DOCSLIB.ORG

Statement Establishing an Energy Efficiency Registry As a Tool for State Compliance Under U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statement Establishing an Energy Efficiency Registry As a Tool for State Compliance Under U.S Statement Establishing an energy efficiency registry as a tool for state compliance under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan September 22, 2014 Energy efficiency has enormous potential to lower energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, therefore mitigating the impacts of climate change. U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) enshrines energy efficiency as one of the building blocks that states can utilize to achieve their GHG reduction targets. Many states are already implementing innovative energy efficiency strategies and programs. However, energy savings resulting from these measures are projected, estimated, reported, and audited using a range of approaches. This lack of consistency is exacerbated by a lack of transparency when energy savings data are reported and aggregated. A flexible energy efficiency registry is needed to enable and expand energy efficiency programs across the U.S., to pave the way for more financing of energy efficiency projects, and to underpin compliance under the CPP. There are many ways of approaching and implementing energy efficiency; an energy efficiency registry would consolidate these varied efforts and demonstrate compliance and real reductions. Specifically, an energy efficiency registry would: aggregate data from demand-side energy efficiency programs that could be consistently reported to EPA; provide a transparent platform for documenting and communicating the benefits of energy efficiency, as well as the methods for measuring and reporting it; consolidate evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) documentation of energy efficiency measures; provide clear and transparent attribution and ownership of energy savings; serve as the foundation for a trading platform for energy efficiency credits for interested states and regions; demonstrate, verify, and track energy and carbon savings – that may then be recorded as credits - generated in partnership with energy service companies (ESCO’s) or as the result of municipal and state policies (i.e. building codes); serve as a platform to share knowledge and build capacity across states and regions. The Climate Registry (TCR), an NGO governed by states and provinces with extensive expertise in measuring and tracking GHGs, with support from the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), has developed a white paper on the energy efficiency registry and how it might be implemented. The paper is available on TCR’s website http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2014/09/TCR_An-EE-Registry.pdf. We encourage U.S. EPA to recognize an energy efficiency registry as a tool for state compliance under the CPP. We encourage states, utilities and other organizations to support the implementation of an energy efficiency registry, and to reference TCR’s white paper in their comments to EPA on the CPP Rule, which must be received by December 1, 2014. Endorsed by The Climate Registry Executive Committee (U.S. members): Doug Scott, TCR Board Chairman and Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Mary Nichols, Chairman, California Air Resources Board David Littell, Commissioner, Maine Public Utilities Commission David Thornton, Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency An Energy Efficiency Registry A Flexible and Transparent way to Track and Report Energy Efficiency under the Clean Power Plan September 1, 2014 Authored by: The Climate Registry with support from: Acknowledgments This white paper was developed by The Climate Registry (TCR) with support from the Climate Action Reserve and substantial input from Kyle Aarons, C2ES; Bill Becker, National Association of Clean Air Agencies; Patrick Cummins, Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado University; Amy Fredregill, Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System, Inc.; Dian Grueneich, Stanford University; Lisa Jacobson, Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Christopher James, Regulatory Assistance Project; David Littell, Maine Public Utilities Commission; Katie Mandes, C2ES; Julie Michals, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership; Mary Nichols, California Air Resources Board; Janet Peace, C2ES; Steve Schiller, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Doug Scott, Illinois Commerce Commission; Pat Stanton, Conservation Services Group; and David Thornton, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. TCR also wishes to acknowledge the support of its Board of Directors, which is comprised of more than fifty North American sub-national jurisdictions, including forty U.S. states, as well as the specific contribution of the Clean Power Plan Task Force, made up of TCR Board Members and representatives from 13 U.S. states, which provided direction and feedback on the value of an energy efficiency registry. The Climate Registry An Energy Efficiency Registry Page 1 September 2014 Executive Summary Energy efficiency has enormous potential to lower energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, therefore mitigating the impacts of climate change. U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) has publicly recognized the value of and potential for energy efficiency as a climate change mitigation strategy by including demand-side energy efficiency as one of the building blocks that states can use to achieve their GHG reduction targets. While many states are already implementing innovative energy efficiency strategies and programs, energy savings resulting from these measures are projected, estimated, reported, and audited using a wide range of approaches. EPA has indicated that it will accept multiple calculation methods based on current best practices. However, EPA has also acknowledged that the current lack of transparency when energy savings data are reported and aggregated will not be acceptable for energy efficiency measures used for compliance with the CPP. A flexible nation-wide energy efficiency registry would enable and expand energy efficiency measures that could be used for compliance with the CPP by increasing transparency and