From elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com Thu Apr 2 09:40:10 2009 From: elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com (Erin Lehner) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:40:10 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Purchased Electricity Emissions Factor for Puerto Rico Message-ID: Has anyone run across an appropriate factor to apply to purchased grid electricity in Puerto Rico? Erin Lehner ClearCarbon Consulting, Inc. 2000 N 14th Street, Suite 730 Arlington, VA 22201 (571)527-4195 www.clearcarbonconsulting.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090402/a9661ec1/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Thu Apr 2 12:43:14 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:43:14 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Purchased Electricity Emissions Factor for Puerto Rico References: Message-ID: I have not found any factors for Puerto Rico. I have used the factors for Hawaii instead. Both primarily use oil for electric generation. See http://www.prepa.com/aeees2.asp . AES Power has built a 454 MW coal-fired plant in PR so the Commonwealth's emission rate (MTCE/MWH) is probably a little higher than Hawaii. You can go to http://carma.org/company/detail/16390 and search on PREPA and AES for PR and compute a reasonable rate. Not sure how up to date the CARMA information is. But the EPA regional data is pretty dated (2005 as I recall) as well. Dennis M. O'Regan Liberty Environmental, Inc. 50 N. Fifth Street, 5th Floor Reading, PA 19601 Direct: (610) 463-3327 or (610) 375-9301, X-210 FAX: (610) 375-9302 ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Erin Lehner Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:40 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Purchased Electricity Emissions Factor for Puerto Rico Has anyone run across an appropriate factor to apply to purchased grid electricity in Puerto Rico? Erin Lehner ClearCarbon Consulting, Inc. 2000 N 14th Street, Suite 730 Arlington, VA 22201 (571)527-4195 www.clearcarbonconsulting.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090402/c2e5d2f4/attachment.html From sevans at cleanair.com Fri Apr 3 18:42:31 2009 From: sevans at cleanair.com (Scott Evans) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:42:31 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: <20090320181652.EA324C18072@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090320181652.EA324C18072@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Hello Sam, I would like to take issue with a few statements you made in your post regarding the use of tiers in the Draft TCR EPS Protocol. First, you state: ?the Registry?s use of tiers is not intended to constitute an absolute hierarchy of accuracy, but to provide transparency as to the quantification methodology that has been selected.? This statement is in direct conflict with Section 10 of the GRP, which is incorporated by reference into the EPS Protocol. In describing the tier approach, Section 10 states: ?In this system, ?Tier A? designates the preferred, or most accurate, approach for a given emissions source? (emphasis added) Furthermore, Section 10 states: ?You are always encouraged to use the most accurate methodology for each emissions source, namely the Tier A method.? Clearly, the tiered approach outlined in the TEC EPS is intended to establish an absolute hierarchy of accuracy. This is consistent with the use of Tiers in both EPA?s proposed reporting protocol and the EU- ETS protocol. Since the GRP clearly states that tier levels establish accuracy, it is certain that reporting entities and competent authorities reviewing data under the EPS Protocol will make that assumption. Furthermore, you state: ?the Registry is not suggesting the exact equivalence of both approaches in all scenarios, but simply that both approaches rely on measurement as opposed to the use of default values.? If we rely on this interpretation, are we to assume that all measurement approaches can be lumped into Tier A? Sticking my finger in the air is a measurement technique for determining air flow. Should this approach be allowed under Tier A? The precision and accuracy of the finger approach is unknown. So is the precision and accuracy of the EPS Protocol calculation approach. They are equally vague. If one simply lumps all measurement-based approaches into a single tier regardless of the quality of the underlying data, the entire tier system becomes meaningless. Rather than increasing transparency, it is decreased since data users have no idea of the reliability of reported data. All measurements are NOT created equal. Furthermore, the approach you suggest directly contradicts both EPA and EU-ETS protocols in which the Tier system is absolutely linked to the reliability of the data. Finally, you state: ?The Registry?s objectives are to encourage broad reporting of GHGs in an accurate and transparent way that is policy neutral.? I have already argued above that the TCR/EPS approach is neither accurate nor transparent. Let me now address the issue of its being ?policy neutral?. When you presented with data from two different measurement approaches and you make the decision that they even though they differ, they are equivalent ? that is a policy issue. Since there is no scientific rationale for making that decision, the only basis left is policy. If you make the statement in the protocol that calculation and measurement are equal, a competent authority who relies on that protocol is not going to tell reporters ?You must follow the TCR/EPS protocol except that?? they are simply going to require use of the protocol. YOU have already made the policy decision. You cannot duck that issue and pass it along to the States or the federal government. My purpose here is not to push CEMS but rather to ensure that there is no false sense of security regarding the reliability of data submitted to TCR. Best Regards, Scott --- Scott Evans Clean Air Engineering 500 W. Wood St. Palatine, Illinois 60041 847-654-4569 - voice 847-991-3385 - fax sevans at cleanair.com On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Sam Hitz wrote: > I would like to clarify the approach taken by The Climate Registry?s > draft Electric Power Sector Protocol. Similar to EPA?s proposed > reporting rule, the TCR protocol allows for the quantification of > CO2 emissions from electric generating units according to one of > four approaches, each designated by tier. Both the use of CEMS > (consistent with 40 CFR Part 75) and fuel based quantification that > relies on measured carbon content and measured fuel consumption are > designated as Tier A (Tier A1 and Tier A2 respectively). It is a > fair assumption that the majority of those units subject to the Acid > Rain Program that also choose to participate in a voluntary program > such as the Registry?s will do so using CO2 data as measured by > their CEMS units. Those that are not subject to the Acid Rain > Program have the option of reporting to the Registry using the fuel > based quantification option that relies on measured carbon content > and measured fuel consumption, and still stay within Tier > A. Tier B and C methodologies are based on the use of default > factors and are analogous to EPA?s Tiers 2 and 1. > > However, more importantly, the Registry?s use of tiers is not > intended to constitute an absolute hierarchy of accuracy, but to > provide transparency as to the quantification methodology that has > been selected. In designating CEMS based measurement and fuel based > quantification that uses measured carbon content as Tier A, the > Registry is not suggesting the exact equivalence of both approaches > in all scenarios, but simply that both approaches rely on > measurement as opposed to the use of default values. It is up to > policy makers to determine the fitness of a given approach for their > particular objectives. The Registry?s objectives are to encourage > broad reporting of GHGs in an accurate and transparent way that is > policy neutral. > > The draft Electric Power Sector Protocol is currently available for > public comment. The