Centre Region Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory



Centre Region Climate Change Action Plan: Phase I279400867616Centre Region Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory08FallPeter D. Howe Edited by Brent Yarnal & Howard GreenbergDepartment of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityThis report is the collective work of the author and editors, but it relies on extensive information provided by local governments, agencies, and organizations. Inventorying greenhouse gas emissions is an ongoing process; the results reported here may change if more accurate data become available. The Centre Region Climate Change Action Plan Project is funded by a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Contact information:302 Walker BuildingDepartment of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802AuthorPeter D. Howe, doctoral student:HoweHHeu pdh143@psu.eduEditorsDr. Brent Yarnal, Professor of Geography and Associate Head: alibar@psu.edu Howard Greenberg, Research Associate: hjg3@psu.edu Table of Contents TOC \o "1-2" 1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc115198953 \h 21.01Centre Region Climate Change Action Plan Project PAGEREF _Toc115198954 \h 21.02Regional Profile PAGEREF _Toc115198955 \h 31.03Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change PAGEREF _Toc115198956 \h 51.04Climate Change Impacts in the Centre Region PAGEREF _Toc115198957 \h 51.05The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory PAGEREF _Toc115198958 \h 72.Emissions Sources by Sector PAGEREF _Toc115198959 \h 102.01Local Transportation PAGEREF _Toc115198960 \h 102.02Electricity PAGEREF _Toc115198961 \h 132.03On-site Fuels PAGEREF _Toc115198962 \h 162.04Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc115198963 \h 202.05Agriculture and Synthetic Chemicals PAGEREF _Toc115198964 \h 233.Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions PAGEREF _Toc115198965 \h 263.01The Centre Region PAGEREF _Toc115198966 \h 263.02Municipalities PAGEREF _Toc115198967 \h 284.Emissions Over Time: Historical Estimates and Projections PAGEREF _Toc115198968 \h 314.01Historical Estimates of GHG Emissions in 1990 PAGEREF _Toc115198969 \h 314.02Future Projections of GHG Emissions in 2025 PAGEREF _Toc115198970 \h 314.03Comparing Past, Current, and Future Emissions PAGEREF _Toc115198971 \h 325.Methodology PAGEREF _Toc115198972 \h 335.01Population, housing, and businesses PAGEREF _Toc115198973 \h 335.02Transportation PAGEREF _Toc115198974 \h 335.03Electricity PAGEREF _Toc115198975 \h 355.04On-site fuels PAGEREF _Toc115198976 \h 365.05Waste management PAGEREF _Toc115198977 \h 385.06Agriculture and synthetic chemicals PAGEREF _Toc115198978 \h 406.References PAGEREF _Toc115198979 \h 42Appendix A: Emissions from Long-Distance Travel PAGEREF _Toc115198980 \h 46Total Emissions Including Long-Distance Travel PAGEREF _Toc115198981 \h 46Components of the Long-Distance Travel Sector PAGEREF _Toc115198982 \h 47Methodology for Estimating Long-Distance Travel Emissions PAGEREF _Toc115198983 \h 49Appendix B: Example Scenario—A Possible Option for Climate Change Action PAGEREF _Toc115198984 \h 50Scenario: Wind Energy Credits for Households PAGEREF _Toc115198985 \h 50IntroductionCentre Region Climate Change Action Plan ProjectThe Centre Region Climate Change Action Plan Project (CentreCCAP) is a collaborative effort of the municipalities of Pennsylvania’s Centre Region, which include the Borough of State College and the surrounding townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, and Harris. This document reports the results of Phase 1 of CentreCCAP, a baseline inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the year 2006 and a projection of emissions to the year 2025.CentreCCAP will be completed in five phases:Phase 1 features a regional GHG emissions inventory for the baseline year 2006. Projections of GHG emissions to the year 2025 are included in phase 1.Phase 2 convenes focus groups made up of regional stakeholders; the purpose of the focus groups is to establish a list of potential mitigation options tailored to the Centre Region. Phase 3 features a report that fleshes out the options indentified in Phase 2, describing the option, pros and cons of the option, measures of successful implementation, existing programs addressing the option, stakeholders affected by the option, sources of funding for the option, and additional information. Phase 4 again convenes focus groups to prioritize the mitigation options, ranking them as high priority (implementation in 1-2 years), medium priority (implementation in 3-4 years), and low priority (implementation in 5-10 years).Phase 5 aims to establish GHG reduction goals and develop a formal climate change action plan; a Climate Change Committee consisting of representatives of the Centre Region municipal governments will evaluate the potential mitigation options and recommended priorities, commit to a set of options, and adopt a suit of regional GHG reduction goals, and turn that set of goals into a formal climate change action plan, which will go out for public comment and subsequent revision. Regional ProfileFigure 11: The Centre Region50802633345The Centre Region, as defined by membership in the Centre Region Council of Governments, consists of the Borough of State College and the surrounding townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, and Patton. The main campus of The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) dominates the Centre Region demographically and economically. Penn State has over 43,000 students, with 13,000 living on campus and most of the rest distributed between the Borough and townships of the Centre Region. The campus employs more than 16,000 faculty and staff. The University has its own emissions inventory and climate change action plan, which will not figure into this inventory because, although the two entities—Penn State and the Centre Region—have a symbiotic relationship, they are significantly different physically, demographically, economically, and governmentally. This difference means that GHG emissions and mitigation plans for the University and for the Region cannot be commensurate. Although it is important for the two entities to work together to coordinate their climate change action plans, the Centre Region must also establish its own plan.The estimated population of the Centre Region, including non-permanent student residents both on- and off-campus, was nearly 86,000 in 2007. Excluding students, the permanent Centre Region population is roughly 45,000. Traditional measures of income and poverty can be misleading when applied to a community like the Centre Region which has a large student population. The per capita income for the Centre Region in 2007 was only $19,211 and nearly half, 46.9 percent, of the population and 9.7 percent of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 10.6 percent of those under the age of 18, but only 2.2 percent of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line. Most of those individuals living below the poverty line were university students or the children of university students. Apart from students, the Region consists almost exclusively of middle class individuals and families living traditional middle class lifestyles, with few members of lower- or upper-income groups.The local economy is a service economy directed towards the employees, students, and visitors. More than a million people visit the Centre Region annually. The small number of heavier industries found in the Centre Region left over the last few decades with economic restructuring. Penn State is the single major employer. Other significant employers include: high tech firms (AccuWeather, C-COR, and Raytheon Intelligence and Information Systems); local, state, and federal government; the hospitality industry (numerous restaurants and hotels); schools, medical facilities, and eldercare; and supermarkets and “big box” retailers. Table 111: Demographic characteristics of the Centre RegionCollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Population (2006 est.)9,00316,2072,9394,68612,79939,99285,626Housing units (2006 est.)3,7306,7609251,9595,92512,55431,853Urban housing units (2000)2,8904,23701,2104,33712,48825,162Rural housing units (2000)3231,46280264563703,869Per capita income (2007 $)13,11619,211Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001, 2006bGreenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate ChangeGHGs are atmospheric gases that absorb and reemit infrared radiation back to the surface of the earth. This process is known as the greenhouse effect. As solar radiation warms the earth’s surface, heat is emitted back into the atmosphere. Some of this heat passes through the atmosphere and into space, but GHGs trap a portion of this heat and re-emit it back toward the earth’s surface. There are many compounds that are considered GHGs, but the main GHGs are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Figure 12: Global yearly average temperature from 1880 to 2005. Red bars indicate temperatures above the mean, blue bars are temperatures below the mean. The black line shows carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009, 17).302323587630Human activities since the Industrial Revolution have increased the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. The majority of emissions have been due to the burning of fossil fuels, which represent a source of stored carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by organisms living millions of years in the past. The burning of fossil fuels returns this carbon to the atmosphere, increasing concentrations of GHGs. These increases in greenhouse gases, along with changes in land cover, alter the balance of energy in the earth’s climate system. These human activities have caused increases in global average temperatures since the middle of the 20th century (IPCC 2007a)(Figure 1-3). Rising levels of GHG emissions will continue to cause increases in global average temperature over the next century; failing to limit and reduce emissions will lead to escalating and irreversible changes in climate across the surface of the earth (IPCC 2007a; Solomon et al. 2009). Changes in climate resulting from human activity will have broad and substantial impacts. Increases in global average temperature will change local climate and weather patterns across the world, cause sea levels to rise, speed the retreat of glaciers and sea ice, increase the intensity of extreme weather events, lead to species endangerment and extinctions, and ultimately reduce agricultural yields (IPCC 2007b). The cumulative effects of climate change will have widespread social and economic costs (IPCC 2007b). Direct and indirect effects and their costs will profoundly alter ways of life in communities around the world. Climate Change Impacts in the Centre RegionResidents of Pennsylvania and the Centre Region will experience the effects of climate change firsthand. During the last century, the average annual temperature in Pennsylvania rose by .5 degrees F (UCSUSA 2008). Over the next century, rising temperatures in Pennsylvania are projected to continue and accelerate due to rising levels of GHGs in the atmosphere ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]}]} (UCSUSA 2008; GCRP 2009; Shortle et al. 2009): Between 2010 and 2039, average annual temperatures in Pennsylvania are expected to rise by 2.5 degrees F. Between 2040 and 2060, average temperatures would increase between 4 and 5.5 degrees F, depending on whether emissions continue to rise. By mid century, Eastern Pennsylvania summers are expected to resemble those in North Carolina today. Summers in Western Pennsylvania may resemble those of Kentucky. 