centre region greenhouse gas emissions inventory web viewcentre region greenhouse gas emissions ......

08

Peter D. Howe Edited by Brent Yarnal & Howard Greenberg

Centre Region Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Department of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State University

Centre Region Climate Change Action Plan: Phase I

This 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 16802

AuthorPeter D. Howe, doctoral student: [email protected]

EditorsDr. Brent Yarnal, Professor of Geography and Associate Head: [email protected] Howard Greenberg, Research Associate: [email protected]

2

mailto:[email protected]



Table of Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................21.01 Centre Region Climate Change Action Plan Project 21.02 Regional Profile 31.03 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change 51.04 Climate Change Impacts in the Centre Region 51.05 The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 7

2. Emissions Sources by Sector........................................................................................................102.01 Local Transportation 102.02 Electricity 132.03 On-site Fuels 162.04 Waste Management 202.05 Agriculture and Synthetic Chemicals 23

3. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................................263.01 The Centre Region 263.02 Municipalities 28

4. Emissions Over Time: Historical Estimates and Projections..........................................................314.01 Historical Estimates of GHG Emissions in 1990 314.02 Future Projections of GHG Emissions in 2025 314.03 Comparing Past, Current, and Future Emissions 32

5. Methodology..............................................................................................................................335.01 Population, housing, and businesses 335.02 Transportation 335.03 Electricity 355.04 On-site fuels 365.05 Waste management 385.06 Agriculture and synthetic chemicals 40

6. References..................................................................................................................................42

Appendix A: Emissions from Long-Distance Travel..............................................................................46Total Emissions Including Long-Distance Travel 46Components of the Long-Distance Travel Sector 47Methodology for Estimating Long-Distance Travel Emissions 49

Appendix B: Example Scenario—A Possible Option for Climate Change Action...................................50Scenario: Wind Energy Credits for Households 50

1. Introduction

1.01 Centre 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.

2

1.02 Regional ProfileThe 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.

Figure 1-1: The Centre Region

3

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 1-1-1: Demographic characteristics of the Centre RegionCollege Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Population (2006 est.) 9,003 16,207 2,939 4,686 12,799

39,992 85,626

Housing units (2006 est.) 3,730 6,760 925 1,959 5,925 12,554 31,853Urban housing units (2000) 2,890 4,237 0 1,210 4,337 12,488 25,162Rural housing units (2000) 323 1,462 802 645 637 0 3,869Per capita income (2007 $) 13,116 19,211Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001, 2006b

4

1.03 Greenhouse 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.

Human 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.

1.04 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 (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.

Figure 1-2: 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).

5

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.

Between 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:

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.

Figure 1-3: 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).

6

Shifting 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:

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.

1.05 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

Figure 1-4: Number of days in State College over 90 degrees F under scenarios of higher and lower GHG emissions (UCSUSA 2008, 14).

7

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

8

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 (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.

9

2. Emissions Sources by Sector

2.01 Local 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 municipalities1.

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.

(a) Emissions sourcesCollege Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Cars and light trucks 16,926 32,490 6,481 9,199 26,769 33,872 125,735Heavy trucks 2,311 4,437 885 1,256 3,655 4,625 17,169Transit vehicles 651 760 0 108 598 1,453 3,569Total 19,888 37,686 7,365 10,562 31,021 39,950 146,473

Transportation 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 2-2: 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). 1 Transportation emissions for vehicles traveling outside of the Centre Region are estimated in Appendix A: Long Distance Travel.

10

Figure 2-5: 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 2-6: Transportation emissions per capita in 2006

(b) Local 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

11

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 2-3: Mode of commute to work by workers age 16 and over (2000)College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Car or truck: Drove alone 3,079 5,193 1,034 1,798 4,419 6,024 21,547Car or truck: carpooled 437 1,018 111 216 843 1,145 3,770Public transportation 85 432 2 18 408 1,411 2,356Bicycle or walked 180 364 6 54 233 6,751 7,588Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001

Figure 2-7: Graph of travel mode for commute to work by workers age 16 and over (2000).

12

2.02 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.

(a) 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 2-4: Emissions within the electricity sector by consumer sector (MTCO2e)

College FergusonHalfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Residential 27,392 54,371 11,628 26,066 53,032 83,082 255,572Commercial, small industrial 18,189 32,962 4,509 9,551 28,893 61,215 155,318Large Industrial 0 240 0 0 0 0 240Street & area lighting 169 306 9 51 249 569 1,353Total 45,750 87,879 16,146 35,669 82,174 144,865 412,483

Emissions 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.

13

Figure 2-8: Electricity emissions by sector and municipality

On 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 2-9: Electricity emissions per capita in 2006

14

(b) Local characteristics

Figure 2-10: 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 (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 2-11: Electricity emissions by fossil fuel type.

15

2.03 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.