comment period ends April 3rd, 2009. Those > interested in reviewing the draft and/or providing comments can > download it and the accompanying comment template form at : http://www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/electric-power-sector-protocol.php > > Sam Hitz > > Senior Policy Advisor > The Climate Registry > 525 W. 6th Street, Suite 445 > Los Angeles CA 90014 > Tel. +1-213-891-1444 x129 > > sam at theclimateregistry.org > www.theclimateregistry.org > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090403/cf9d823a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3275 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090403/cf9d823a/attachment.gif From evg at enverity.com Tue Apr 7 12:37:36 2009 From: evg at enverity.com (Eric van Gestel) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Emission Factor List Message-ID: <20090407163736.79FF5C1806C@milkyway.forumone.com> I hope this email finds all well with you. I have a quick question: I???ve seen different emission factors for fuel types from different sources (The Climate Registry, CACP, etc.). I was wondering if you might able to recommend a good comprehensive source for accepted emission factors for fuel types (including Scope 3 emission sources such as airline travel, etc.)? Thanks for any help, and best regards, -- Eric From evg at enverity.com Tue Apr 7 20:17:35 2009 From: evg at enverity.com (Eric van Gestel) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Typical Refrigerants Message-ID: <20090408001735.860FCC18008@milkyway.forumone.com> I'm trying compile a list of the most commonly used refrigerants used in the marketplace. Does anyone know which make up such a list? Thanks! From evg at enverity.com Wed Apr 8 14:22:39 2009 From: evg at enverity.com (Eric van Gestel) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CH4 and N20 Mobile Source Emission Factors Message-ID: <20090408182239.5AD1DC1805E@milkyway.forumone.com> I hope this email finds all well with you. I have a question regarding Mobile Source CH4 and N20 emission factors: in all of the tables in the literature I???ve reviewed, the emission factors for CH4 and N2O are expressed as a function of miles driven, yet CO2 emission factors are expressed as a function of quantity of fuel burned. Does it make sense, and if so, Is there a table that includes CH4 and N2O emission factors as a function of fuel consumed? Thanks for any help! Best regards, -- Eric From mcgdds at mta.ca Tue Apr 7 17:21:18 2009 From: mcgdds at mta.ca (Mark Geddes) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Using slope and speed limit to calculate GHG emissions from cars Message-ID: <20090407212118.58D1FC1806C@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi there, My name is Mark Geddes and I'm currently enrolled in the GIS Advanced Diploma program at the Centre of Geographic Sciences in Lawrencetown, NS, Canada. I'm creating a web application for ArcGIS Server that calculates GHG emissions for a specific car, based on a route specified by a user. I want to incorporate slope/elevation and speed limits, as well as idling time (at stop lights/signs), into the equation to determine GHG emissions. I have data on average fuel consumption/100 km for most cars from 1995-2009. If anyone has information on these topics, I'd greatly appreciate it. Best, Mark From stephen.kenihan at iclei.org Thu Apr 9 09:03:47 2009 From: stephen.kenihan at iclei.org (Stephen Kenihan) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:03:47 +1000 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Using slope and speed limit to calculate GHG emissions from cars In-Reply-To: <20090407212118.58D1FC1806C@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090407212118.58D1FC1806C@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <15243.192.168.0.1.1239282227.squirrel@mail.mel.iclei.org> Hello Mark You might like to investigate TRAEMS (Transport planning add-on environmental modelling system), developed by Griffith University and used by Queensland Transport in Australia. It has input variables of gradient and speed but I'm not sure about idling time. The Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University, should be able to help. regards, Stephen Kenihan -- Consultant Technical Adviser ICLEI Oceania Secretariat 4/267 Collins Street Melbourne 3000 Victoria Australia On Wed, April 8, 2009 7:21 am, Mark Geddes wrote: > Hi there, > > My name is Mark Geddes and I'm currently enrolled in the GIS Advanced > Diploma program at the Centre of Geographic Sciences in Lawrencetown, NS, > Canada. I'm creating a web application for ArcGIS Server that calculates > GHG emissions for a specific car, based on a route specified by a user. > > I want to incorporate slope/elevation and speed limits, as well as idling > time (at stop lights/signs), into the equation to determine GHG emissions. > I have data on average fuel consumption/100 km for most cars from > 1995-2009. > > If anyone has information on these topics, I'd greatly appreciate it. > Best, > > Mark > From phubalan at hotmail.com Sun Apr 12 23:30:13 2009 From: phubalan at hotmail.com (phubalan karunakaran) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:30:13 +0000 Subject: [GHG Network] Request for information Message-ID: Dear All My name is Balan and I am a member of the GHG experts network. I am interested in pursuing my PhD in GHG emission inventory research, climate change treaty and negotiations and so forth. May I know which research institutions or universities that specialize in this form of research? Thanks & Regards, Balan _________________________________________________________________ Join the Fantasy Football club and win cash prizes here! http://fantasyfootball.malaysia.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090413/08a3b52e/attachment.html From philj at co2group.co.nz Mon Apr 13 16:44:51 2009 From: philj at co2group.co.nz (Phil Jones) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions Message-ID: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi, The subject of electric cars is prominent in the press and often described as 'emissions free', which is of course dependent on the source of the electricity. Does anyone know of good sources which compare emissions from electric cars (various electricity sources) and liquid fuels? Thanks, Phil From jking at mwcog.org Wed Apr 15 09:35:17 2009 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeffrey King) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:35:17 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions In-Reply-To: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: See attached. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Phil Jones Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:45 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions Hi, The subject of electric cars is prominent in the press and often described as 'emissions free', which is of course dependent on the source of the electricity. Does anyone know of good sources which compare emissions from electric cars (various electricity sources) and liquid fuels? Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Argonne_GM_study2005.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1372693 bytes Desc: Argonne_GM_study2005.pdf Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/b594406d/attachment-0001.obj From jking at mwcog.org Wed Apr 15 09:38:48 2009 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeffrey King) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions In-Reply-To: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: See attached. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Phil Jones Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:45 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions Hi, The subject of electric cars is prominent in the press and often described as 'emissions free', which is of course dependent on the source of the electricity. Does anyone know of good sources which compare emissions from electric cars (various electricity sources) and liquid fuels? Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Blumsack_2008_PHEVs.