3709035580390Between 2070 and 2099, average annual temperatures would rise by 9.5 degrees F if high rates of GHG emissions continue. Under this scenario, an average summer day in Pennsylvania would feel between 13 and 15 degrees warmer at the end of the century than at present. By the end of the century, summers in Eastern Pennsylvania may resemble summers in southern Georgia, and summers in Western Pennsylvania are projected to be similar to those in Alabama. These projected temperature increases would also subject the Centre Region to more periods of extreme heat. The Centre Region currently experiences less than ten days per year over 90 degrees F. That number is expected to double between 2010 and 2039, and rise to over 40 days per year between 2040 and 2069 and 65 days per year over 90 degrees F between 2070 and 2099. Under a scenario of increasing GHG emissions, the Centre Region could also experience 24 days per year over 100 degrees F during the last quarter of the 21st century. Rising temperatures and a changing climate are expected to create serious challenges for cities in the northeastern U.S (GCRP 2009). These include:Figure 13: Projected changes in summer heat index for eastern PA: what summers could feel like under higher (red) and lower (orange) emissions scenarios (image: UCSUSA 2008, 9).Declining air quality in urban areas due to air pollution from particulates and ground-level ozone, which are exacerbated by higher temperatures. Increasing allergy-related diseases due to rising temperatures, altered precipitation, and increased growth of allergenic-pollen producing plants such as ragweed and poison ivy. Threatened infrastructure, including roads, bridges, railways, communication networks, water systems, and utilities, as the magnitude and frequency of flooding, drought, and storms changes away from historic patterns.2908935-111760Shifting demand on energy, water, and sewer utilities due to changing temperatures and more extreme weather events. Climate change is also expected to have considerable impacts on rural areas in Pennsylvania (UCSUSA 2008; Shortle et al. 2009), including: Figure 14: Number of days in State College over 90 degrees F under scenarios of higher and lower GHG emissions (UCSUSA 2008, 14). Negative effects on dairy farming and other livestock due to summer heat stress.Reduced agricultural production of corn due to higher summer temperatures. Warmer winters may also increase infestation by overwintering insects and diseases. Reduced production of fruits, including apples and grapes, due to the reduction of winter chill periods. Reductions in snow cover that will negatively affect winter recreation and associated industries. Changes in forest composition, such as the elimination of the black cherry and sugar maple tree from Pennsylvania forests, that would adversely affect the forest-products industry.Reduction or elimination of trout and smallmouth bass fisheries in Pennsylvania streams due to changes in surface water temperature. Responses to climate change are generally divided between mitigation of the causes of climate change and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Mitigation can be achieved through reductions in the rate of GHG emissions. This report, and the scope of CentreCCAP, is designed to facilitate mitigation at the regional scale. Global and national policy changes to implement climate change mitigation will require serious actions by people in all regions of the world to reduce their GHG emissions. However, there is substantial local variation within countries, states, and regions in the amounts, types, and sources of GHG emissions. Thus, policies to reduce emissions will need to be tailored to the context of specific places (Easterling et al. 1998). CentreCCAP aims to encourage locally relevant policy changes and personal actions that work best for people in the Centre Region and are substantial contributors to climate change mitigation. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions InventoryCompiling a GHG emissions inventory is the first step in the development of a local climate change action plan. An emissions inventory is a thorough record of a place’s GHG emissions for a certain period of time. It is designed to reveal the distribution of emissions sources for a particular place. Local residents, policymakers, and other stakeholders can then use the information from a GHG emissions inventory to understand the makeup of local emissions, create plans for emissions reduction, and track the progress of emissions reduction strategies. The EPA recommends that inventories track the four major gases that human activity contributes to the atmosphere: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. Many local and regional inventories omit fluorinated gases from their accounting due to constraints on local data available regarding their emissions. This inventory follows the same methodology, recording only the three highest-volume GHGs: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is the GHG that contributes the most to global warming. Over six billion tons of carbon dioxide are released every year by human activities (IPCC 2007a). For comparison, standard accounting of GHG emissions records all emissions in a standard unit of measure: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). For gases other than carbon dioxide, MTCO2e refers to the amount of total emissions (in metric tons) multiplied by the global warming potential (GWP) of the gas. They refer to the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by weight that would produce the same contribution to global warming as a given weight of another GHG. For example, methane is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming, and nitrous oxide is 310 times as powerful (EPA 2009). Thus, the smaller amounts of these emissions still have a measurable contribution to global warming.All emissions inventories, whether at the national, regional, or local scale, share the same techniques. Rather than measuring GHG emissions using satellites or active monitoring, inventories measure emissions by compiling information about activities that are known to produce or reduce GHG emissions and multiplying data about these activities by known amounts of GHGs that are generated or sequestered by each activity. These known amounts are called emissions coefficients. Emissions coefficients are obtained from national and international agencies, namely the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Emissions coefficients are the amounts of a GHG that are emitted per each unit of activity. For example, the carbon dioxide emissions coefficient for one barrel of home heating oil is 0.4224. This means that using one barrel of home heating oil contributes 0.4224 metric tons of carbon dioxide (MTCO2e) to the atmosphere.An important consideration for GHG inventories at the regional scale is how to define the scope of activities that generate emissions. GHG emissions are generally divided between direct and indirect emissions. Direct emissions are those that are generated from a source controlled by a person or organization. Indirect emissions are those that result from the activity of a person or organization, but are produced at a source apart from the person or organization. An example of direct emissions is gasoline used in personal vehicles; an example of indirect emissions is electricity consumption from an electric utility. Electricity consumption occurs at points far away from where the electricity is generated. Emissions could then be attributed to either the location of the power plant or the location of the electricity consumer. Thus, there are two possible approaches to attributing these emissions. A supply-based approach would attribute all emissions from the power plant to the location of the power plant, while an end-use approach would attribute emissions from the power plant to the end-users of its electricity. The difference between these two approaches presents challenges when compiling emissions inventories within regions, because regions may have multiple resource, commodity, and energy inputs and outputs that would lead to drastically different measurements of emissions from the supply-based or end-use approaches. The analysis presented in this report is primarily a consumption-based, end-use approach to measuring GHG emissions. The end-use approach considers both direct and indirect emissions occurring within a geographic area. It attributes emissions to parties whose actions lead to the emissions being generated. In other words, people who are responsible for the actions leading to emissions are recorded as generating those emissions. The distinction between direct and indirect emissions is commonly subdivided into three distinct categories: Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. Scope 1 emissions result from direct consumption of fuels on-site. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions that result from consumed electricity that is generated in off-site locations. Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions.GHG emissions inventories are generally subdivided into sectors representing distinct categories of emissions ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"uri":[""]},{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (IPCC 2007c; EPA 2009). In accordance with the end-use approach presented in this report, we categorize emissions into sectors based on their end use sector. Sectors include: local transportation, electricity, on-site fuels, waste management, and agriculture and synthetic chemicals. The local transportation, electricity, and on-site fuels sectors are sub-sectors of the broader energy sector, as defined by the IPCC and EPA. Local transportation and on-site fuels are direct emissions are included in Scope 1, while indirect emissions from electricity consumption are included in Scope 2. The remaining sectors are included in Scope 3: waste management includes both solid waste and wastewater; agriculture includes emissions from farm animals as well as synthetic chemicals applied to farm fields and lawns. A final sector, emissions from long-distance travel, is appended at the conclusion of this report. Residing in Scope 1, this sector includes GHG emissions generated by residents of the Centre Region on their travels beyond the Centre Region.Various offices, agencies, and organizations around the Centre Region and Pennsylvania helped with the collection of data for this report. Specific sources of data are provided in the methods section of this report. The next chapter presents the sources of GHG emissions across the Centre Region, divided into relevant sectors. Chapter 3 presents the overall results of the GHG emissions inventory for the Centre Region and its component municipalities, and Chapter 4 provides historical estimates of emissions for the year 1990 and future projections of emissions for the year 2025. Chapter 5 details the methodology used to calculate emissions within each sector and the techniques used to forecast and backcast future and past emissions. At the conclusion of this report, Appendix A provides estimates of the contribution of long-distance travel by Centre Region residents to overall GHG emissions. Appendix B contains a brief example scenario for reducing the Centre Region’s GHG emissions. Emissions Sources by SectorLocal TransportationThe local transportation sector is a prominent source of GHG emissions in the Centre Region. This sector encompasses direct fossil fuel combustion in cars, trucks, buses, and other on-road vehicles driven within the boundaries of the Centre Region municipalities. Fossil fuel consumption for transportation produces carbon dioxide and smaller quantities