using a consistent framework to track and report projected and realized energy savings. This tool, coupled with the driver of the CPP itself, would help expand the implementation of energy efficiency measures by enabling broad analysis of the impacts of existing energy efficiency programs, identifying new opportunities for energy savings, reducing risks that limit available energy efficiency project financing, and potentially serving as the foundation for an energy efficiency crediting and trading platform. In this paper we expand on the benefits outlined above and recommend a consensus-based stakeholder approach to develop an energy efficiency registry. Key issues that the registry would need to address are explored and a phased implementation plan is outlined that would incorporate broad stakeholder imput, help states meet compliance deadlines, and evolve with the implementation of the regulation itself. The Climate Registry An Energy Efficiency Registry Page 2 September 2014 savings results” (EPA, 2014c). The document Background went on to specify that two important On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental characteristics of EM&V documentation should Protection Agency (EPA) proposed its Clean be that it: Power Plan (CPP), which will require states to (1) enables recalculation of total program cut carbon pollution from the power sector in energy savings, and their jurisdictions. One of EPA’s proposed (2) is provided in a consistent manner options for states to demonstrate compliance across states. with the forthcoming regulation is the implementation of demand-side energy Increased Transparency through an efficiency measures. By including this option, Energy Efficiency Registry EPA has publicly recognized the value of and Given the diversity of energy savings potential for existing state and utility energy quantification approaches and EPA’s efficiency programs–as well as untapped commitment to flexibility in state opportunities–to reduce carbon emissions and implementation plans,1 regulated entities will mitigate climate change. most likely continue to use different methods to Today, energy savings resulting from energy quantify the impacts of energy efficiency. efficiency measures are projected, estimated, However, credible and verifiable accounting reported, and audited using a range of suitable for regulatory compliance will require approaches. This lack of consistency is greater transparency than currently exists. exacerbated by a lack of transparency when An online energy efficiency registry would help energy savings data are aggregated and states efficiently and transparently project, reported. While it is conceivable that different track, audit, and report energy savings and calculation methods can reasonably be used to relevant supplemental information associated quantify the impacts of similar energy efficiency with energy efficiency measures. It would also measures, the lack of transparency around have the potential to encourage standardization what these methods are and how assessments across states, and facilitate communication and compare, ultimately undermines the credibility knowledge transfer between agencies. of projected and reported energy savings. Some states have well-developed analytic EPA recognized the need for greater methods, assumptions, and data sources to transparency in the evaluation, measurement determine the energy savings related to and verification (EM&V) of energy efficiency demand-side energy efficiency measures. In measures in its technical support document on State Plan Considerations by asserting that 1 In the preamble to the CPP, EPA asserts that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories
    Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories Version 1.1 May 2010 Developed in partnership and adopted by: California Air Resources Board California Climate Action Registry ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability The Climate Registry ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California Air Resources Board, the California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability and The Climate Registry would like to thank and acknowledge the many stakeholders who gave their time and expertise to the development and maintenance of the Local Government Operations Protocol. Specifically, the Local Government Operations Protocol is a result of the commitment and guidance of the following individuals: Partner Staff Rachel Tornek California Climate Action Registry Dana Papke California Air Resource Board David Edwards California Air Resource Board Garrett Fitzgerald ICLEI Alex Ramel ICLEI Webster Tasat California Air Resource Board Heather Raven California Climate Action Registry Jim Yienger ICLEI Brooke Lee ICLEI Theresa Krebs ICLEI Peggy Foran The Climate Registry Zoe Elizabeth The Climate Registry Jennifer Ewing-Thiel ICLEI Xico Manarolla ICLEI Technical Protocol Workgroup Ana Sandoval Bay Area Air Quality Management District Jen McGraw Center for Neighborhood Technology Amelia Ravin CDM Melissa Capria City and County of San Francisco, CA Linda Kermott City of Carlsbad, CA Brendan Reed City of Chula Vista, CA Gary Woloshyniuk City of Edmonton, AB, Canada Gerald Shechter City
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Climate Action Reserve
    Overview of the Climate Action Reserve Webinar will begin shortly For audio, please dial (213) 286-1201 Access code: 234-507-388 Max DuBuisson Business Development Manager Presentation Overview 1. Background on the Climate Action Reserve 2. What is different about the Reserve? 3. Our protocols 4. The project registration process 5. Finding information on our website What we will not be covering • Software demo • Technical details on using the protocols 2 Background on the Climate Action Reserve • Chartered by state legislation in 2001 – Mission is to encourage early voluntary actions to reduce emissions and to have such emissions reductions recognized • Initially focused on emission reporting and reductions by member organizations • Now on emission reduction projects generating offsets • Balances business, government, and environmental interests 3 Key Principles • Accuracy – Rely on best available science to quantify greenhouse gas effects of project activities. • Conservativeness – Where there is uncertainty, err on the side of conservative accounting to prevent overcrediting. • Transparency – Provide open, public processes and information. • Practicality – Ensure that the program can be used as broadly as possible to encourage activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 44 Objectives of the Climate Action Reserve • Address public concerns about the voluntary carbon market that: – Projects aren’t additional – Credits are being double counted or sold • Our reputation for high-quality accounting standards can address these concerns