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 207901 bytes Desc: Blumsack_2008_PHEVs.pdf Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/742b4b60/attachment-0001.obj From ejackson at carbonlesspromise.com Wed Apr 15 10:54:17 2009 From: ejackson at carbonlesspromise.com (Eric Jackson) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:54:17 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] commercial freight tranportation Message-ID: <64FC2C30-810E-4C75-A73E-E31CFA46E9B7@carbonlesspromise.com> All-- We are looking for emission coefficients for commercial freight transportation project in the USA. We are specifically seeking rail, truck, and barge information. Mileage-based, mode-based, (truck) model- based, fuel-based. Any leads would be greatly appreciated. Eric Jackson ejackson at carbonlesspromise.com direct 612-790-3474 main 888-640-9848 Chief Executive Officer CP Holdings, LLC http://www.cpholdingsllc.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/ericjacksoncarbonlesspromise Carbon Management for the 21st Century P Good planets are hard to find. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/0a54695d/attachment.html From paul at carbonimpacts.co.uk Wed Apr 15 10:50:25 2009 From: paul at carbonimpacts.co.uk (paul at carbonimpacts.co.uk) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:50:25 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] carbon co-efficient for KWH electricity generation for the Bahamas please ? Message-ID: <16616898.2879521239807025163.JavaMail.servlet@kundenserver> Hi there, does anyone know the CO2e carbon co-efficient for KWH electricity generation for the Bahamas please ? best Paul. -- Paul Taylor Director Carbon Impacts Ltd. "A CDM Gold Standard approved supplier" 0207 788 7675 0787 634 7057 145-157 Johns Street, London. EC1V 4PY www.Carbonimpacts.co.uk This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding. From nicholas.berry at ecometrica.co.uk Wed Apr 15 11:27:40 2009 From: nicholas.berry at ecometrica.co.uk (Nicholas Berry) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] VCS - Unsanctioned deforestation in production forest Message-ID: <20090415152740.B2B32C18054@milkyway.forumone.com> Looking at the VCS guidelines for AFOLU projects it seems like its not possible to include unplanned deforestation or degradation in baseline scenarios for areas that are designated as production forest. Can anyone clarify if this is the case? Thanks! Nick From ARacoviceanu at wwfcanada.org Wed Apr 15 10:45:14 2009 From: ARacoviceanu at wwfcanada.org (Alina Racoviceanu) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:45:14 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions In-Reply-To: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090413204451.BA381C18074@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <49E5BD7A.6327.004C.0@wwfcanada.org> .. here is another paper on LCA of GHG from PHEV. http://sustainableresearch.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-research-life-cycle-assessment-of.html regards, alina >>> Phil Jones 4/13/2009 4:44 PM >>> Hi, The subject of electric cars is prominent in the press and often described as 'emissions free', which is of course dependent on the source of the electricity. Does anyone know of good sources which compare emissions from electric cars (various electricity sources) and liquid fuels? Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/675f0457/attachment.html From asmith at domani.com Wed Apr 15 16:29:12 2009 From: asmith at domani.com (Andy Smith) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:29:12 -0600 Subject: [GHG Network] Electricity emission factor for India Message-ID: Hello, Does anyone know why the electricity emission factor for India published by the International Energy Agency in this report ("CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion") and referenced by the GHG Protocol is significantly different than the published figures from India's Central Electric Authority (http://www.cea.nic.in/planning/c%20and%20e/Government%20of%20India%20we bsite.htm). The average EF for India from the IEA is approximately 0.943 t CO2/MWh in 2005, which is quite a bit higher than the 0.81 t CO2/MWh from the CEA. Weighted Average Emission Rate (tCO2/MWh) (incl. Imports) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 NEWNE 0.84 0.82 0.81 South 0.73 0.72 0.72 India 0.81 0.80 0.79 Also, which is the more accurate emission factor to use? Thanks! Andy ----------------------------------------------- Andrew Smith Project Engineer, CEM, LEED AP D O M A N I achieving sustainability 1660 17th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 303 232 0193 T 303 885 7609 C 303 232 0394 F www.domani.com asmith at domani.com P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and destroy the original and all copies of this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/d1cdbadb/attachment.html From jking at mwcog.org Wed Apr 15 16:51:44 2009 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeffrey King) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:51:44 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] commercial freight tranportation In-Reply-To: <64FC2C30-810E-4C75-A73E-E31CFA46E9B7@carbonlesspromise.com> References: <64FC2C30-810E-4C75-A73E-E31CFA46E9B7@carbonlesspromise.com> Message-ID: Check out EPA's Nonroad, MOVES, and Mobile6 Models. http://www.epa.gov/oms/nonrdmdl.htm http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/OMS/m6.htm ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Eric Jackson Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:54 AM To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] commercial freight tranportation All-- We are looking for emission coefficients for commercial freight transportation project in the USA. We are specifically seeking rail, truck, and barge information. Mileage-based, mode-based, (truck) model-based, fuel-based. Any leads would be greatly appreciated. Eric Jackson ejackson at carbonlesspromise.com direct 612-790-3474 main 888-640-9848 Chief Executive Officer CP Holdings, LLC http://www.cpholdingsllc.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/ericjacksoncarbonlesspromise Carbon Management for the 21st Century P Good planets are hard to find. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/eceba2dc/attachment.html From Karen.TREANTON at iea.org Thu Apr 16 02:31:41 2009 From: Karen.TREANTON at iea.org (TREANTON Karen, IEA/ESD3) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:31:41 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Electricity emission factor for India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mr. Smith, The numbers published by the IEA are ESTIMATES based on the energy balances published by the IEA and the default methods and emission factors from the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. The IEA calculates these estimates for more than 140 countries and regions. India's Central Electric Authority will presumably have had access to more detailed energy data, better NCVs and more specific emission factors. In addition, the coverage is probably not the same. We have included both main activity producer plants and autoproducer plants. In addition, the factor includes electricity only plants, combined heat and power plants and heat only plants (district heating). This is because countries often have trouble separating the inputs between the various categories of output. Presumably this would not have been a problem for CEA. For your purposes, the factors published by CEA are certainly more accurate. You should, however, find out what they have included just so that you can document what is included in the factor. Hope this helps. Regards. Karen Treanton Head of Energy Balances, Prices and Emissions Section Energy Statistics Division International Energy Agency 9 rue de la Federation 75739 Paris Cedex 15 France tel. (33 1) 40 57 66 33 fax. (33 1) 40 57 66 49 From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Andy Smith Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 22:29 To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Electricity