of methane and nitrous oxide. In this inventory, we calculated emissions based on total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on roads within each Centre Region municipality. We calculated emissions for three categories of vehicles: cars and light trucks, heavy trucks, and transit vehicles (buses). This calculation does not include fuel burned while vehicles are idling in heavy traffic, so it is likely to be a small underestimate of actual emissions. The local transportation sector includes only emissions from traffic within the boundaries of the Centre Region (see Appendix A for long-distance travel emissions). In accordance with the end-use approach in this report, we sought to exclude vehicle travel that did not originate or terminate within the Centre Region. Section 5.02 details the methodology used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and emissions from local transportation. Emissions sourcesCollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Cars and light trucks16,92632,4906,4819,19926,76933,872125,735Heavy trucks2,3114,4378851,2563,6554,62517,169Transit vehicles65176001085981,4533,569Total19,88837,6867,36510,56231,02139,950146,473Transportation emissions accounted for 146,473 MTCO2e in 2006. Emissions from cars and light trucks made up the large majority of emissions at 122,591 MTCO2e (86 percent), followed by heavy trucks at 17,169 MTCO2e (12 percent) and buses at 3,569 MTCO2e (2 percent) (Table 2-1). Table 21: Emissions within the local transportation sector (MTCO2e)Emissions from transportation varied considerably across the municipalities of the Centre Region (Figure 2-1). State College Borough contributed the largest amount of total emissions, at 39,074 MTCO2e, followed closely by Ferguson Township at 36,846 MTCO2e and Patton Township at 30,329 MTCO2e. College, Harris, and Halfmoon Townships made up the smallest share of transportation emissions. Within the transportation sector, the smallest percentage of emissions generated by cars and light trucks occurred in State College Borough (84 percent); the largest percentage of emissions generated by cars and light trucks occurred in Halfmoon Township (88 percent). Figure 21: Transportation emissions by sector and municipalityDividing total emissions by the estimated population in 2006, the local transportation sector accounted for 1.71 MTCO2e per capita across the Centre Region (Figure 2-2). State College Borough had the lowest ratio of transportation emissions per capita, at 1.0 MTCO2e. The remaining municipalities had at least double the per capita emissions of State College Borough, ranging from 2.21 MTCO2e for College Township to 2.51 MTCO2e for Halfmoon Township. Figure 22: Transportation emissions per capita in 2006Local characteristicsThe majority of trips that are accounted for in the local transportation sector are commutes to and from work. Across the whole Centre Region, commutes by car or truck driven alone accounted for 58 percent of all commutes in the year 2000; car or truck carpool commutes represented another 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). 21 percent of workers commuted by bicycle or on foot, and an additional 6 percent took public transportation (Table 2-3; Figure 2-3). State College Borough, in addition to having the largest population in the Centre Region, is adjacent to Penn State University, the largest employer in the region. As such, State College Borough has, on average, commutes that are shorter than those from outlying municipalities. In addition, a large percentage of commutes by State College Borough residents are made on public transportation (9 percent), bicycle (2 percent), or on foot (41 percent). The disparity in per capita transportation emissions between State College Borough and the rest of the Centre Region can be explained in part by the large percentage of workers who commute to work using these low-GHG-producing modes of transportation. Of the remaining municipalities, Ferguson Township and Patton Township had the largest percentage of workers commuting by public transportation (6 percent each), and College Township had the largest percentage of workers commuting on foot (4 percent). Table 22: Mode of commute to work by workers age 16 and over (2000)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Car or truck: Drove alone3,0795,1931,0341,7984,4196,02421,547Car or truck: carpooled4371,0181112168431,1453,770Public transportation854322184081,4112,356Bicycle or walked1803646542336,7517,588Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001Figure 23: Graph of travel mode for commute to work by workers age 16 and over (2000).ElectricityGreenhouse gases are emitted during the production of electricity from power plants or on-site generators that burn fossil fuels. This inventory includes only grid-based electricity consumption from power plants. We lacked an accurate method for inventorying on-site generated electricity, which only accounts for a very small portion of electricity consumption. The end-use-based accounting system used in this report makes local residents responsible for indirect emissions from electricity generated outside the region but consumed locally. Electricity in the Centre Region is provided by Allegheny Power, which transmits electricity from the Middle Atlanticc regional grid (known as the PJM Interconnection) to consumers in the Centre Region. Electricity transmitted on the grid is generated from multiple sources with different compositions and amounts of GHG emissions. Fuels that produce GHG emissions include coal (the largest source), natural gas, and fuel oil. Nuclear energy and renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass do not increase net GHG emissions. The electricity emissions of the Centre Region are dependent on the total fuel mix of power generation across the PJM Interconnection grid. The 2006 fuel mix is reported below. It is important to note that electricity emissions are closely connected to emissions from on-site fuels (Section 2.03), since both sectors contribute to building heating.Emissions sourcesElectricity consumption in the Centre Region resulted in emissions of 412,483 MTCO2e during the 2006 (Table 2-3). Allegheny Power reported electricity consumption for four sectors: residential; commercial and small industrial; large industrial; and street and area lighting. The majority of emissions were due to electricity demand in the residential sector, which produced 255,572 MTCO2e (62 percent). Commercial and small industrial demand produced 155,318 MTCO2e (38 percent), while large industrial produced 240 MTCO2e (less than 1 percent). Electricity demand from street and area lighting produced 1,353 MTCO2e (less than 1 percent). Table 23: Emissions within the electricity sector by consumer sector (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Residential27,39254,37111,62826,06653,03283,082255,572Commercial, small industrial18,18932,9624,5099,55128,89361,215155,318Large Industrial02400000240Street & area lighting1693069512495691,353Total45,75087,87916,14635,66982,174144,865412,483Emissions from electricity varied across municipalities. State College Borough was the largest consumer of electricity, producing 144,865 MTCO2e, followed by Ferguson and Patton Townships, which each produced 87,879 MTCO2e and 82,174 MTCO2e, respectively. College Township electricity demand produced 45,750 MTCO2e, followed by Harris Township with 35,669 MTCO2e and Halfmoon Township with 16,146 MTCO2e. Figure 24: Electricity emissions by sector and municipalityOn a per capita basis, the average Centre Region resident’s electricity use resulted in 4.82 MTCO2e emissions in 2006. Per capita electricity emissions varied across municipalities. State College Borough had the lowest per capita electricity demand, generating 3.62 MTCO2e. College, Ferguson, and Halfmoon Townships each had between 5.08 and 5.50 MTCO2e per capita emissions. Harris Township had the largest per capita emissions from electricity, at 7.61 MTCO2e, followed by Patton Township at 6.42 MTCO2e. The differences in per capita emissions between municipalities can be partly explained by differences in heating fuel types, age of housing stock, and types of housing units. The next section, On-site Fuels, details the distribution of fuel types between municipalities.Figure 25: Electricity emissions per capita in 2006Local characteristicsFigure 26: Fuel mix for electricity transmitted on the PJM Interconnection grid.Coal made up the majority of fuel for electricity transmitted over the PJM Interconnection in 2006, at 58 percent (PJM Environmental Information Services 2007). Other fossil fuel sources, including natural gas and fuel oil, made up less than 6 percent of total. Nuclear energy contributed 35 percent of generating capacity, and renewable sources made up 2 percent. Coal is one of the largest sources of GHG emissions from electricity generation nationwide ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (EPA 2009), as well as the largest single contributor to GHG emissions that result from electricity consumption in the Centre Region. In the Centre Region and its municipalities, over 95 percent of all electricity emissions are due to combustion of coal (Figure 2-7). Figure 27: Electricity emissions by fossil fuel type.On-site FuelsHomes, businesses, and municipal buildings burn fossil fuels on-site for space heating, water heating, and other purposes. Fuels such as utility natural gas, propane, fuel oil, kerosene, and coal are consumed for such uses. The direct consumption of these fuels generates GHG emissions in various ratios, depending on the type of fuel consumed. Electricity used for space and water heating is counted as an indirect emissions source and included in the previous section. Utility natural gas and fuel oil make up the majority of fuels consumed on-site for heating (see section b, below). Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania is the utility that distributes natural gas in the Centre Region. Numerous smaller companies distribute fuel oil and propane. Fossil fuel combustion produces CO2 emissions as well as smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O from fuel impurities and incomplete combustion. This inventory uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Energy Information Administration, and Columbia Gas to estimate GHG emissions in homes, businesses, and other buildings (see section 5.04 for detailed methodology). This section utilizes the fuel types denominated by the U.S. Census Bureau for household heating fuel. The four fuel types that produce GHGs are: utility (natural) gas; bottled, tank or LP gas (propane); fuel oil, kerosene, etc.; and coal or coke.Emissions sourcesDirect emissions from on-site fuels produced 113,678 MTCO2e in 2006 across the Centre Region (Table 2-4). The majority of emissions were due to the burning of fuel oil for heating, which produced 65,124 MTCO2e, 57 percent of all on-site fuels emissions. Natural gas was the second-greatest contributor to on-site fuels emissions, creating 41,302 MTCO2e (36 percent) in the Centre Region. Bottled, tank, or LP gas contributed a much smaller 5,868 MTCO2e (5 percent), followed by coal or coke with 1,385 (1 percent). Table 24: Emissions within the on-site fuels sector by fuel type (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionNatural gas2,78810,70502057,77019,83441,302Bottled, tank, or LP gas5761,0335904444732,7515,868Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.11,85914,6053,3337,7786,93820,61165,124Coal or coke157327336209259971,385Total15,38026,6704,2598,63615,44043,293113,678By consumer sector, fuels consumed in residences made up the majority of on-site fuels emissions in the Centre Region (Table 2-5). Residential on-site fuels emissions were 83,314 MTCO2e (73 percent), while commercial and industrial emissions were 30,364 MTCO2e (37 percent). Table 25: On-site fuels emissions by consumer sectorCollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionResidential10,47520,3722,7765,50113,95030,24183,314Commercial & Industrial4,9046,2991,4833,1361,49013,05230,364Total15,38026,6704,2598,63615,44043,293113,678Figure 28: On-site fuels emissions by fuel typeFigure 29: Per capita on-site fuels emissions in 2006Local characteristicsDespite the fact that there were fewer households utilizing natural gas than fuel oil for heating (Table 2-6), fuel oil remained the largest contributor to GHG emissions in the on-site fuels sector. Natural gas burns more efficiently and generates fewer GHG emissions per unit of heat than fuel oil, meaning fewer per household emissions. 