purchasing subcategories of “Construction and Maintenance for Buildings/Equipment” and “Ground Transportation” than are evidenced in the first subcategory group. Construction-related spending includes activities such as new building construction, renovations and repairs that do not always occur on a time-coincident basis with measurable outcomes such as square feet renovated or constructed. After an in-depth analysis of expenditures and university activities in the construction subcategory, construction expenditures are forecast based on a combination of expenditures for maintaining existing square footage and expenditures for adding new square footage. The FY2014 expenditures per gross square foot of $2.89/sq. ft. is used as the base rate for existing square footage, while new square footage is estimated at the average of the FY2012 and FY2013 expenditures per square foot for new construction of $112.60/sq. ft.. Forecast expenditures based on projected existing and newly-added square footage are summed and then multiplied by the FY2011-FY2014 average GHG emissions rate for construction-related expenditures of 0.5725 kgCO2e per dollar of expenditures and applied in all future years based on existing square footage at the start of each year and projected new square footage added in the year.

The remaining purchasing subcategory for “Ground Transportation” is separated due to its rapid growth, which evidences a trend of some unknown duration and ultimate scale in UNC Wilmington’s transportation services. Expenditures in this subcategory were just over $5,000 in FY2011 but increased to nearly $478,000 by FY2014 – nearly a 100-fold over a four-year period. The rate of emissions per dollar of expenditures remained virtually unchanged during the three most recent years, varying by only a few tenths of one percent and averaging 1.872 kgCO2e per dollar of expenditures. The major challenge in forecasting emissions from this subcategory is predicting future growth in these expenditures since the recent growth rates are clearly unsustainable over a long period of time. Instead, recognizing that there has been some substitution between mobile fuel combustion and purchasing expenditures for ground transportation, the emissions rate – represented in tCO2e/FTE-c – for the combined emissions of mobile fuel combustion in Scope 1 and ground transportation emissions in Scope 3 during FY2011-FY2014 has most frequently averaged 0.56 tCO2e/FTE-c. Based on that combined rate, ground transportation purchasing can be adjusted to units of tCO2e/FTE-c, and after accounting for the annual emissions attributable to mobile combustion and sporadic noise from an outlier year, the best fit function for projecting ground transportation emissions per FTE-c is y = 0.3004 ln(x) – 2.8697, where x is the number of FTE-c.

Therefore, when aggregated together, purchasing emissions are calculated as the sum of:

 (0.1028x – 1199)/1000, where x is FTE-c

 {0.5725 * [($2.89 * existing SQFT)+($112.60*new SQFT)]}/1000

 [0.3004 * ln(x)] – 2.8697, where x is FTE-c.

Purchasing-related emissions have been volatile over the prior four-year period, rising from about 7,800 tCO2e in FY2011 to more than 25,350 in FY2013. Purchasing-related emissions are projected to be approximately 16,400 tCO2e in FY2015 and experience a slight rise again in FY2016 due to expected construction, before dropping to levels experienced in FY2011 and FY2014 for several years, and then leveling out at an emissions rate of

p. 61 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

approximately 0.72 tCO2e/FTE-c for the final few decades of the projection during which time emissions are expected to increase in direct proportion to increases in university enrollment.

AIR TRAVEL

Air travel-related emissions under Scope 3 are estimated primarily based on spending. For university-financed air travel a time-weighted average of $44.44/FTE-Combined was calculated based on recent travel data and one-way miles per dollar spent was derived in a similar fashion with a time-weighted average of 3.3396 miles per $/FTE- Combined. To these figures, study abroad travel mileage is added at a rate of 213.07 miles per FTE-Student. One- way miles are doubled to obtain total trip miles and GHG emissions are estimated based on jet fuel emissions of 0.4 kgCO2e per mile.

SOLID WASTE

Solid waste emissions are determined by the quantity of waste disposed of by the university, the manner of disposal (i.e., composting, recycling, landfill, etc.), and the operational characteristics of the waste disposal facility. Prior to FY2011, the portion of UNC Wilmington’s solid waste that was not recycled was disposed in New Hanover County’s municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerator where it was burned as a source of fuel for electricity generation and resulted in GHG emissions of between 318 tCO2e and 347 tCO2e per year, or 0.12 tCO2e/ton of waste. Since FY2011, when the county incinerator ceased operations, the university’s non-recycled solid waste has been transported to the New Hanover County landfill. New Hanover City landfill is operated without collection and combustion of the methane gas created by waste decomposition in the landfill, and therefore has the highest GHG emissions per ton of waste disposed of any solid waste disposal option. Since this change of waste disposal facility, UNC Wilmington’s solid waste-attributable emissions have ranged from a low of 9,084 MtCO2e to a high of 9,595 tCO2e per year, or 3.32 tCO2e/ton of waste.