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL PEC Pennsylvania Climate Change Roadmap
    PENNSYLVANIA CLIMATE CHANGE ROADMAP JUNE 2007 130 Locust Street, Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17101 • telephone: 717.230.8044 • www.pecpa.org Pennsylvania Climate Change Roadmap (c) 2007 Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This report is available on the Pennsylvania Environmental Council website: http://www.pecpa.org/roadmap Cover image credit: Nicholas A. Tonelli 130 Locust Street Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 T 717.230.8044 F 717.230.8045 www.pecpa.org Executive Summary Now is the time for action on climate change. The rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) poses a multitude of risks to Pennsylvania and to our planet as a whole. Reducing those risks requires that, in the coming decades, we make significant cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases on a global scale. No state (and indeed no nation) can solve this problem on its own, but Pennsylvania can play an important role in addressing climate change, the most challenging environmental issue of our time. Addressing this issue is also essential to the long-term economic and geopolitical stability of the nation. Currently, Pennsylvania is responsible for about one percent of the worldwide emissions of GHG. This level of emissions ranks third among U.S. states, and puts Pennsylvania in the league of the top 25 emitting nations in the world. Challenges often bring opportunities, and the challenge of reducing GHG emissions brings opportunities related to which states will benefit the most from the growth of the clean technology industries that will solve the climate change problem. According to a May 2006 Cleantech Capital Group Report, venture capitalists invested $1.6 billion in North American clean technology companies in 2005, an increase of 43% from 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • January and February 2009
    The Climate Registry Reporter - January/February 2009 Vol. 2 No. 1 The Climate Registry Reporter Solving Climate Change Together January/February 2009 Issues This Month State leaders, stakeholders gather for Climate Two weeks left to register for Policy Forum in Tampa Feb 3 Climate Policy Forum in Tampa Continuing its successful series, The Climate Registry will be hosting its Climate Policy Forum: Charting the Path Ahead in Tampa February 3. The event is very timely as the Registry Directors state Obama administration is set to chart a course for a federal cap-and-trade system while state position on federal reporting and regional mandatory reporting programs continue development. State leaders and representatives from business, organizations and academia will gather to take the year's programs first look at climate policy from a regional perspective. Confirmed speakers include: Policy Developments Carol Couch, Dir. of Georgia Environmental Protection Division Join the Members Only Onis "Trey" Glenn, Dir. of Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management Meeting Feb 18 Leonard Peters, Secretary, Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet Nikki Rovner, Dpty Secretary, Virginia Dept. of Natural Resources Member Services Update Renee Shealy, Assistant Chief, South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control Six Verification Bodies Michael Sole, Secretary, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection accredited by ANSI Eddie Terrell, Dir. of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality Randy Armstrong, Environmental Issues Dir., Shell The Cool Planet Corner Susan Glickman, Southern Regional Dir. of The Climate Group Bill Holman, Dir. of State Policy, Nicholas Institute at Duke University Chris Lupo, General Manager, NSF Eliot Metzger, Research Analyst, WRI Stephen Smith, Exec Dir., Southern Alliance for Clean Energy There are only two weeks left to register for the Climate Policy Forum in Tampa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Planning Environment
    Appendix B THE PLANNING ENVIRONMENT City Light’s resource decisions are made within Since I-937 requirements are largely The most recent federal legislation, the a policy context that includes state and federal independent of how much energy a utility Energy Policy Act of 2005, includes a range laws, internal policies established by the mayor, actually needs, the regulatory requirement of provisions pertaining to energy efficiency, city council and the utility, and the policies and can drive resource acquisitions that would not generating resources and fuel supply, energy guidelines of regional power planning agencies otherwise be made. I-937 can also affect the research and development, transmission, and and organizations. Over the years, the utility timing of resource acquisitions. Over time, climate change. industry has become increasingly regulated. City Light borders between being driven by The Western Governors Association is working Climate change is the most transformational renewable resource requirements and by to encourage development of renewable challenge that faces the energy industry today, resource adequacy requirements. resources and new electric transmission lines. and though not yet enacted, Federal legislation The requirements and timing of targets of I-937 to reduce and cap carbon emissions could The Pacific Northwest region is developing put many utilities into the renewable energy be the biggest policy challenge that faces the resource and transmission adequacy resource market at the same time, driving energy sector, penetrating every aspect of the standards and engaging the Bonneville Power demand for renewable resources in Washington industry. Washington state has partnered with Administration (BPA) in a dialogue about long- and the Pacific Northwest.