29 percent of housing units in the Centre Region use natural gas for their primary heating fuel, while only 22 percent use fuel oil. Table 26: Household heating fuel by number of housing unitsCollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionNatural gas4511,7270371,4043,4497,068Bottled, tank, or LP gas55104564655289605Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.9761,3322726717651,9866,002Coal or coke419086598228386Electricity1,4602,0783058272,4256,16713,262Wood5414546774514381Other fuel3218425757143No fuel used01701083469Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001Differences in housing stock and availability of the various heating fuel types may contribute to the differences in types of household heating fuel between the municipalities of the Centre Region. Natural gas, the most efficient fossil fuel for heating, is the primary heating fuel for 31 percent of housing units in Ferguson Township and 29 percent of housing units in Patton Township and State College Borough. Only 2 percent of housing units in Harris Township and 15 percent in College Township have natural gas as the primary heating fuel. Households that rely on other types of fossil fuels for heat, such as fuel oil or electricity (via indirect emissions from coal-fueled power plants), generate greater amounts of GHG emissions per household (Figure 2-10). In 2006, the average Allegheny Power residential customer with electric heat consumed nearly 18,000 kWh, while the average customer with another primary heat source consumed less than 10,000 kWh (Wahl 2007). Harris Township and Halfmoon Township, with a large percentage of homes using electricity and fuel oil for heat, generate over 15 MTCO2e of direct and indirect GHG emissions per housing unit. Ferguson Township, in contrast, has many homes that use natural gas as a heating fuel and generates 11 MTCO2e of direct and indirect GHG emissions per housing unit. Figure 210: Household heating fuel by number of housing unitsFigure 211: Combined graph of emissions for electricity and on-site fuels per housing unitWaste ManagementThe waste management sector includes indirect emissions generated from the breakdown of solid and liquid waste. Solid waste includes trash from houses and businesses in the Centre Region that municipalities and waste haulers deposit in landfills; liquid waste includes sewage and other wastewater that flows to treatment plants or domestic septic systems. Solid waste releases methane due to anaerobic decomposition. Methane in landfills can escape to the atmosphere as a GHG, or it can be removed by flaring or recovered for waste-to-energy systems. Waste collected in the Centre Region is sent to the Shade Landfill in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The Shade Landfill recovers methane for waste-to-energy purposes. The recovered methane is blended into the natural gas system for direct use as an on-site fuel (PA DEP 2009). Liquid waste includes municipal sewage and wastewater. Depending on the treatment system, sewage treatment processes produce small amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. Aerobic treatment systems that minimize anaerobic decomposition of sewage sludge generate very small amounts of GHG emissions. Most of the wastewater from the Centre Region flows to the University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) treatment plant, which uses an aerobic system that produces very few GHGs. A portion of the wastewater generated by State College Borough flows to the Penn State University treatment plant. The Penn State plant treats wastewater using an anaerobic system, which generates larger amounts of methane. This methane is collected and flared, resulting in emissions of carbon dioxide. Domestic septic systems also produce small amounts of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. We estimated GHG emissions from septic systems for Halfmoon Township, which does not have municipal sewage service, as well as a small percentage of homes in the remaining municipalities (excluding State College Borough) that use domestic septic systems. Emissions sourcesIndirect emissions in the waste management sector totaled 10,377 MTCO2e (Table 2-7). The majority of these emissions were due to the decomposition of solid waste, which generated 8,466 MTCO2e, or 82 percent of emissions in the waste management sector. Liquid waste contributed 1,911 MTCO2e, or 18 percent of emissions. Table 27: Emissions within the waste management sector (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionSolid waste9911,7972465211,5753,3378,466Liquid waste1423962191232597731,911Total1,1332,1924656431,8344,11010,377Figure 212: Waste management emissions by waste typeOf all the Centre Region municipalities, State College Borough produced the largest amount of emissions, 4,110 MTCO2e (40 percent) from both solid and liquid waste (Figure 2-11). Liquid waste emissions were relatively higher in State College Borough because some of its municipal wastewater is treated at the Penn State University treatment plant, which generates higher amounts of GHGs. Halfmoon and Harris Township, with the smallest populations in the Centre Region, also produced the lowest total amount of emissions from waste management.Per capita waste management emissions were relatively similar across municipalities (Figure 2-12). The Centre Region average was .12 MTCO2e. Halfmoon Township had the highest per capita emissions, at .16 MTCO2e, while State College Borough had the lowest per capita emissions at .10 MTCO2e. Figure 213: Waste management emissions per capita in 2006Local characteristicsThe Centre Region has a favorable combination of waste management processes that result in very low GHG emissions from both solid and liquid waste. The aerobic treatment process utilized by the UAJA for the majority of wastewater generated in the Centre Region means that most liquid waste does not result in methane emissions. In addition, the methane recovery waste-to-energy system at the Shade Landfill where solid waste from the Centre Region is deposited prevents large quantities of methane from escaping to the atmosphere and acting as a GHG. Agriculture and Synthetic ChemicalsCertain agricultural practices result in GHG emissions. The agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector includes emissions from fertilizer and lime applied to farm fields, emissions from agricultural animals, and emissions from fertilizer applied to parks and golf courses. The use of synthetic refrigerants, typically fluorinated gases, also emits GHGs. Accurate data at the local scale are not available for fluorinated gases. Thus, as advised by the EPA, they were not included in this inventory. Synthetic fertilizers directly release nitrous oxide emissions through leaching and runoff, and indirectly through volatilization. Lime application to agricultural soils indirectly results in carbon dioxide emissions.Livestock produce methane emissions during digestion (referred to as enteric fermentation). Ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep are the largest producers of methane emissions. Management of manure from livestock also produces methane and nitrous oxide emissions, depending on the type of manure management system. Livestock included in this inventory were: cattle, poultry, horses, swine, sheep, and goats. Emissions sourcesEmissions within the agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector totaled 21,506 MTCO2e in 2006. Emissions from cattle were the largest contributor to this total, at 15,757 MTCO2e (73 percent). Agricultural fertilizer was the second-greatest source of emissions, at 2,548 MTCO2e (12 percent). Other agricultural animals (poultry, horses, swine, sheep, and goats) contributed 1,702 MTCO2e (8 percent), and agricultural lime was the source of 1,291 MTCO2e (6 percent). Fertilizer applied to municipal parks and golf courses had a negligible contribution at 208 MTCO2e (1 percent). Table 28: Emissions within the agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector (MTCO2E)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionPark and golf course fertilizer3330555759208Ag. fertilizer1161,41947726926702,548Ag. lime5971924213613501,291Ag. animals: cattle7198,7752,9511,6621,650015,757Ag. animals: other7894831917917801,702Total1,00511,8643,9892,3012,2885921,506Figure 214: Agricultural and synthetic chemicals emission by source type.Agriculture and synthetic chemicals emissions varied considerably between municipalities. Ferguson Township was by for the largest source of emissions, emitting 11,864 MTCO2e or 55 percent of the total. Halfmoon Township was the second-largest source of emissions at 3,989 MTCO2e (19 percent), followed by Patton, Harris, and College Townships. State College Borough has no active agricultural lands, meaning its sole source of emissions in this sector was park and golf course fertilizer, totaling 59 MTCO2e (.3 percent). Figure 215: Agriculture and synthetic chemicals emissions per capita in 2006Local characteristicsSince the Centre Region is composed of both rural and urban land uses, agriculture acreage varies between its component municipalities (Table 2-9). Accordingly, emissions in the agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector vary by the acreage of fertilized and limed land, as well as the populations of agricultural animals in each municipality. Table 29: Local characteristics contributing to agriculture and synthetic chemicals emissionsCollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionPark lawn acreage fertilized13.010.56.52.05.049.586.5Golf course acreage (estimate)37.50.00.075.075.075.0262.5Agricultural Security Area (ASA) acreage1,30415,9185,3533,0142,993028,582.0Beef cattle (head)4858119611010901,044Milk cows (head)152186062535235003,340Chickens: broilers (head)2531110459580558Chickens: layers (head)7996832618318201,739Chickens: pullets (head)8923117170164Turkeys (head)5571911110103Horses, mules, burros, and donkeys (head)4150016895940897Swine (head)7389330016916801,604Sheep (head)222719151510487Goats (head)172137240400383Nitrogen applied to parks & golf courses (lbs) 7,881691013,18113,69014,15049,594Nitrogen applied to farm fields (lbs)27,694294,53427,694294,53427,694294,534966,683Lime (lbs)338,0593,595,391338,0593,595,391338,0593,595,39111,800,348Sources: ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"custom":"PA DA 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009; USDA 2009; CRPR 2009","citationItems":[{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]},{"position":1,"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]}]} PA DA 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009; USDA 2009; CRPR 2009Total Greenhouse Gas EmissionsThis section presents the overall results of the GHG emissions inventory for the Centre Region and each municipality within the region. The results include statistics for