Projecting solid waste emissions begins with estimating the total amount of solid waste that will be generated at the university. Based on historical average waste generation rates from recent years, the analysis model assumes a waste generation rate of 0.231 tons of MSW per FTE-c. After estimating total waste generation, a diversion rate is applied – 13.1% in the baseline, as indicated by the Recycling Design Report – to quantify the tonnage of waste that is recycled. In the baseline case, solid waste that is not recycled is assumed to be disposed in the county landfill. The quantity of waste allocated to each disposal method is then multiplied by the method’s GHG emissions rate – 3.32 tCO2e/ton landfilled in the New Hanover County landfill and -2.9864 tCO2e/ton recycled (assuming the current mix of recycling materials by weight). Finally, the annual emissions from all disposal methods are summed to produce the net GHG emissions from solid waste management in the given year.

p. 62 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

Baseline Forecasted Emissions-Intensities Emissions Source (unit) FY2015 FY2050

Stationary Combustion (tCO2e/thousand sq. ft.) 2.48 1.86

Mobile Combustion (tCO2e/FTE-c) 0.04 0.02

Fugitive Emissions from Refrigerants (average tCO2e/year) 1,154 1,154

Electricity (MWh/thousand sq. ft) 16.82 1.79

Electricity (MWh/FTE-c) 4.51 0.48

Air Travel (tCO2e/FTE-c) 0.27 0.27

Commuting (tCO2e/FTE-p) 3.53 3.60

Solid Waste (tCO2e/FTE-c) 0.56 0.57

120,000

100,000

e) 2 80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000 Greenhouse Greenhouse GasEmissions (tCO

Stationary Combustion Mobile Combustion, Commuting Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity, T&D Losses Air Travel Solid Waste Purchasing

p. 63 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

POLICY & REGULATION-ADJUSTED BASELINE

Since the mitigation analysis is intended to inform UNC Wilmington decision makers about the scope and scale of mitigation activities necessary to achieve the FY2050 carbon-neutrality goal, the first step in understanding what the university must accomplish via its own policies and program implementation is evaluating how pending, proposed, or very likely policy and regulatory actions will affect the baseline emissions. Projected emissions will be affected by policy and regulatory decisions enacted by local, state, or national government entities. The external actions accounted for in this section of the analysis are material in their impact on GHG inventory emissions, and are highly likely to take effect in some form, although they don’t rise to the level of assured implementation. In other words, the policies and regulations included here are beyond speculative but fall short of guaranteed. The remainder of this section discusses the methods by which the expected policy and regulatory impacts are represented in this modeled scenario, and only addresses those areas that are impacted by the incorporated policy or regulatory change. The three policy adjustments described below reduce the university’s forecasted emissions baseline from 93,589 tCO2e in FY2050 to 63,789 tCO2e in FY2050 – a reduction of nearly 32%.

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY ADJUSTMENT

Emissions attributable to purchased electricity are the largest single source of ACUPCC-required GHG emissions in the inventory, representing about 27,250 tCO2e in FY2015. In addition, when emissions from transmission & distribution losses associated with purchased electricity are added, the total projected emissions from purchased electricity increase by about 6.5% to just over 29,000 tCO2e in FY2015. Baseline emissions from purchased electricity are projected using information from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014 report. This adjustment incorporates two changes to the emissions intensity of electricity generation in North Carolina that are not accounted for in the Annual Energy Outlook report:

 Joint dispatch and increased natural gas usage by the now-combined Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress as the utility described in its most recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) filing in Docket E-100 Sub 136 with the North Carolina Utilities Commission; and

 The proposed GHG emissions rule for existing power plants, also known as Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, that was recently released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Both of these proposals/plans will reduce the GHG emissions intensity of electricity, albeit on different time frames. And while neither is precisely certain for a variety of reasons, they both provide some insight into the likely state of conditions in the future. Duke Energy’s combined IRP filing provides the company’s expected generation mix for plants serving North Carolina with a current and future snapshot of generation by resource type. As a result of these projections, the per-MWh emissions rate in FY2015 is expected to be about 10.4% lower than in the baseline and continue dropping based on Duke Energy’s resource plans, reaching about 0.263 tCO2e/MWh in FY2026, about 31.4% lower than the baseline projection. By FY2031 Duke Energy is projected to be in compliance with whatever form of GHG limits North Carolina elects to impose in response to the EPA’s Section 111(d) rule proposal with an emissions rate of 0.188 tCO2e/MWh. This emissions rate is based on an assumed 41.4% of electricity being produced with a mix of fossil fuel resources whose average emissions are equal to 1,000 lbs of CO2 per MWh. The compliance emissions rate reached in FY2031 is projected to be maintained for the remainder of the analysis. The result of this adjustment, as shown in Figure 3, is a reduction of about half by FY2050 compared to the baseline.