emission factor for India Hello, Does anyone know why the electricity emission factor for India published by the International Energy Agency in this report ("CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion") and referenced by the GHG Protocol is significantly different than the published figures from India's Central Electric Authority (http://www.cea.nic.in/planning/c%20and%20e/Government%20of%20India%20we bsite.htm). The average EF for India from the IEA is approximately 0.943 t CO2/MWh in 2005, which is quite a bit higher than the 0.81 t CO2/MWh from the CEA. Weighted Average Emission Rate (tCO2/MWh) (incl. Imports) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 NEWNE 0.84 0.82 0.81 South 0.73 0.72 0.72 India 0.81 0.80 0.79 Also, which is the more accurate emission factor to use? Thanks! Andy ----------------------------------------------- Andrew Smith Project Engineer, CEM, LEED AP D O M A N I achieving sustainability 1660 17th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 303 232 0193 T 303 885 7609 C 303 232 0394 F www.domani.com asmith at domani.com P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and destroy the original and all copies of this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090416/03f2fb6e/attachment-0001.html From cmlopezca at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 06:19:09 2009 From: cmlopezca at yahoo.com (carlos lopez) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] I International Congress on Climate Change_Havana 6-10 July 2009 Message-ID: <830368.36732.qm@web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Dear colleagues: I am sending you information on the I International Congress on Climate Change that will take place in Havana (6-10 July 2009). and that includes the thematic of greenhouse gases. It can also be an opportunity to know the country and to enjoy their tourist and historical attractiveness. For more information visits the site http://www.cubaambiente.com. Warm regards, Carlos ------ Dr. Carlos L?pez Cabrera Institute of Meteorology Atmospheric Chemistry and Pollution Center Head Greenhouse Gas Team Loma de Casablanca, Regla Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba CP 11700, Habana 17 Telef: (537)8686410 Fax: (537) 8668010 E-mail: cmlopezca at yahoo.com carlos.lopez at insmet.cu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I International Congress on Climate Change Goal: Global warming and climate change are the most serious global threats and challenges facing mankind in this century. The evidence available from the results of measurements and models confirms that the climate system is undoubtedly being affected by warming and it is much likely to be due to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases arising from human activities. These changes are expected both to significantly disturb weather systems and climate and to have a major impact especially on society, economy and environment, but not only in developing countries,which are the most vulnerable. Also, they put additional pressure on a series of global problems facing mankind nowadays. Some of these changes have already appeared. This congress is intended to be a forum for discussion and analysis of results, learned lessons, gaps and challenges on the main issues and other related matters usually addressed when studying and assessing climate change and also when coping with it. Due to their strategic importance, this congress will pay special attention to the links existing between climate change and food security, water, human health, energy sustainability and other highly debated issues such as biofuel production. Besides, participants are encouraged to present papers and results on those topics about which there are gaps hindering the conduction of assessments, application of methods, etc., especially in tropical conditions and developing countries. As a global environmental problem brought about by irrational production and consumption practices, the congress will also encourage comprehensive approaches by addressing reciprocal relations of climate change and the other environmental problems and the ways to face them, as well as the essential goals and requirements for sustainable development. Topics: Understanding Climate Change: Exploring Risks and Uncertainties l Climate variability, extreme events and climate change l Changes detected and observed in the past and current climate l Planning the future climate: methods, tools and approaches Impacts and adaptation in different regions and sectors. Challenges and opportunities l Water as a limited and vulnerable transectoral resource l Coastal areas, primary production and ecosystem richness l Biodiversity and environmental fragility l Agriculture and silviculture, changes and necessary transformations l Human settlements and infrastructure in a changing context l Encouraging and protecting human health l Towards a comprehensive assessment approach Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals l Lessons and results from estimating greenhouse gas emission and removal, from developing methods and tools and from determining emission parameters in different sectors and under tropical climate conditions; l Methods to measure greenhouse gas emissions; l Uncertainty management in emission calculations. Mitigating Climate Change: Challenges and opportunities http://www.cubambiente.com/index.php?module=general5 (1 of 2)21/04/2009 1:42:55 CREATING AWARENESS TO SAVE THE PLANET ____________________________________________________________________________________ ?Obt?n la mejor experiencia en la web! Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8. http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1 From emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com Tue Apr 21 15:58:26 2009 From: emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com (Eric Mehlhoff) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Caribbean Nation Electricity Generation EF Message-ID: <20090421195826.59EB7C1806E@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Colleagues, I would like to build on Paul Taylor's post of 4/15 and see if anyone on the list has CO2 (or CO2, CH4, and N2O) emission factors for Caribbean Islands for electricity generation. I am interested in values for Caribbean nations as a whole or for the following: -Bahamas - Anguilla -Antigual -British Virgin Islands - US Virgin Islands - Bonaire -Bimini Bay -St. Maarten I look forward to any and all input on this matter. Sincerely, Eric Mehlhoff emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com S From hkrupinsky at ene.com Thu Apr 23 14:30:30 2009 From: hkrupinsky at ene.com (H. Dru Krupinsky) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Rail shipping GHG emissions factors? Message-ID: <20090423183030.DF2B9C1807B@milkyway.forumone.com> I am currently involved in an environmental analysis that requires an estimated emissions factor associated with shipping liquids via rail in the United States. Can anyone refer me to any available resources to inform this analysis? thanks, dru krupinsky GHG Specialist Ecology and Environment From andres.romero at co.pwc.com Wed Apr 22 17:24:56 2009 From: andres.romero at co.pwc.com (andres.romero at co.pwc.com) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:24:56 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Message-ID: Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources soon. Thanks in advance for your responses. Andres Romero _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090422/8015f8db/attachment.html From gyom2004 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 23 01:55:14 2009 From: gyom2004 at hotmail.com (Guillaume FABRE) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Accounting for evolution of grid EF Message-ID: <20090423055514.7E97FC18005@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi, How to account for the evolution of grid electricity emission factor throughout time? Today the grid EF in the U.S. is around 0.7kgCO2e/kWh. Are there accepted methodologies to predict what it will be in 10, 20, even 50 years? Thanks, Guillaume From sgonzale at inia.cl Fri Apr 24 15:29:25 2009 From: sgonzale at inia.cl (Sergio Gonzalez Martineaux - INIA La Platina.) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:29:25 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] C footprint in Chile References: <20090423055514.7E97FC18005@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <426359FEA55F4670B5207176ACA9062B@sgonzalezdt> Hello, everybody! At the Institute for Agricultural Research of Chile, we are starting a preliminary study to determine C footprint dteremination metjodology to be applied to our agricutural exports to Europe and USA. The main discussion we are having these days is where to draw the line (threshold line) for accounting indirect emissions. The main question is whether we should account for the GHG emissions due to raw material/input/good production and transport (specially if they are imported). For me these emissions do belong to another business, that is to say, to the life cycle of another product and we do have have to account as part of the life cycle of the agricultural products. Am I right? I would be very grateful to anybody providing me a sound suggestion to follow. Let me tell you that we are working based on the PAS-2050:2008 and the GHG-Protocol. Many thanks, in advance. Sergio Gonz?lez ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume FABRE" To: Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:55 AM Subject: [GHG Network] Accounting for evolution of grid EF > Hi, > > How to account for the evolution of grid electricity emission factor > throughout time? > > Today the grid EF in the U.S. is around 0.7kgCO2e/kWh. Are there accepted > methodologies to predict what it will be in 10, 20, even 50 years? > > Thanks, > > Guillaume > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > __________ Informaci?n de NOD32, revisi?n 4032 (20090424) __________ > > Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system > http://www.nod32.com > > From doregan at libertyenviro.com Sun Apr 26 14:17:47 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] C footprint in Chile Message-ID: <20090426181747.C44E3C1805E@milkyway.forumone.com> Sergio: For a life cycle analysis, it really does not matter who "owns" the emissions or environmental attributes being examined. If you are limiting the LCA to GHGs, that should be made very clear since there are other significant environmental factors (such as water pollution, SO2 emissions from electric generation, etc.) that are associated with agricultural production. Also, you should try to characterize GHG emissions as far up and downstream as you can, within reason. The more expansive your analyses are, the more credible and transparent the results will be. You will find it useful to examine LCAs done by others to see what they include and exclude and use your judgment to determine if they are credible and comprehensive. Warmest regards, Dennis From william.lau at sgs.com Sun Apr 26 23:58:03 2009 From: william.lau at sgs.com (William Lau) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CH4 GWP Message-ID: <20090427035803.69B09C18076@milkyway.forumone.com> I noted that PAS 2050 is using 4AR GWP and listed all GHG. 1. What is the latest trend on the GWP adoption, still SAR or 4AR? 2. Inlude all GHG or just Kyoto gases? 3. What is or are the GWP of NMVOC? 4. Is there any consensus on the GWP for NO2? From rdcormia at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 12:43:06 2009 From: rdcormia at earthlink.net (Robert D. Cormia) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:43:06 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: References: <003301c9c4f8$54cffc60$fe6ff520$@net> Message-ID: <002e01c9c757$3e3a7370$baaf5a50$@net> Andres, You approach is sound ? and I believe that is what PG&E is doing with ClimateSmart in California: http://www.joinclimatesmart.com/ The tricky part with forest management, as I?m sure you know, is that while we can measure / estimate the carbon gain into a sink from forestry, it has been much, much harder to estimate ./ measure the carbon loss from soil sinks, as when a tropical rain forest is destroyed. Those (latter) numbers are astronomical, but make sense ? to soil chemists. The goal of your effort is (qualitatively) more important than the numerical (quantitative) carbon gain (IMHO), EXCEPT when addressing your question. We should have some swag about how much carbon we are moving (in either direction) and over some period of time. -rdc Robert D. Cormia Faculty, Foothill College 650.747.1588 (home) 650.949.7456 (office) From: andres.romero at co.pwc.com [mailto:andres.romero at co.pwc.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:03 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Cc: kskog at tds.net; rdcormia at earthlink.net Subject: RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Thanks Robert and Ken for your responses. I know the issues sinks accounting could rise. Just to be clear about the scope of my question, I'm wondering if an organization (i.e. electricity generating company) who owns land and forest, manage them (well defined in space) to assure watershed health and reservoir operating levels includes them or not within a GHG inventory effort. They are material assets in other topics for the organization, why not for a GHG Inventory?. The protocols are there, as stated by Ken, but with a strong focus in LULUCF projects and none of them (the few I've read) gives guidelines about when to include them or not. Should this type of organization carry on a GHG inventory including sinks? Thanks again. Andr?s Romero "Robert D. Cormia" 24/04/2009 11:18 AM Please respond to To Andres Romero/CO/ABAS/PwC at SOACAT cc Subject RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Andres, Whiles soils and the ocean are the heavy lifter in removing CO2 from the atmosphere (actually ? cycling CO2 from the atmosphere) they vary so much over the surface of the planet that the range of values would be too wide to fit into the precision of a GHG inventory. On a macro scale ? your question is very germane to asking what happens if entire ecological systems / ecosystem services start to fail ? and sinks become sources. -rdc Robert D. Cormia Faculty, Foothill College 650.747.1588 (home) 650.949.7456 (office) From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of andres.romero at co.pwc.com Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:25 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources soon. Thanks in advance for your responses. Andres Romero _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090427/8545c6f7/attachment.html From andres.romero at co.pwc.com Mon Apr 27 12:02:54 2009 From: andres.romero at co.pwc.com (andres.romero at co.pwc.com) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:02:54 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: <003301c9c4f8$54cffc60$fe6ff520$@net> Message-ID: Thanks Robert and Ken for your responses. I know the issues sinks accounting could rise. Just to be clear about the scope of my question, I'm wondering if an organization (i.e. electricity generating company) who owns land and forest, manage them (well defined in space) to assure watershed health and reservoir operating levels includes them or not within a GHG inventory effort. They are material assets in other topics for the organization, why not for a GHG Inventory?. The protocols are there, as stated by Ken, but with a strong focus in LULUCF projects and none of them (the few I've read) gives guidelines about when to include them or not. Should this type of organization carry on a GHG inventory including sinks? Thanks again. Andr?s Romero "Robert D. Cormia" 24/04/2009 11:18 AM Please respond to To Andres Romero/CO/ABAS/PwC at SOACAT cc Subject RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Andres, Whiles soils and the ocean are the heavy lifter in removing CO2 from the atmosphere (actually ? cycling CO2 from the atmosphere) they vary so much over the surface of the planet that the range of values would be too wide to fit into the precision of a GHG inventory. On a macro scale ? your question is very germane to asking what happens if entire ecological systems / ecosystem services start to fail ? and sinks become sources. -rdc Robert D. Cormia Faculty, Foothill College 650.747.1588 (home) 650.949.7456 (office) From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of andres.romero at co.pwc.com Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:25 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources soon. Thanks in advance for your responses. Andres Romero _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090427/150f6b62/attachment.html From manish.salhotra at pechan.com Tue Apr 28 15:35:33 2009 From: manish.salhotra at pechan.com (Manish Salhotra) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] eGRIDweb Released Message-ID: <20090428193533.76B42C18063@milkyway.forumone.com> April 27, 2009. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. is pleased to announce that eGRIDweb version 1.0 was released today by the U.S. EPA. Pechan has developed this user friendly web application, which allows users to select, view, and export eGRID2007 electric generation and emissions data for years 2005 and 2004. eGRIDweb also includes downloadable eGRID subregion GHG output emission rates for calculating indirect CO2 emissions, summary tables, representational maps, and the recent EPA Emissions Inventory Conference paper, ???Total, Non-baseload, eGRID Subregion, State? Guidance on the Use of eGRID Output Emission Rates,??? and contact information at eGRIDweb at pechan.com. eGRID, or the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database, is a comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electric power generated in the United States. eGRID data, also developed by Pechan, include emissions and different types of emission rates for CO2, CH4, N2O, NOx, SO2, and Hg; electricity generation and resource mix; plant characteristics, identification, location, and updated industry structural information as of 2007; and State import-export and U.S. generation and consumption data. The plant level data, which include boiler and generator data, are aggregated to the company and various grid regions, as well as the state and total U.S. ??? all of which are displayed in eGRIDweb. The eGRIDweb application can be accessed from the eGRID website, http://www.epa.gov/egrid, or directly at http://cfpub.epa.gov/egridweb. An eGRIDweb Users Manual, with useful information and some screenshots highlighting the data and the application is available on the eGRID website. For further information, contact Dr. Susy Rothschild at susy.rothschild at pechan.com. From kbickel at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 14:51:59 2009 From: kbickel at gmail.com (Kathryn Bickel) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:51:59 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: References: <003301c9c4f8$54cffc60$fe6ff520$@net> Message-ID: <882654b20904281151p1bb8a076hff9cf5d8d61b4049@mail.gmail.com> Dear Andres and others, We will soon be offering a course on forest GHG inventory accounting at the GHG Management Institute. The course draws on existing GHG inventory guidelines to provide comprehensive and flexible instruction showing you specifically how to prepare a forest GHG inventory of emissions and removals. The course will help address issues like the one you are raising. Regarding your question, there are no international consensus methods on this topic to date. So, the decision to report on the GHG emissions and removals from land is largely up to the organization itself and depends on their overall objectives for preparing an inventory. There is some guidance on reporting on biologically sequestered carbon in the GHG Protocol. Essentially, the GHG Protocol requires reporting on direct CO2 emissions from biologically sequestered carbon (e.g., from burning biomass/biofuels), but separately from the other direct and indirect emissions sources. Reporting on biological sequestration (i.e., net removals) is optional, however. There are no specific guidelines for how to do this (some information is provided in Appendix B of the GHG Protocol). Our course aims to fill that gap. I hope this is helpful and that you will check out our course when it becomes available! Regards, Kathryn Bickel On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, wrote: > > Thanks Robert and Ken for your responses. > > I know the issues sinks accounting could rise. Just to be clear about the > scope of my question, I'm wondering if an organization (i.e. electricity > generating company) who owns land and forest, manage them (well defined in > space) to assure watershed health and reservoir operating levels includes > them or not within a GHG inventory effort. They are material assets in other > topics for the organization, why not for a GHG Inventory?. The protocols are > there, as stated by Ken, but with a strong focus in LULUCF projects and none > of them (the few I've read) gives guidelines about when to include them or > not. Should this type of organization carry on a GHG inventory including > sinks? > > Thanks again. > > Andr?s Romero > > > *"Robert D. Cormia" * > > 24/04/2009 11:18 AM > Please respond to > > > To > Andres Romero/CO/ABAS/PwC at SOACAT cc > Subject > RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks > > > > > Andres, > > Whiles soils and the ocean are the heavy lifter in removing CO2 from the > atmosphere (actually ? cycling CO2 from the atmosphere) they vary so much > over the surface of the planet that the range of values would be too wide to > fit into the precision of a GHG inventory. On a macro scale ? your question > is very germane to asking what happens if entire ecological systems / > ecosystem services start to fail ? and sinks become sources. > > -rdc > > Robert D. Cormia > Faculty, Foothill College > 650.747.1588 (home) > 650.949.7456 (office) > > > > *From:* discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: > discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] *On Behalf Of *andres.romero at co.pwc.com* > Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:25 PM* > To:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org* > Subject:* [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks > > > Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a > concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol > like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to > represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources > soon. > > Thanks in advance for your responses. > > Andres Romero > _________________________________________________________________ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any > computer. > > _________________________________________________________________ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any > computer. > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Kathryn A. Bickel Climate Change Consultant Office: (818) 779-7861 Mobile: (818) 667-6065 www.kathrynbickel.