total emissions, the percentage of emissions generated by each sector, and per-capita emissions within each municipality. The Centre RegionTotal emissions for the Centre Region for the year 2006 were 704,574 MTCO2e (Table 3-1; Figure 3-1). In general, fossil fuel combustion for energy dominated GHG emissions within the Centre Region. The large majority (59 percent) of these emissions were the result of electricity consumption, which resulted in emissions of 412,539 MTCO2e. Local transportation was the second-largest source of GHG emissions, at 146,473 MTCO2e (21 percent), followed by the on-site fuels sector at 113,678 MTCO2e (16%). Agriculture and synthetic chemicals (21,506 MTCO2e; 3 percent) and waste management (10,377; 1 percent) were minor contributors to total emissions.Table 31: 2006 GHG emissions by sector in the Centre Region and municipalities (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Local transportation19,88837,6867,36510,56231,02139,950146,473Electricity45,75787,88716,15835,68282,183144,872412,539On-site fuels15,38026,6704,2598,63615,44043,293113,678Waste management1,1332,1924656431,8344,11010,377Agriculture & synthetic chemicals1,00511,8643,9892,3012,2885921,506Total83,162166,30132,23657,826132,765232,284704,574Figure 31: Total Centre Region emissions by source sector in 2006State College Borough, with the largest population in the Centre Region, had the highest amount of total GHG emissions, followed by Ferguson Township, Patton Township, College Township, Harris Township, and Halfmoon Township, respectively, (Figure 3-2) although the distribution of emissions between source sectors varied widely between municipalities. Figure 32: Total 2006 GHG emissions within each Centre Region municipalityThe activities of the typical resident of the Centre Region resulted in emissions of 8.2 MTCO2e in 2006. Per capita emissions varied between municipalities. Harris Township had the highest per capita emissions (12.3 MTCO2e), followed by Halfmoon Township (10.9 MTCO2e), Patton Township (10.4 MTCO2e), Ferguson Township (10.3 MTCO2e), and College Township (9.2). State College Borough had the lowest per capita emissions (5.8 MTCO2e). Figure 33: Per capita emissions in 2006MunicipalitiesThis section presents charts of GHG emissions sources for each Centre Region municipality. Total values can be found in Table 3-1, above. College TownshipFigure 34Ferguson TownshipFigure 35Halfmoon TownshipFigure 36Harris TownshipFigure 37Patton TownshipFigure 38State College BoroughFigure 39Emissions Over Time: Historical Estimates and ProjectionsHistorical Estimates of GHG Emissions in 1990Many GHG emissions inventories begin from a baseline year of 1990. This year is used, for example, in the international agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized countries to reduce their emissions to an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 (UNFCC 2009). To best understand the change in Centre Region GHG emissions over time, we present estimates of past emissions for the year 1990. These historical estimates utilize applicable data from the U.S. Census Bureau regarding the demographics of the Centre Region for the year 1990. In addition, we use emissions coefficients that account for changes in vehicle fuel efficiency and the fuel mix for electricity generation between 1990 and 2006. Table 41: Historical estimate of GHG emissions in 1990 (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Local transportation16,03623,5933,99410,18126,17742,059122,040Electricity34,58051,5188,19032,17864,928142,990334,383On-site fuels11,46115,4162,1297,68012,02842,13690,849Waste management7461,0611414741,2433,5967,262Agriculture & synthetic chemicals1,32920,5237,9802,5752,9085835,372Total64,150112,11122,43453,088107,283230,839589,905Future Projections of GHG Emissions in 2025Climate change action planning is a process that occurs in short, medium, and long-term time scales. As such, it requires an understanding of how local conditions will change over time. This section provides projections of how GHG emissions will change in the Centre Region between 2006 and 2025. Using population estimates for each municipality derived from the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization, this projection is a rough estimate of future emissions. The 2025 scenario presented here assumes that all emissions coefficients will remain the same between 2006 and 2025. It does not account for possible changes in vehicle fuel efficiency, for example, or potential changes in residential energy efficiency. Table 42: Projection of GHG emissions in 2025 (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Local transportation22,01348,44110,51314,47139,47039,774174,681Electricity51,781115,53423,58349,993106,941147,460495,292On-site fuels17,40735,0636,22112,10520,09344,068134,957Waste management1,1332,4144117482,0763,76110,543Agriculture & synthetic chemicals8969,0262,7311,6801,7896016,182Total93,231210,47843,45878,996170,369235,124831,656Comparing Past, Current, and Future Emissions The Centre Region has experienced an increase in total GHG emissions of 16.3 percent between 1990 and 2006. Emissions could continue this rise and reach 15.3 percent above 2006 levels by 2025, assuming the population of the Centre Region increases as predicted (Figure 4-1). The makeup of the GHG emissions profile for the Centre Region has shifted since 1990 and may continue to change. The electricity, local transportation, and on-site fuels sectors have increased in total emissions as well as their percentage of overall emissions. The agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector has decreased in its total emissions and its percentage of overall emissions due to conversion of farmland to urban uses. The 2025 projection assumes that agriculture will continue its decline in total emissions, while on-site fuels, electricity, and local transportation emissions will continue to increase.Figure 41: GHG emissions estimates for 1990, 2006, and 2025MethodologyPopulation, housing, and businessesData sourcesWe obtained demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Detailed data from the 2000 Census were available for household heating fuels, transportation to work, and housing unit counts ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 Population Estimates Program provided population estimates for the year 2006 for each municipality (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). The Centre County Planning and Community Development Office provided counts of residential building permits (Centre County Government: Planning and Community Development Office 2006). Numbers of businesses were obtained from the 2002 Economic Census for Ferguson Township, Patton Township, and State College Borough (U.S. Census Bureau 2006a). Methods Housing units in 2006, the baseline year, were calculated by adding the sum of residential unit building permits within each municipality from 2000 to 2006 to the total number of housing units in each municipality recorded in the 2000 Census. This method accounts for unequal population growth and residential development across the Centre Region. Numbers of businesses in College Township, Halfmoon Township, and Harris Township were estimated by multiplying the average ratio of businesses to housing units in Ferguson Township and Patton Township by the number of housing units in each township. TransportationData sourcesEmissions from the transportation sector relied on daily vehicle-miles-traveled (DVMT) data from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). PennDOT supplied GIS layers with attached data detailing on-road DVMT for each segment of state-monitored roadway in Pennsylvania (PennDOT 2007b). DVMT statistics are calculated using traffic count data from the PennDOT Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). We also drew from PennDOT’s annual Highway Statistics Report, which provides county-scale information on vehicle counts and road network classification (PennDOT 2007a). The Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) provided transit bus mileage within each municipality (CATA 2006).MethodsSpecific DVMT data for car and heavy truck travel were not available at the municipality scale from PennDOT. DVMT data for were available for individual road segments within the Centre Region. Thus, we used the following method to calculate municipality DVMT based on PennDOT HPMS data. The 2006 DVMT shapefile (PennDOT 2007b) was imported into ArcGIS 9.2, along with a shapefile of the boundaries of the six Centre Region municipalities. Road segments were selected if the centroid of the road segment intersected with one of the municipalities. Tables of DVMT data for the road segments within each municipality were then exported from ArcGIS. Calculating the sum of road segment DVMT returned the total DVMT for state-monitored road segments within the Centre Region. To account for travel on non-state-monitored road segments, which include primarily local roads, the total DVMT for each county was multiplied by 1.26134, the proportion of traffic on state-monitored roads to estimated traffic on local roads in Centre County (PennDOT 2007a). The goal of this analysis was to calculate emissions generated by residents of the Centre Region. As such, we attempted to exclude daily traffic generated by car and truck trips neither originating nor terminating within the Centre Region. We assumed that most of these trips utilized the Interstate 99 corridor (still under construction in 2006) and the US 322 corridor. For the purposes of this analysis, we excluded segments within these corridors from our analysis. To obtain estimates of DVMT within each municipality, total DVMT within the Centre Region was multiplied by the ratio of workers in each municipality who used a car, truck, or van to commute to work to the total number of workers in the Centre Region who used a car, truck, or van to commute to work ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"custom":"(U.S. Census Bureau 2001, adjusted to 2006 values)","citationItems":[{"uri":[""]}]} (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, adjusted to 2006 values). This value was used to account for differences in trip mode choice between municipalities. Since 93 percent of workers living in the Centre Region are employed in the Centre Region, this method accounts for the vast majority of local commutes. It does not account for travel that occurs beyond the boundaries of the Centre Region (see Appendix for estimates of emissions generated by long-distance travel). To obtain total annual VMT for each municipality, DVMT was multiplied by 365. Table 51: Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2006CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Cars and light trucks41,875,73580,383,89416,033,50022,758,22466,228,30483,802,544311,082,202Heavy trucks1,596,0053,063,662611,083867,3822,524,1523,193,95711,856,240Transit vehicles141,528165,252023,447129,952316,064776,242Source: PennDOTCATA operates a fleet of natural-gas powered transit buses within and beyond the Centre Region. Revenue miles within each municipality are recorded in the CATA annual budget (CATA 2006).To estimate GHG emissions from transportation, VMT for cars and heavy trucks within each municipality was multiplied by emissions coefficients representing carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emitted per vehicle-mile ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]}]} (EIIP 2003; CACP 2009). For the purposes of this analysis, all car emissions were assumed to be caused by gasoline combustion, and all heavy truck emissions were assumed to be caused by diesel combustion. Transit bus VMT were multiplied by emissions coefficients for natural gas buses ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"uri":[""]}]} (Steuer 2004).FormulaMTCO2E = (vehicle-miles * CO2 coefficient) + (vehicle-miles * CH4 coefficient) + (vehicle-miles * N2O coefficient)Table 52: Emissions coefficients for the local transportation sectorCO2CH4 N2OMotor vehicles VMT0.0003939651.8125 x 10-68.40852 x 10-6Heavy trucks VMT0.0014387541.57357 x 10-67.77665 x 10-6Transit vehicles VMT0.0042640.0002860.000048Source: EIIP 2003; CACP 2009ElectricityData sourcesThis inventory relies on electricity consumption data supplied by Allegheny Power (Kearney 2006, Morath 2008). Allegheny Power’s subsidiary, West Penn Power Company, is the sole electricity utility in the Centre Region. At the date of this inventory, Allegheny Power was unable to provide data for 2006, our baseline year. We thus rely on 18 months of data from March 2004 to August 2005, annualized over 12 months, as a proxy for 2006 data (see Morath 2008 for a detailed description of this process). We also utilize state- and county-scale data recorded in Allegheny Power’s annual reports to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (Wahl 2007). Allegheny Power’s annual reports over the period from 2002 to 2008 show that household electricity consumption in 2004 and 2005 was not significantly different from the 2002-2008 average. Data supplied by Allegheny Power are comprised of monthly electricity usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh), aggregated by ZIP code and electricity rate code. Rate codes span five types of end-user: 1) residential, 2) small commercial, 3) large commercial and industrial, 4) large industrial, and 5) street and area lighting. Electricity supplied by Allegheny Power to the Centre Region is obtained from PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that distributes wholesale electricity across much of the Middle Atlantic U.S. This inventory uses the fuel mix reported by PJM for the year 2006 as the basis for calculating emissions from electricity ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (PJM Environmental Information Services 2007). The 2006 fuel mix was: 57.47% coal, 5.14% natural gas, 31% oil, 34.98% nuclear, and 2.10 % renewable sources. MethodsElectricity consumption data were reported by ZIP code, which do not conform to municipal boundaries. Two types of per-unit scaling were used to estimate electricity usage within municipal boundaries based on the available ZIP code data, one for residential usage and another for commercial and small industrial usage. For residential usage, per-housing-unit electricity consumption was calculated for each ZIP code in the Centre Region by dividing annual residential consumption within each ZIP code by the number of housing units in each ZIP code. We multiplied the number of housing units in each municipality by the per-housing-unit usage amount for that municipality’s representative ZIP code. Each municipality’s representative ZIP code was that which covered the largest area within municipal boundaries. For example, ZIP code 16801 was the representative ZIP code for College Township and State College Borough, since it represents the largest total area within each municipality.For commercial and small industrial electricity usage, the number of customers in the Centre Region was downscaled from the total number of Allegheny Power commercial and small industrial customers in Pennsylvania using the following method: the ratio of commercial and small industrial customers to residential customers in Pennsylvania was multiplied by the number of residential customers in the Centre Region. The number of residential customers in the Centre Region was assumed to equal the number of housing units, adjusted to 2006. The estimated number of commercial and small industrial customers in the Centre Region was divided among each municipality by multiplying the ratio of businesses in each municipality to all businesses in the Centre Region by the average electricity usage of Allegheny Power’s commercial and small industrial customers.The only ZIP code to record large industrial usage was 16803. ZIP code 16803 spans Ferguson Township, Halfmoon Township, Patton Township, and State College Borough. In this case, large industrial usage was assigned to Ferguson Township, which has the largest area of industrial and light industrial zoning within ZIP code 16803. Electricity usage from street and area lighting, when not reported directly by the municipality, was calculated in the same manner as residential usage. To estimate GHG emissions from electricity usage, a total emissions coefficient for each GHG was calculated by multiplying the percentage of coal, natural gas, and oil, respectively, by their percentage of the PJM Interconnection fuel mix and their respective carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions. Emissions coefficients were obtained from Steuer ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"suppressAuthor":true,"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (2004). Total emissions coefficients for each GHG were then multiplied by the electricity usage (kWh) across each municipality.FormulaMTCO2E = (% coal * CO2 coefficient) + (% natural gas * CO2 coefficient) + (% oil * CO2 coefficient) + (% coal * CH4 coefficient) + (% natural gas * CH4 coefficient) + (% oil * CH4 coefficient) + (% coal * N2O coefficient) + (% natural gas * N2O coefficient) + (% oil * N2O coefficient)Table 53: Emissions coefficients for the electricity sectorCO2CH4 N2OCoal (tons)0.0010.000000180.00000091Natural gas (MCF)0.0004760.00000020.0000026Fuel oil (barrels)0.0008470.000000170.0000011Other000Source: Steuer 2004On-site fuelsData sourcesThe on-site fuels sector comprises fossil fuels burned on-location, primarily for residential and commercial heating. Fuel categories recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau include utility gas, bottled, tank and liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil and kerosene, and coal or coke. For residential emissions, this inventory relies on the number of housing units listing each primary heating fuel within each municipality, as recorded by the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). Counts have been adjusted to estimated 2006 values as detailed above. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. is the sole provider of natural gas (utility gas) in the Centre Region. For natural gas usage, we use state- and county-scale data recorded in Columbia Gas’ 2006 annual report to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Kriner 2007). Columbia Gas also provided detailed gas transmission volumes for the State College market from 2006 to 2009 (Leppo 2009). These data record daily delivery volumes at each of the three delivery points (TCO, Eastern States and TETCO) that supply the State College market. Columbia Gas was unable to provide detailed consumption data at the municipality scale due to technical limitations. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) records natural gas usage and number of customers in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors at the state scale (EIA 2009a, 2009b). The EIA also records total consumption of liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, kerosene, and coal at the state scale (EIA 2008).MethodsOn-site fuels usage was calculated for two sectors: 1) residential, and 2) commercial and industrial. Natural gas usage was determined by first calculating the average usage per residential, commercial, or industrial customer in Columbia Gas’ Pennsylvania service area. Second, for residential consumption average usage was multiplied by the number of housing units listing utility gas as their primary heating fuel in the 2000 Census, adjusted to 2006 values. To determine commercial and industrial consumption, average 2006 Columbia Gas commercial and industrial consumption was multiplied by the number of businesses in each municipality and the ratio of residential natural gas to other fuels in each municipality.For the remaining on-site fuels (fuel oil, kerosene, etc; bottled, tank, or LP gas; and coal or coke), average 2006 Pennsylvania residential consumption was multiplied by the number of housing units listing each fuel type as a primary heating fuel in each municipality. For the commercial and industrial sector, average 2006 Pennsylvania consumption was multiplied by the number of businesses in each municipality. This number was then multiplied by the ratio of each primary heating fuel in the residential sector to all other heating fuels to account for variation in fuel types across municipalities.The above calculations generated estimates for residential and combined commercial and industrial consumption of each on-site heating fuel using the following units: natural gas— thousand cubic feet (MCF); bottled, tank, or LP gas—barrels; fuel oil, kerosene, etc.—barrels; coal or coke—tons. To estimate GHG emissions from on-site fuels, usage volumes were multiplied by an emissions coefficient representing carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions per unit of consumption (Steuer 2004).FormulaMTCO2E = (fuel usage * CO2 coefficient) + (fuel usage * CH4 coefficient) + (fuel usage * N2O coefficient)Table 54: Emissions coefficients for the on-site fuels sectorCO2CH4 N2ONatural gas (MCF)0.05450.0000230.000302Bottled, tank, or LP gas (barrels)0.24990.0000950.00548Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. (barrels)0.42240.0000890.000584Coal or coke (tons)2.290.00040.00201Source: Steuer 2004Waste managementData sourcesData on solid waste generated in 2006 were obtained for the Centre Region municipalities, excluding State College Borough and Halfmoon Township, which contract with Veolia Environmental Services for residential waste pickup (COG 2009). Solid waste generated in State College, as well as waste from businesses and multi-unit residences, was obtained separately from the Centre County Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA 2009). The majority of liquid waste in the Centre Region is treated by the University Area Joint Authority (UAJA). A smaller amount of waste from the State College Borough is treated by the Penn State University treatment plant. Data on wastewater flows were obtained from both UAJA and State College ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]}]} (UAJA 2000, 2007; State College 2009). Halfmoon Township relies exclusively on local septic systems for wastewater treatment. Thus, specific data were not available and were estimated as described below. Data on the number of housing units with septic systems were obtained from the 1990 Census, which had the most recent data available (U.S. Census Bureau 1991). The 2000 Census did not include question items on household sewer systems. MethodsNeither the Centre County Solid Waste Authority nor the Centre Region COG maintain data on solid waste tonnage at the municipality level. Accordingly, aggregate data for the Centre Region municipalities (excluding State College) were used. Total solid waste tonnage for the year 2006 was allocated to each municipality by the number of housing units in each municipality. Solid waste tonnage for Halfmoon Township was estimated by multiplying the average annual amount of waste collected per housing unit in the Centre Region by the number of housing units in Halfmoon Township. State College Borough operates its own solid waste collection service for which specific tonnage amounts were available. Waste collected in the Centre Region is sent to the Shade Landfill in Shade Township, Pennsylvania. The breakdown of solid waste in landfills results in methane emissions. The Shade Landfill recovers methane, which is blended into the natural gas system for direct