p. 64 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

COMMUTING & MOBILE COMBUSTION ADJUSTMENT

Emissions from commuting and mobile combustion are as much a function of vehicle fuel efficiency (i.e., miles per gallon) as they are a function of how many miles the vehicles are driven. This policy adjustment incorporates an accelerated rise in average vehicle fuel efficiency based on projections from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014. This adjustment provides about a 12.9% increase in miles per gallon in FY2050 compared to the baseline fuel economy assumption, and results in more rapid adoption of high- efficiency and alternative-fuel vehicles during the first 10-15 years of the analysis which yields increased fuel economy of as much as 21% over the baseline assumptions. Since the relationship between fuel combustion and GHG emissions is approximately a direct proportional tradeoff, the percentage increase in fuel economy is considered to result in an equivalent percentage decrease in GHG emissions – this is not a perfect tradeoff, but suffices to produce results within an estimated acceptable margin of error for a method that does not incorporate first-order feedback effects such as the fact that drivers who spend less on fuel often drive more and other factors that would alter the quantity of miles driven.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT

As previously mentioned in the solid waste baseline section, emissions attributable to solid waste management depend in great part on how the disposal facility is operated. Of relevance to this adjustment is whether the university’s landfilled waste continues to be disposed at a facility where landfill methane is not collected and destroyed. This adjustment assumes that beginning in FY2016 the portion of the university’s waste that is disposed in a landfill is placed in a facility where landfill gas is collected and destroyed. The difference is substantial – waste disposed in a landfill that does not collect and destroy the landfill gas is attributed 3.32 tCO2e/ton of waste, while waste disposed in a landfill where gas is collected and destroyed is only attributed 16% of that, or 0.53 tCO2e/ton. This adjustment will hold true whether the New Hanover County landfill begins capturing and destroying landfill gas on-site or whether waste is disposed in a different landfill where gas collection and flaring systems are in place.

p. 65 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN

APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTIONS METHODOLOGY

MITIGATION STRATEGIES

The following section describes the assumptions and impacts of various mitigation strategies. Each strategy addresses a specific emissions source area and emissions reductions are calculated against the Policy- and Regulation-Adjusted Baseline so as to incorporate the policy-based changes in emissions rates and emissions intensity of activities.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION

The university has completed the second-year verification of energy savings under its first Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC), and is in the process of contracting for the second ESPC. This mitigation strategy models the impacts on energy consumption of continued implementation of ESPCs covering the same percentage of square footage and achieving the same percentage reductions in energy as the first ESPC. Based on the results of the first ESPC, about 10% of gross square footage was included (this is consistent with the buildings that have been mentioned in the preliminary planning documents for the second ESPC as well), and full implementation took approximately four years. Energy savings accrued at a rate of 10.28 kWh per included gross square foot and a net savings of thermal energy (i.e., natural gas) of 0.0209 therms per covered gross square foot. At this rate of entering and completing ESPCs, about 70% of the university’s projected gross square footage in FY2050 will have undergone an ESPC, and emissions attributable to purchased electricity will be about 80% below the Policy- Adjusted Level projected for FY2050, and almost 90% below the Baseline Emissions level.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT – RECYCLING & COMPOSTING

The university has commissioned studies on increasing on-campus recycling and there is interest in composting organic waste as well. The net effect of recycling solid waste that is currently disposed in a landfill that collects and destroys its methane is -3.516 tCO2e per ton of waste (this includes the reduction of 0.53 tCO2e from avoided landfill disposal plus the -2.986 tCO2e GHG benefit from recycling) given the current mix of recycled materials by percentage of weight, according to results of scenarios evaluated using the EPA’s WARM model. Composting organic waste instead of landfill disposal has a net effect on GHG emissions of -0.73 tCO2e per ton of solid waste.

Recycling under this mitigation strategy is projected to rise from the current diversion rate of 13.1% of total MSW generated to the estimated maximum rate of about 33% in roughly a decade, after which the recycling diversion rate remains constant. Composting is anticipated to begin with a diversion rate of 1% in FY2015 with the diversion rate increasing at a compound rate of 10% per year through 2032, reaching a diversion rate of 5.05% in FY 2032 and remaining constant thereafter. The result of these increased rates of waste diversion from the Policy- Adjusted Emissions Level is a 48% reduction in GHG emissions attributable to solid waste management in FY2050.

p. 66 UNC WILMINGTON GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND SUSTAINABILTIY ACTION PLAN