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090428/eeff3820/attachment-0001.html From jim.cline at cardinalhealth.com Tue Apr 28 12:30:24 2009 From: jim.cline at cardinalhealth.com (Jim) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Accounting CO2 emissions Message-ID: <20090428163024.B913CC1800C@milkyway.forumone.com> How would one account for CO2 from distribution operations (trucking), where our company has the original lease on the vehicles but then sublets the vehicles to a another company who has the responsibility of hiring the drivers and is responsible for the operations of the vehicles. They are distributing our products to our customers. Scope 3 or Scope 1? From Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca Wed Apr 29 08:45:15 2009 From: Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca (Pierre Boileau) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:45:15 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: <882654b20904281151p1bb8a076hff9cf5d8d61b4049@mail.gmail.com> References: <003301c9c4f8$54cffc60$fe6ff520$@net> <882654b20904281151p1bb8a076hff9cf5d8d61b4049@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E059E4B37@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org> Hello Kathryn, Andres, There is actually a significant body of knowledge on forest inventories available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html and http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html You can also find more information on how countries are compiling their forest GHG inventories in their National Inventories: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html and for Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/inventory_archi_e.cfm As with all reporting of sinks in national and corporate GHG inventories, these are reported separately from inventory emission totals. I hope these are helpful to you and would be included in any course given on forestry inventories. Regards Pierre ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn Bickel Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:52 PM To: andres.romero at co.pwc.com Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; kskog at tds.net Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Dear Andres and others, We will soon be offering a course on forest GHG inventory accounting at the GHG Management Institute. The course draws on existing GHG inventory guidelines to provide comprehensive and flexible instruction showing you specifically how to prepare a forest GHG inventory of emissions and removals. The course will help address issues like the one you are raising. Regarding your question, there are no international consensus methods on this topic to date. So, the decision to report on the GHG emissions and removals from land is largely up to the organization itself and depends on their overall objectives for preparing an inventory. There is some guidance on reporting on biologically sequestered carbon in the GHG Protocol. Essentially, the GHG Protocol requires reporting on direct CO2 emissions from biologically sequestered carbon (e.g., from burning biomass/biofuels), but separately from the other direct and indirect emissions sources. Reporting on biological sequestration (i.e., net removals) is optional, however. There are no specific guidelines for how to do this (some information is provided in Appendix B of the GHG Protocol). Our course aims to fill that gap. I hope this is helpful and that you will check out our course when it becomes available! Regards, Kathryn Bickel On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, wrote: Thanks Robert and Ken for your responses. I know the issues sinks accounting could rise. Just to be clear about the scope of my question, I'm wondering if an organization (i.e. electricity generating company) who owns land and forest, manage them (well defined in space) to assure watershed health and reservoir operating levels includes them or not within a GHG inventory effort. They are material assets in other topics for the organization, why not for a GHG Inventory?. The protocols are there, as stated by Ken, but with a strong focus in LULUCF projects and none of them (the few I've read) gives guidelines about when to include them or not. Should this type of organization carry on a GHG inventory including sinks? Thanks again. Andr?s Romero "Robert D. Cormia" 24/04/2009 11:18 AM Please respond to To Andres Romero/CO/ABAS/PwC at SOACAT cc Subject RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Andres, Whiles soils and the ocean are the heavy lifter in removing CO2 from the atmosphere (actually - cycling CO2 from the atmosphere) they vary so much over the surface of the planet that the range of values would be too wide to fit into the precision of a GHG inventory. On a macro scale - your question is very germane to asking what happens if entire ecological systems / ecosystem services start to fail - and sinks become sources. -rdc Robert D. Cormia Faculty, Foothill College 650.747.1588 (home) 650.949.7456 (office) From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of andres.romero at co.pwc.com Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:25 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources soon. Thanks in advance for your responses. Andres Romero _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Kathryn A. Bickel Climate Change Consultant Office: (818) 779-7861 Mobile: (818) 667-6065 www.kathrynbickel.com This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original message immediately. The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090429/ff456a61/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Wed Apr 29 10:16:22 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Accounting CO2 emissions Message-ID: <20090429141622.36B56C1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> Jim: I'd vote for Scope 1 since it appears that your company exercises control over the vehicles. From what you have offered, it appears that the other company (maintaining the fleet and hiring the drivers) is really acting as a contractor on your behalf. You could have shipped by a common carrier and exercised virtually no control over distribution, and in that circumstance it would clearly be Scope 3. Warmest regards, Dennis From smitha at landcareresearch.co.nz Wed Apr 29 08:51:51 2009 From: smitha at landcareresearch.co.nz (Ann Smith) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CH4 GWP Message-ID: <20090429125151.9E1B1C18067@milkyway.forumone.com> Ann Smith here from the carboNZero programme. We are trying to assist clients wishing to prepare PAS 2050 measurements. The requirement for 4AR causes problems as many of the government published emissions factors needed are based on SAR. In NZ, we try to include all GHGs however some of the international factors e.g. for freight - are only CO2. I can't answer your last two points - we would like to know this as well. Regards, Ann From smitha at landcareresearch.co.nz Wed Apr 29 08:50:06 2009 From: smitha at landcareresearch.co.nz (Ann Smith) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Accounting CO2 emissions Message-ID: <20090429125006.323DAC18067@milkyway.forumone.com> This is Ann Smith from the carboNZero programme in New Zealand. The answer to this depends on the type of lease and the consolidation approach chosen (equity share, financial control or operational control). Party A. From the viewpoint of the sub-lessee i.e. the company that is operating the vehicles i.e. maintaining them, purchasing the fuel, training and supervising the drivers, if the sub-lessee is preparing its inventory, then 1) If it is an operating lease, and operational control, it is their Scope 1. 2) If it is an operating lease, and financial control or equity share, and they choose to report their emissions, it is Scope 3 3) If it is a financial or capital lease, it is their Scope 1 regardless of the consolidation approach. Party B. From the viewpoint of the lessor i.e. the distribution company that is subleasing the vehicles, if the lessor is preparing its inventory, then 4) If it is an operating lease, and operational control, and they choose to report their emissions, it is Scope 3 5) If it is an operating lease, and financial control or equity share, it is their Scope 1 6) If it is a financial or capital lease, and they choose to report their emissions, then it is Scope 3 regardless of the consolidation approach. Your example is further complicated as there is clearly a third party that actually owns the vehicles and leases them to Party B. If you are Party B, if you choose to report under operational control, regardless of the fact that Party A is delivering your products to your customers, provided that it is an operational sub-lease, then it is your Scope 3. There are two other considerations here. Firstly, the nature of the GHG assertion you are making and secondly how your customers perceive what you are asserting. Hope this helps, Ann From kbickel at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 13:31:31 2009 From: kbickel at gmail.com (Kathryn Bickel) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:31:31 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E059E4B37@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org> References: <003301c9c4f8$54cffc60$fe6ff520$@net> <882654b20904281151p1bb8a076hff9cf5d8d61b4049@mail.gmail.com> <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E059E4B37@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org> Message-ID: <882654b20904291031u6f24d023q667ce8aec2ce3dbc@mail.gmail.com> Hello again, I?ve received a few inquiries about the forest GHG inventory course and thought it made sense to post more information to the entire list to help clarify. I am pleased to see such interest! See below for more details? - The course will be online, through the e-learning classes offered by the GHG Management Institute (http://www.ghginstitute.org/), so anyone can enroll and take it from anywhere. - The course provides guidelines for developing organizational-level forest GHG inventories, drawing on existing national-level GHG inventory guidelines developed by the IPCC, as well as general organizational GHG inventory guidelines (e.g., the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol), forest sector organizational-level reporting guidelines (e.g., from the California Climate Action Registry and US Voluntary GHG reporting program), and forest GHG project guidelines. - The content was developed to be flexible, so that organizations with forestland have the tools to meet a range of GHG reporting goals. - Instruction is provided to help you quantify GHG emissions/removals from forests almost anywhere on the globe. - To remain consistent with widely approved international standards, the course draws on the concepts, terminology, and structure of WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Hope to see you in the course! Regards, Kathryn -- Kathryn A. Bickel Climate Change Consultant Mobile: (818) 667-6065 www.kathrynbickel.com On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Pierre Boileau wrote: > Hello Kathryn, Andres, > > There is actually a significant body of knowledge on forest inventories > available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. > > http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html > > and > > http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html > > You can also find more information on how countries are compiling their > forest GHG inventories in their National Inventories: > > http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html > > and for Canada > > http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/inventory_archi_e.cfm > > As with all reporting of sinks in national and corporate GHG inventories, > these are reported separately from inventory emission totals. > > I hope these are helpful to you and would be included in any course given > on forestry inventories. > > Regards > > Pierre > > ------------------------------ > *From:* discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: > discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathryn Bickel > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:52 PM > *To:* andres.romero at co.pwc.com > *Cc:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org; kskog at tds.net > *Subject:* Re: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks > > Dear Andres and others, > > We will soon be offering a course on forest GHG inventory accounting at the > GHG Management Institute. The course draws on existing GHG inventory > guidelines to provide comprehensive and flexible instruction showing you > specifically how to prepare a forest GHG inventory of emissions and > removals. The course will help address issues like the one you are raising. > > Regarding your question, there are no international consensus methods on > this topic to date. So, the decision to report on the GHG emissions and > removals from land is largely up to the organization itself and depends on > their overall objectives for preparing an inventory. > > There is some guidance on reporting on biologically sequestered carbon in > the GHG Protocol. Essentially, the GHG Protocol requires reporting on > direct CO2 emissions from biologically sequestered carbon (e.g., from > burning biomass/biofuels), but separately from the other direct and indirect > emissions sources. Reporting on biological sequestration (i.e., net > removals) is optional, however. There are no specific guidelines for how to > do this (some information is provided in Appendix B of the GHG Protocol). > Our course aims to fill that gap. > > I hope this is helpful and that you will check out our course when it > becomes available! > > Regards, > Kathryn Bickel > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, wrote: > >> >> Thanks Robert and Ken for your responses. >> >> I know the issues sinks accounting could rise. Just to be clear about the >> scope of my question, I'm wondering if an organization (i.e. electricity >> generating company) who owns land and forest, manage them (well defined in >> space) to assure watershed health and reservoir operating levels includes >> them or not within a GHG inventory effort. They are material assets in other >> topics for the organization, why not for a GHG Inventory?. The protocols are >> there, as stated by Ken, but with a strong focus in LULUCF projects and none >> of them (the few I've read) gives guidelines about when to include them or >> not. Should this type of organization carry on a GHG inventory including >> sinks? >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Andr?s Romero >> >> >> *"Robert D. Cormia" * >> >> 24/04/2009 11:18 AM >> Please respond to >> >> >> To >> Andres Romero/CO/ABAS/PwC at SOACAT cc >> Subject >> RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks >> >> >> >> >> Andres, >> >> Whiles soils and the ocean are the heavy lifter in removing CO2 from the >> atmosphere (actually - cycling CO2 from the atmosphere) they vary so much >> over the surface of the planet that the range of values would be too wide to >> fit into the precision of a GHG inventory. On a macro scale - your question >> is very germane to asking what happens if entire ecological systems / >> ecosystem services start to fail - and sinks become sources. >> >> -rdc >> >> Robert D. Cormia >> Faculty, Foothill College >> 650.747.1588 (home) >> 650.949.7456 (office) >> >> >> >> *From:* discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: >> discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] *On Behalf Of *andres.romero at co.pwc.com* >> Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:25 PM* >> To:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org* >> Subject:* [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks >> >> >> Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a >> concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol >> like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to >> represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources >> soon. >> >> Thanks in advance for your responses. >> >> Andres Romero >> _________________________________________________________________ >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or >> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received >> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any >> computer. >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or >> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received >> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any >> computer. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >> www.ghgnetwork.org >> >> To post message: >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >> >> To unsubscribe: >> http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > -- > Kathryn A. Bickel > Climate Change Consultant > Office: (818) 779-7861 > Mobile: (818) 667-6065 > www.kathrynbickel.com > > This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering > the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify > the sender immediately by email and delete the original message immediately. > The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any > errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or > any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090429/16050bca/attachment.html