use as an on-site fuel ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (PA DEP 2009). The total solid waste tonnage for each municipality was multiplied by a methane emissions coefficient that takes into account the methane recovery process at the Shade Landfill.As with solid waste, specific data on liquid waste were not available at the municipality level for municipalities other than State College Borough. UAJA provided data on total and average wastewater flows for the year 2006, and State College Borough provided data on wastewater flows to UAJA and the Penn State treatment plant. To calculate wastewater amounts for the Centre Region municipalities (excluding State College Borough and Halfmoon Township), we subtracted wastewater from State College Borough from the UAJA annual total and allocated the remainder of the total annual flow based on the number of housing units in each municipality. To accurately estimate emissions from wastewater, it is necessary to calculate the amount of organic material, reported as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in wastewater ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (EIIP 2003). To calculate the amount of BOD in total 2006 wastewater flows, the average BOD loading at the UAJA treatment plant was multiplied by the number of gallons of wastewater flow for each municipality. The average BOD loading at the Penn State treatment plant was used for the portion of State College Borough’s wastewater that is diverted to the Penn State plant. The UAJA treatment plant utilizes an aerobic wastewater treatment system that neutralizes potential methane emissions from wastewater BOD. Thus, wastewater flows to the UAJA plant did not generate methane emissions. The Penn State plant, however, uses an anaerobic process that does generate methane emissions, although this methane is collected and flared. The amount of BOD (in tons) was multiplied by an emissions coefficient for wastewater flows to the Penn State plant. Both anaerobic and aerobic systems generate a small percentage of nitrous oxide emissions. The total amount of wastewater flows (in gallons) for each municipality were multiplied by an emissions coefficient to estimate nitrous oxide emissions.To estimate wastewater and BOD amounts for Halfmoon Township, which relies exclusively on domestic septic systems, we multiplied the average annual amount of wastewater and BOD per housing unit in the Centre Region by the number of housing units in Halfmoon Township. Wastewater and BOD amounts were then multiplied by emissions coefficients for methane and nitrous oxide emissions from septic systems (CACP 2009). We also accounted for housing units in the remaining municipalities that were not connected to the UAJA wastewater systems and instead utilize domestic septic systems. We estimated the number of housing units with septic systems in the remaining municipalities using Census data.FormulaMTCO2E = (waste type * CO2 coefficient) + (waste type * CH4 coefficient) + (waste type * N2O coefficient)Table 55: Emissions coefficients for the waste management sectorCO2CH4 N2OSolid waste (tons)00.1170Wastewater BOD, aerobic (tons)000Wastewater BOD, anaerobic (tons)00.480Wastewater (gallons)005.05 x 10-7Septic wastewater (gallons)00.000004835.05 x 10-7Source: EIIP 2003, Steuer 2004, CACP 2009Agriculture and synthetic chemicalsData sourcesThe agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector includes emissions from the application of fertilizer and lime to farm fields and lawns. It also includes emissions from agricultural animals. Data on the amount of agricultural land within each township were obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; these data are based on the acreage of Agricultural Security Areas in each township ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (PA DA 2009). Total amounts of fertilizer used in Centre County, and total amounts of lime used in Pennsylvania, were also obtained from the DA ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]},{"position":1,"uri":[""]},{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (PA DA 2007b, 2007a, 2008). Data on amounts of fertilizer used on park lawns were obtained from Centre Region Parks and Recreation ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (CRPR 2009). Fertilizer used on golf courses was estimated from previous personal communications with golf course grounds managers (Morath 2008). Data on numbers and types of agricultural animals in Centre County were obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007 Census of Agriculture ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]}]} (USDA 2009). MethodsTo estimate amounts of agricultural fertilizer, farmland acreage in each township was multiplied by the average amount of nitrogen (in tons) applied per acre in Centre County. To estimate agricultural lime use, farmland acreage in each township was multiplied by the average amount of lime (in tons) applied to farmland in Pennsylvania. Precise amounts were available for fertilizer use in the Centre Region park lawns within each municipality. The average amount of nitrogen fertilizer used per acre on golf courses was multiplied by the number of golf course acres within each municipality. Nitrogen fertilizer amounts were multiplied by a nitrous oxide emissions coefficient, and lime amounts were multiplied by a carbon dioxide emissions coefficient. To estimate numbers of agricultural animals in each municipality, the ratio of agricultural land in each municipality to all agricultural land in Centre County was multiplied by the total number of each type of animal in Centre County. Animals included were: beef cattle, milk cows, poultry (broilers, layers and pullets, and turkeys), horses, swine, sheep, and goats. Numbers of each animal type were multiplied by applicable methane and nitrous oxide emissions coefficients. Table 56: Emissions coefficients for the agriculture and synthetic chemicals sectorCO2CH4 N2ONitrogen fertilizer (lbs)000.004198Agricultural lime (lbs)0.000200Beef cattle (head)01.440.617Milk cows (head)02.911.165Poultry, broilers (head)00.0000190.0029Poultry, layers & pullets (head)00.000460.005Poultry, turkeys (head)00.000090.0086Horses (head)00.490.741Swine (head)00.150.0367Sheep (head)00.190.138Goats (head)00.190.138Source: Steuer 2004References ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL BTS. 2006. America on the Go: Long Distance Transportation Patterns: Mode Choice. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. . 2004. National Transportation Statistics: Long-Distance Travel in the United States by Selected Traveler Characteristics: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. . 2009. National Transportation Statistics: U.S. Passenger-Miles. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. . 2009. Campus Carbon Calculator version 6.3. Washington, DC: Clean Air – Cool Planet.CATA. 2006. CATA Draft Budget 2006/2007. State College, pA: Centre Area Transportation SWA. 2009. [insert title]. Bell: Centre County Solid Waste Authority.CEI. 2009. Community Energy: Utility Provider, Allegheny Power. Community Energy, Inc. (last accessed 21 September 2009).Centre County Government: Planning and Community Development Office. 2006. Building Permit Reports. Bellefonte, PA. . 2009. COG tonnage table. State College, PA: Centre Region Council of Governments.CRPR. 2009. Park acreage and fertilizer use. State College, PA: Centre Region Parks & Recreation.Easterling, W. M., C. Polsky, D. Goodin, M. W. Mayfield, W. A. Muraco, and B. Yarnal. 1998. Changing Places, Changing Emissions: the cross-scale reliability of greenhouse gas emission inventories in the US. Local Environment 3 (3):247-262.EIA. 2009a. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. (last accessed 16 June 2009).EIA. 2009b. Pennsylvania Number of Natural Gas Consumers. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. (last accessed 16 June 2009).EIA. 2008. State Energy Data System Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2006. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. (last accessed 16 June 2009).EIIP. 2003. Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Volume VIII. Washington, DC: Greenhouse Gas Committee, Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. . 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. . 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. New York: U.S. Global Change Research Program. usimpacts.IPCC. 2007a. Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis". Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . 2007b. Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group II, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . 2007c. Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group III, "Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. , T. 2006. General Manager, Operations, Allegheny Power Company.Kriner, R. G. 2007. Electric Annual Report of Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Canonsburg, PA: Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. , N. 2009. 2009 State College Historic Demand Volumes. Canonsburg, PA: Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania.Morath, D. P. 2008. A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the Borough of State College. University Park, PA: Center for Integrated Regional Assessment, The Pennsylvania State University.PA DA. 2009. ASA Registered Township List. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. DA. 2007a. Pennsylvania Fertilizer Tonnage Report: Total Fertilizer and Nutrients by County, January 2006 to June 2006. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.PA DA. 2007b. Pennsylvania Fertilizer Tonnage Report: Total Fertilizer and Nutrients by County, July 2006 to December 2006. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. DA. 2008. Pennsylvania Reported Liming Materials Consumption. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. DEP. 2009. Pennsylvania Landfill Methane Projects. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. . 2007a. Pennsylvania Highway Statistics 2006. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. (last accessed 8 June 2009).PennDOT. 2007b. Pennsylvania Traffic Counts 2006. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. (last accessed 10 June 2009).PJM Environmental Information Services. 2007. PJM Regional Average Disclosure Label for 2006. Norristown, PA: PJM Interconnection. , J., D. Abler, S. Blumsack, R. Crane, Z. Kaufman, M. McDill, R. Najjar, R. Ready, T. Wagener, and D. Wardrop. 2009. Pennsylvania Climate Impact Assessment: Report to the Department of Environmental Protection. University Park, PA: Environment and Natural Resources Institute, The Pennsylvania State University.Solomon, S., G. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein. 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (6):1704-1709.State College. 2009. Borough Sewer Flow. State: Borough of State College.Steuer, C. J. 2004. A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projection for the University Park Campus of the Pennsylvania State University.U.S. Census Bureau. 2006a. 2002 Economic Census. Washington, DC. . Census Bureau. 2006b. 2005-2007 American Community Survey. Washington, DC. . Census Bureau. 2008. 2008 Population Estimates. Washington, DC. . Census Bureau. 1991. Census 1990: Summary Tape File 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. (last accessed 2 July 2009).U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000: Summary file 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. (last accessed 2 July 2009).UAJA. 2007. 2007 Combined Minutes. State College, PA: University Area Joint Authority.UAJA. 2000. Act 537 Plan Revision. State College, PA: University Area Joint Authority.UCSUSA. 