    [Show full text]
  • PRESS RELEASE US States Take Leadership
    PRESS RELEASE U.S. States Take Leadership Role in Advancing Climate Action at COP24 Katowice, Poland – December 12, 2018 - The Climate Registry (TCR) and the Climate Action Reserve hosted a bipartisan delegation of U.S. states at the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Katowice, Poland. States attending include California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington. Over the course of several events that showcased state climate action and impact, three themes emerged: • U.S. states are filling the climate leadership gap left by the federal government; • U.S. states are collaborating with each other and with other countries, cities and the business community to meet the carbon reduction targets laid out in the latest IPCC report; and, • U.S. states are experiencing economic transformation and growth as a result of their climate action and from clean energy and energy efficiency investments. “Our global climate coalition and policy are too big to fail,” said Robert Hertzberg, California State Senator and Chairman of the State Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. “The science is settled, the business interests are settled, and we will continue to build coalitions with governments around the world to advance the fight against climate change.” “In California, we will continue to be a leader in climate action and policies, it’s part of our DNA,” said Bob Wieckowski, California State Senator, and Chair of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. “We are committed to cutting-edge technologies and to continuing to collaborate with businesses, universities and research institutions to ensure we reduce our emissions in line with the targets identified in the IPCC report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Climate Registry Default Emissions Factors
    Table 12.1 U.S. Default Factors for Calculating CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel and Biomass Combustion CO2 CO2 Carbon Fraction Emission Emission Fuel Type Heat Content Content Oxidized Factor Factor (Per Unit Energy) (Per Unit (Per Unit Mass Energy) or Volume) kg CO / kg CO / short Coal and Coke MMBtu / short ton kg C / MMBtu 2 2 MMBtu ton Anthracite 25.09 28.24 1 103.54 2597.82 Bituminous 24.93 25.47 1 93.40 2328.46 Subbituminous 17.25 26.46 1 97.02 1673.60 Lignite 14.21 26.28 1 96.36 1369.28 Coke 24.80 27.83 1 102.04 2530.59 Mixed Electric Utility/Electric Power 19.73 25.74 1 94.38 1862.12 Unspecified Residential/Com* 21.18 25.71 1 94.27 1996.54 Mixed Commercial Sector 21.39 25.98 1 95.26 2037.61 Mixed Industrial Coking 26.28 25.54 1 93.65 2461.12 Mixed Industrial Sector 22.35 25.61 1 93.91 2098.89 kg CO / Natural Gas Btu / scf kg C / MMBtu 2 kg CO / scf MMBtu 2 US Weighted Average 1028 14.46 1 53.02 0.05 Greater than 1,000 Btu* >1000 14.47 1 53.06 Varies 975 to 1,000 Btu* 975 – 1,000 14.73 1 54.01 Varies 1,000 to 1,025 Btu* 1,000 – 1,025 14.43 1 52.91 Varies 1,025 to 1,035 Btu* 1025 – 1035 14.45 1 52.98 Varies 1,025 to 1,050 Btu* 1,025 – 1,050 14.47 1 53.06 Varies 1,050 to 1,075 Btu* 1,050 – 1,075 14.58 1 53.46 Varies 1,075 to 1,100 Btu* 1,075 – 1,100 14.65 1 53.72 Varies Greater than 1,100 Btu* >1,100 14.92 1 54.71 Varies (EPA 2010) Full Sample* 14.48 1 53.09 n/a (EPA 2010) <1.0% CO2* 14.43 1 52.91 n/a (EPA 2010) <1.5% CO2* 14.47 1 53.06 n/a (EPA 2010) <1.0% CO2 and <1,050 Btu/scf* <1,050 14.42 1 52.87 n/a (EPA 2010) <1.5% CO2 and <1,050 Btu/scf* <1,050 14.47 1 53.06 n/a (EPA 2010) Flare Gas* >1,100 15.31 1 56.14 n/a 2014 Climate Registry Default Emission Factors Released: April 11, 2014 Page 1 of 46 Table 12.1 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • News from the Climate Registry
