Ethekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 Developed As Part of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
eThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 REPORT TO ENVIRONMENT BRANCH EThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 Developed as part of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program 20 June 2003 ECOSERV (Pty) Ltd 10a Caversham Rd, Pinetown, 3600 Tel: (086) 123-0000 Fax: (031) 710-1851 E-mail: info @ ecoserv.com 1 of 59 eThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The management of greenhouse gas emissions is considered a priority for the control of global warming. eThekwini Municipality, in conjunction with other cities in South Africa, has embarked on a process of identifying and establishing reduction programmes for greenhouse gases. This report covers the results of the city’s first greenhouse gas inventory, produced by Ecoserv on behalf of the eThekwini Municipality. eThekwini municipal operations give rise to 1.047 Mt CO2eq (equivalent tons of carbon dioxide) per year. The source apportionment is as follows: Vehicle Fleet Buildings 9% 3% Employee Commute 1% Streetlights 10% Water/Sewage 4% Other (includes electrical distribution losses) 55% Waste 18% The substantial component “Other” relates primarily to electrical distribution losses. This has been the subject of some debate. The loss is associated with electricity in the possession of the Municipality and has therefore been attributed to the Municipality. Waste represents the second-highest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (although this includes waste not generated by but handled by the Municipality). eThekwini is considering the introduction of power-from-landfill gas schemes that will 2 of 59 eThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 result in methane gas emission reductions and generate power for local users consumption. The inventory has been compared to that for Cape Town and has found to be broadly consistent for the two cities. Cape Town’s building power usage is approximately double eThekwini’s. This difference is ascribed to the need for space heating of buildings during winter. Overall comparison between the two inventories, allowing for differences in categorisation, suggests that Cape Town emissions are 11% higher than those of eThekwini. For cities of similar population, this indicates good congruence between the inventories. Limited comparison with the city-wide or community emissions has been performed. On the basis of this comparison it would appear that the Municipal emissions are approximately 6 % of those for the community. The following points are noteworthy in assessing both the corporate and community data sets: 1. It is unfortunate that none of the departments could provide information on vehicle miles travelled so that benchmarking on the fuel usage could be performed. 2. Non-hazardous solid waste-associated emissions are attributed to the Municipality as it is paid for the disposal of this matter. Such disposal related emissions are not accounted for in the community inventory. 3. Only 2002 emissions from landfills are accounted for in this inventory. Waste in-place (disposed prior to 2002) is not accounted for. 4. The entire database is included as an electronic annexure to the report for more detailed consideration. 3 of 59 eThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 On the basis of the collected information, a work programme is proposed to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions for the city. Phase 1 of this programme is suggested as follows: • Drafting, adoption and ratification of a corporate Energy Policy; • Completion of pilot audits in the Buildings and Wastewater sectors; • Completion of an opportunities database of energy savings options in the pilot audit sites; • Commencement of a roll-out programme of savings options identified; • Completion of initial energy training and awareness-raising sessions; • Commencement of a utility Monitoring & Targeting (M&T) programme; • Completion of data-gathering work within a targeted sub-sector of the municipalities Transport sector. A budget is provided for this work. The pilot project is budgeted at R220 000. Direct savings from the introduction of such measures is estimated at approximately R500 000. Indirect savings are more difficult to estimate but are expected to be in the region of R750 000 to R1.5 million. 4 of 59 eThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 Report details Report title Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 Reference AS068 Date submitted 20 June 2003 Client Environment Branch EThekwini Municipality Old Fort Place Durban 4001 Attn: Jessica Rich Prepared by Thandi Mjoli and Quentin Hurt ECOSERV (Pty) Ltd 10a Caversham Rd Pinetown, Durban 3600 Tel: 086 123-0000 e-mail: Hurt @ ecoserv.com Signed Approver: (if different from above) Designation: Report number and Of 4 version Version 1 Status Public, FINAL Notices: This report has been prepared by ECOSERV (Pty) Ltd with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to which this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk. 5 of 59 eThekwini Municipality Greenhouse Gas Emission Survey 2002 Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................8 2. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................10 2.1. Introduction to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) .......... 10 2.2. Proposed methodology ..................................................................................................... 10 3. INFORMATION PROVIDERS.............................................................................13 3.1. Identification of key information providers.......................................................................... 13 3.1.1. Role of Consolidated Billing .............................................................................................................13 3.1.2. Direct gas emissions ........................................................................................................................14 3.1.3. Mobile sources .................................................................................................................................15 3.2. Community information ..................................................................................................... 16 4. DATA PROCESSING .........................................................................................18 4.1. Software............................................................................................................................ 18 4.2. Data collection................................................................................................................... 18 4.3. Data validation ..................................................................................................................19 5. RESULTS............................................................................................................20 5.1. Corporate (municipal) emissions by sector........................................................................ 20 5.2. City-wide (community) emissions by sector....................................................................... 24 5.3. Comparison of Corporate (municipal) and City-wide (community) emissions. ................... 26 6. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................28 6.1. Other sources.................................................................................................................... 28 6.2. Buildings............................................................................................................................ 29 6.3. Vehicle fleet....................................................................................................................... 29 6.4. Employee commute........................................................................................................... 30 6.5. Street lights ....................................................................................................................... 30 6.6. Water and sewage ............................................................................................................ 30 6.7. Waste................................................................................................................................ 31 6.8. Listing of measures GHG reduction measures applied by eThekwini................................ 31 6.9. Correspondence with Cape Town’s emission inventory .................................................... 32 6.10. Attribution of community losses to corporate losses.......................................................... 33 6.11. Community inventory......................................................................................................... 33 7. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation & Energy Efficiency................................................36 7.1. Energy Management ........................................................................................................