2008. Climate Change In Pennsylvania: Impacts and Solutions for the Keystone State. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. . 2009. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (last accessed 22 September 2009).USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. , W. F. 2007. Electric Annual Report of West Penn Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Greensburg, PA: West Penn Power Company. A: Emissions from Long-Distance TravelResidents of the Centre Region generate emissions from transportation not only within the region, but also on their travels beyond the region. Long-distance travel, while not typically included in local GHG emissions inventories, represents a substantial portion of emissions generated by the residents of a local area. In accordance with the end-use approach presented in this inventory, this section presents estimates of emissions generated by the long-distance travel of Centre Region residents. Long distance travel is defined by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) as roundtrip travel of distances at least 50 miles away (BTS 2004). The majority of long distance trip person-miles in the U.S. are made for personal purposes (61 percent). Business travel makes up 21 percent of long-distance person-miles. Long-distance modes denominated by the BTS included personal-use vehicle, airplane, bus, train, and ship, boat or ferry. Personal-use vehicles account for 56 percent of long-distance person-miles in the U.S., followed by airplanes with 41 percent. The methodology used to calculate long-distance travel emissions considers the complete length of all long-distance trips made by Centre Region residents. For example, the method would include the total trip of a resident who departs on a flight from University Park Airport, connects in Philadelphia for a flight to Los Angeles, and flies from Los Angeles to Beijing. Since the trip is made by a Centre Region resident, the portion of emissions attributed to one passenger on these flights would be assigned to the Centre Region. The precise methodology and data used to calculate long-distance travel emissions are detailed below.Long-distance travel emissions are not included in the main body of this report for two reasons: 1) specific data on the long-distance travel behavior of Centre Region were not available at precise spatial scales, and 2) emissions from long-distance travel are not typically included in local GHG inventories. These emissions nevertheless represent sector that local decision makers could target for emissions reductions. Total Emissions Including Long-Distance TravelLong-distance travel makes up 18 percent of total emissions in the Centre Region (Figure A-1). When long-distance travel is included, total GHG emissions rise to 856,170 MTCO2e (Table A-1). Long-distance travel accounts for 1.77 MTCO2e per person. Table A01: Greenhouse gas emissions, including estimated emissions from long-distance travel (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre Region Local transportation19,88837,6867,36510,56231,02139,950146,473Electricity45,75787,88716,15835,68282,183144,872412,539On-site fuels15,38026,6704,2598,63615,44043,293113,678Waste management1,1332,1924656431,8344,11010,377Agriculture & synthetic chemicals1,00511,8643,9892,3012,2885921,506Long-distance travel18,13531,2636,4519,83223,79962,116151,596Total83,162166,30132,23657,826132,765232,284856,170Figure A-01: 2006 Centre Region emissions, including the long-distance travel sector. Components of the Long-Distance Travel SectorEmissions from long-distance travel are roughly split between air travel and passenger vehicle travel (Table A-2; Figure A-2). Air travel accounts for 77,781 MTCO2e (51 percent) of emissions, while passenger vehicle travel contributes 72,220 MTCO2e (48 percent). Bus and rail travel account for a very small portion of all emissions, generating 1,596 MTCO2e of GHG emissions (1 percent). Air travel is the largest source of GHG emissions even though fewer passenger-miles take place on airplanes than on passenger vehicles. Only 35 percent of all passenger-miles traveled by Centre Region residents are on airplanes; 63 percent of passenger-miles take place in passenger vehicles, but air travel is the largest source of GHG emissions. Air travel is a major contributor of GHG emissions nationally (EPA 2009). Airplanes use relatively more fuel than other travel modes to transport people and cargo similar distances. In addition, most airplane emissions occur at high altitudes and can magnify global warming more than emissions that are generated at ground level. Table A02: Emissions within the long-distance travel sector (MTCO2e)CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionAir travel9,78516,5793,5865,39212,36530,07477,781Bus & rail travel201340741112546171,596Passenger vehicle travel8,14914,3442,7924,329l11,18031,42572,220Total18,13531,2636,4519,83223,79962,116151,596Figure A-02: Long distance travel emissions by travel mode and municipalityTable A-3: Long distance travel passenger miles by mode. CollegeFergusonHalfmoonHarrisPattonState CollegeCentre RegionAir passenger-miles12,601,81721,351,7254,618,2546,943,79115,925,11838,732,773100,173,479Bus & rail passenger-miles850,3651,440,804311,638468,5641,074,6202,613,6696,759,660Passenger vehicle miles 20,162,64735,488,3766,907,56710,711,63727,660,44077,749,106178,679,773Methodology for Estimating Long-Distance Travel EmissionsData sourcesSpecific data on the long-distance travel behavior of Centre Region residents were not available. Thus, calculating emissions from long-distance travel required the use of broad-scale data on average U.S. residents’ travel behavior. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) collects data on U.S. residents’ travel behavior in the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). We used NHTS data on long distance travel mode choice and total passenger-miles, allocated by income category ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"position":1,"uri":[""]},{"uri":[""]}]} (BTS 2004, 2009), and assigned to municipalities based on population and income statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau adjusted to estimated 2006 values (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). MethodsLong-distance travel is composed of trips that are more than 50 miles from home to destination ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM {"citationItems":[{"uri":[""]}]} (BTS 2006). Estimating emissions from long-distance travel by Centre Region residents required the calculation of passenger-miles-traveled statistics for each mode of long-distance travel. Travel modes included in the NHTS and represented in this report are: air, bus, train, and personal vehicle. Estimates of long-distance travel within each municipality were calculated using the following method: 1) Per-capita U.S. passenger-miles on for long-distance personal vehicle travel were calculated for four per-capita income categories (less than $25,000, between $25,000 and $49,000, between $50,000 and $74,000, and $75,000 and above) based on NHTS statistics (BTS 2004). 2) Per-capita passenger vehicle miles were multiplied by population falling into each of the four income categories within each township to determine total long-distance passenger vehicle miles for each township. 3) Per capita mile traveled, excluding passenger vehicles, were calculated by subtracting passenger vehicle miles from total passenger miles in each income category. 4) Per capita non-vehicle passenger miles were multiplied by the population of each township within the four income categories to determine total non-vehicle passenger miles within each township. 5) Passenger miles for the air, bus, and rail modes were estimated by multiplying total non-vehicle miles by the proportion of person-miles each mode accounted for out of all person-miles, excluding personal vehicles. Passenger-miles for each mode of travel were multiplied by emissions coefficients for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide to obtain total emissions (CACP 2009). Table A04: Emissions coefficients for the long-distance travel sectorCO2CH4 N2OAir passenger-miles0.0007735701.75199 x 10-72.71422 x 10-9Rail passenger-miles0.0001886577.75595 x 10-89.60129 x 10-9Bus passenger miles0.0002517483.28732 x 10-72.00829 x 10-9Passenger vehicle passenger-miles0.0003939651.18125 x 10-68.40852 x 10-6Source: CACP 2009Appendix B: Example Scenario—A Possible Option for Climate Change ActionThis section presents an example scenario for specific climate change mitigation actions in the Centre Region. This example is not meant to be prescriptive nor comprehensive. It is presented here in order to illustrate how local actions can effectively respond to climate change. Scenario: Wind Energy Credits for HouseholdsAs this report found, consumption of electricity was the single largest source of GHG emissions in the Centre Region. The majority of electricity that is consumed in the Centre Region is generated through fossil fuel combustion, mostly in coal-fired power plants. This scenario presents a possible way to eliminate household emissions from fossil-fuel combustion to generate electricity: wind energy credits. In this scenario, we envision the purchase of wind energy credits to offset the fossil-fuel electricity consumption of all households in the Centre Region by the year 2025. Allegheny Power currently offers Renewable Energy Certificates supplied by Community Energy, Inc. (CEI 2009). These certificates, available to residential and commercial customers, pay for additional electricity from wind power to be transmitted over the regional electric grid. In 2009, the charge for Renewable Energy Certificates available to Allegheny Power customers is $2.50 per 100 kilowatt-hour (kWh) block, or 2.5 cents per kWh. In 2025, this report estimates that 323,274,518 kWh of electricity will be generated by fossil fuels and consumed by households in the Centre Region (Table B-1). This electricity demand will create 309,589 MTCO2e of GHG emissions, equaling over 3 MTCO2e for every resident of the Centre Region. At the 2009 price for Renewable Energy Certificates, the cost to offset all residential electricity emissions from fossil fuel would be $8,081,863, or $214.40 per household per year. On a monthly basis, the average household would spend $17.87 to offset their electricity emissions from fossil fuel.The purchase of wind energy credits to offset fossil fuel GHG emissions from residential electricity consumption would substantially reduce the GHG emissions of the Centre Region. An offset of all residential fossil fuel electricity would prevent 309,589 MTCO2e from being emitted and contributing to climate change. This number is equivalent to removing a municipality with the 2006 emissions of State College Borough and College Township. It is 37 percent lower than projected 2025 emissions, 26 percent below 2006 emissions, and 11 percent below 1990 emissions (Figure B-1).Table B01:Residential electricity generated by fossil fuels, annual2006266,869,064 kWh2025323,274,518 kWhNumber of housing units in the Centre Region200631,853202537,695Average fossil electricity use per housing unit20068,378 kWh20258,576 kWhRenewable Energy Certificates (100% wind)$0.025 / kWhAnnual cost to offset 2025 total residential fossil electricity$8,081,863Annual cost per housing unit$214.40Monthly cost per housing unit$17.87GHG emissions reduced2025309,589 MTCO2e37.2% below total 2025 emissions25.9% below total 2006 emissions11.5% below total 1990 emissionsFigure B01: Potential GHG emissions reduction from the purchase of wind energy credits. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download