    News from The Climate Registry https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_preview.jsp?age... Having trouble viewing this email? Click here January 2011 Keeping you connected with The Registry community Do you need a carbon expert? Check out The Climate Pages Features this month Register for our western conference Upcoming webinars Upcoming partner events Reminder: upcoming EPA deadlines Carbon outlook for 2011 The China registry Member spotlight: Kaiser Permanente The carbon outlook for 2011: A message from Denise Sheehan, Executive Director of The Registry Congratulating Climate Registered leaders Happy New Year! I hope you all had a wonderful holiday season with Managing carbon to benefit your family and friends and were able to recharge your batteries. The your bottom line: a one day new year gives us a chance to reflect and look forward to those conference in Seattle - things we hope to accomplish in the year ahead. March 10th, 2011 The Registry ended 2010 by hosting a delegation at the UN climate Earlybird discount available conference in Cancun this past December. The Registry's delegation until Feb 15th! participated in several events geared toward state and provincial efforts to develop a clean energy economy. As has been the case for the past several years, sub-national governments in the US and Canada are still clearly a focal point for leadership on carbon management. In that vein, we met with several international officials interested in using The Climate Registry as a model to develop voluntary GHG reporting programs in their countries and regions. With much of the Join leading experts from focus of the international negotiations focused on Measuring, government, industry and Reporting and Verifying (MRV), The Registry's experience and NGOs for a full day of technical expertise in GHG reporting and verification is gaining presentations and discussion increasing attention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Climate Registry's General Verification Protocol Version
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Climate Registry would like to thank and acknowledge the many experts who contributed to the development of the General Verification Protocol (GVP). Noteworthy are the efforts of the dedicated and visionary Board of Directors, who directed this project. Specifically, the GVP is a result of the commitment and guidance of the following: An asterisk before a committee member’s Thomas Gross, Kansas name indicates that they no longer serve on John Hanger, Pennsylvania the committee. Date in parentheses indicates Laurence Lau, Hawaii committee member’s last year of service. David Littell, Maine Howard Loseth, Saskatchewan Executive Committee Board of Directors Kevin MacDonald, Maine Doug Scott, Illinois, Chairman of the Board James Martin, Colorado James Coleman, Massachusetts, Vice-Chair, Joanne O. Morin, New Hampshire Executive and Protocols Committee Len Peters, Kentucky David Thornton, Minnesota, Vice Chair, Audit Renee Shealy, South Carolina and Verification Oversight Committee Joe Sherrick, Pennsylvania Steve Anderson, British Columbia Christopher Sherry, New Jersey Carol Couch, Georgia *Eileen Tutt, California (2009 Chair) David Littell, Maine *John Corra, Wyoming (2009) James Martin, Colorado, Secretary *Jane Gray, Manitoba (2009) Jim Norton, New Mexico, Treasurer *Chris Korleski, Ohio (2009) *Gina McCarthy, Connecticut (2009 Chair) *Chuck Mueller, Georgia (2009) *Eileen Tutt, California (2009 Vice-Chair, *Robert Noël de Tilly, Québec (2009) Protocols) *Jim Norton, New Mexico (2009) *Brock Nicholson, North Carolina
    [Show full text]
  • General Veriffcation Protocol
    The Climate Registry General Verification Protocol Version 1.0 Accurate, transparent, and consistent measurement of greenhouse gases across North America May 2008 General Verification Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program May 2008 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Climate Registry would like to thank and acknowledge the many experts who contributed to the development of the General Verification Protocol (GVP). Noteworthy are the efforts of the dedicated and visionary Board of Directors, who directed this project. Specifically, the GVP is a result of the commitment and guidance of the following: Executive Committee Board of Directors Leanne Tippett Mosby, Missouri Gina McCarthy, Connecticut, Chair Leo Drozdoff, Nevada Doug Scott, Illinois, Vice-Chair Finance and Onis Glenn, Alabama Development Renee Shealy, South Carolina Eileen Tutt, California, Vice-Chair Programs Richard Leopold, Iowa and Protocols Robert Scott, Utah Jim Norton, New Mexico, Treasurer and the approximately 80 additional Steve Owens, Arizona, Secretary greenhouse gas reporting expert Brock Nicholson, North Carolina stakeholders who contributed to this David Thornton, Minnesota committee. James Coleman, Massachusetts The Registry Protocol Workgroup Board of Directors Committee on Programs Angela Jenkins, Virginia and Protocols Anne Keach, Virginia Eileen Tutt, California, Chair Bill Drumheller, Oregon Allen Shea, Wisconsin Bill Lamkin, Massachusetts Chris Korleski, Ohio Brad Musick, New Mexico Chris Sherry, New Jersey Caroline Garber, Wisconsin Chuck Mueller, Georgia Chris Korleski, Ohio David Van’t Hof, Oregon Chris Nelson, Connecticut Eddie Terrill, Oklahoma Chris Sherry, New Jersey James Temte, Southern Ute Daniel Moring, Arizona Jane Gray, Manitoba Drew Bergman, Ohio Jim Norton, New Mexico Ed Jepsen, Wisconsin Joanne O. Morin, New Hampshire Ed Kitchen, Ohio John Corra, Wyoming James Temte, Southern Ute Kevin MacDonald, Maine Gail Sandlin, Washington Laurence Lau, Hawaii Ira Domsky, Arizona Paul Sloan, Tennessee Joanne O.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Newsletter March/April 2014 in This Issue Letter from The
    4/29/2014 March/April News from The Climate Registry Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Monthly Newsletter March/April 2014 In This Issue Letter from the Executive Director Save the Dates for Coffee with Cool Planet Thanks for Attending the 2014 Climate Leadership Conference! General Verification Protocol v. 2.1 Update Announcing the 2014 Cool Planet Awards US EPA Emission Factor and eGRID Updates GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance Public Comment Period Winter is in Trouble Celebrate Earth Day 2014 with The Climate Registry Upcoming Trainings and Partner Events Cool Planet Member Spotlight Staff Spotlight - TCR is hiring in Sacramento, CA Congratulations, Climate Registered Members! Letter from the Executive Director Over the last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released two volumes of its latest report. The UN body has been publishing its assessments since 1990, but its March report surrounding Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability contains the most dire warnings yet. Food and water supplies are at risk, and economic growth and human health are also to be significantly affected. IPCC's chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri said, "Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change." Sobering words. However, there is progress: faced with strong opposition in Congress, President Obama is using his authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. We are also optimistic because of who we get to deal with every day: the states, provinces and territories on our Board, many of whom are making bold policy choices; and our 300+ members, who over the years have blown us away with their leadership on managing and reducing their carbon footprint.
    [Show full text]
  • The Climate Registry 2019 Default Emission Factor Document
    MAY 2019 The Climate Registry (TCR) is pleased to present its 2019 default emission factors. Each year, we update the default emission factors associated with our program because (1) The components of energy (electricity, fuel, etc.) change over time, and (2) Emission factor quantification methods are often refined. Members that rely on these emission factors to measure and report base year inventories should assess whether changes in emissions factors over time materially impact their base year emissions, and consider adjusting accordingly. The default emission factors are incorporated into the Climate Registry Information System (CRIS) for use in emissions calculations. We publish these default factors to our website to advance best practices, consistency and transparency in corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. Our default emission factors are compiled from publicly available data sources, which are cited at the bottom of each table. TCR is not responsible for the underlying data or methodology used to calculate these default emission factors, or for communicating any changes to the data sources that occur between our annual updates. As detailed in TCR’s General Reporting Protocol, you should apply the most up-to-date emission factor available in CRIS (or otherwise) when calculating emissions. To calculate indirect emissions associated with electricity using grid average emission factors, you should apply the emission factor that corresponds with the year being reported (or the most recent previous year), and may not apply a factor that post-dates the reporting year. TCR members are encouraged to contact [email protected] with questions or feedback on these default emission factors or citation information.
    [Show full text]