(a) 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 2-5: Emissions within the on-site fuels sector by fuel type (MTCO2e)

College FergusonHalfmoon Harris Patton

State College Centre Region

Natural gas 2,788 10,705 0 205 7,770 19,834 41,302Bottled, tank, or LP gas 576 1,033 590 444 473 2,751 5,868Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 11,859 14,605 3,333 7,778 6,938 20,611 65,124Coal or coke 157 327 336 209 259 97 1,385Total 15,380 26,670 4,259 8,636 15,440 43,293 113,678

By 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 2-6: On-site fuels emissions by consumer sectorCollege Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Residential 10,475 20,372 2,776 5,501 13,950 30,241 83,314Commercial & Industrial 4,904 6,299 1,483 3,136 1,490 13,052 30,364

Total 15,380 26,670 4,259 8,636 15,440 43,293 113,678

Figure 2-12: On-site fuels emissions by fuel type

Figure 2-13: Per capita on-site fuels emissions in 2006

(b) Local 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.

17

Table 2-7: Household heating fuel by number of housing unitsCollege Ferguson Halfmoo

nHarris Patton State College Centre Region

Natural gas 451 1,727 0 37 1,404 3,449 7,068Bottled, tank, or LP gas 55 104 56 46 55 289 605Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 976 1,332 272 671 765 1,986 6,002Coal or coke 41 90 86 59 82 28 386Electricity 1,460 2,078 305 827 2,425 6,167 13,262Wood 54 145 46 77 45 14 381Other fuel 32 18 4 25 7 57 143No fuel used 0 17 0 10 8 34 69Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001

Differences 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.

18

Figure 2-14: Household heating fuel by number of housing units

Figure 2-15: Combined graph of emissions for electricity and on-site fuels per housing unit

19

2.04 Waste 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 decomposition2. 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.

(a) 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 2-8: Emissions within the waste management sector (MTCO2e)

College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris PattonState College Centre Region

Solid waste 991 1,797 246 521 1,575 3,337 8,466Liquid waste 142 396 219 123 259 773 1,911Total 1,133 2,192 465 643 1,834 4,110 10,377

2 Waste incineration also produces GHG emissions, but no measurable quantities of waste in the Centre Region were disposed of using this method.

20

Figure 2-16: Waste management emissions by waste type

Of 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 2-17: Waste management emissions per capita in 2006

21

(b) Local 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.

22

2.05 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.

(a) 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 2-9: Emissions within the agriculture and synthetic chemicals sector (MTCO2E)College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Park and golf course fertilizer

33 3 0 55 57 59 208

Ag. fertilizer 116 1,419 477 269 267 0 2,548Ag. lime 59 719 242 136 135 0 1,291Ag. animals: cattle 719 8,775 2,951 1,662 1,650 0 15,757Ag. animals: other 78 948 319 179 178 0 1,702Total 1,005 11,864 3,989 2,301 2,288 59 21,506

Figure 2-18: 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 2-19: Agriculture and synthetic chemicals emissions per capita in 2006

(b) Local 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

24

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 2-10: Local characteristics contributing to agriculture and synthetic chemicals emissions


State College

Centre Region

Park lawn acreage fertilized 13.0 10.5 6.5 2.0 5.0 49.5 86.5Golf course acreage (estimate) 37.5 0.0 0.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 262.5Agricultural Security Area (ASA) acreage 1,304 15,918 5,353 3,014 2,993 0 28,582.0

Beef cattle (head) 48 581 196 110 109 0 1,044Milk cows (head) 152 1860 625 352 350 0 3,340Chickens: broilers (head) 25 311 104 59 58 0 558Chickens: layers (head) 79 968 326 183 182 0 1,739Chickens: pullets (head) 8 92 31 17 17 0 164Turkeys (head) 5 57 19 11 11 0 103Horses, mules, burros, and donkeys (head) 41 500 168 95 94 0

897

Swine (head) 73 893 300 169 168 0 1,604Sheep (head) 22 271 91 51 51 0 487Goats (head) 17 213 72 40 40 0 383

Nitrogen applied to parks & golf courses (lbs)

7,881 691 0 13,181 13,690 14,150 49,594

Nitrogen applied to farm fields (lbs)

27,694 294,534 27,694 294,534 27,694 294,534 966,683

Lime (lbs) 338,059 3,595,391 338,059 3,595,391 338,059 3,595,391 11,800,348Sources: PA DA 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009; USDA 2009; CRPR 2009

25

3. Total 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.

3.01 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 3-11: 2006 GHG emissions by sector in the Centre Region and municipalities (MTCO2e)College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Local transportation 19,888 37,686 7,365 10,562 31,021 39,950 146,473Electricity 45,757 87,887 16,158 35,682 82,183 144,872 412,539On-site fuels 15,380 26,670 4,259 8,636 15,440 43,293 113,678Waste management 1,133 2,192 465 643 1,834 4,110 10,377Agriculture & synthetic chemicals

1,005 11,864 3,989 2,301 2,288 59 21,506

Total 83,162 166,301 32,236 57,826 132,765 232,284 704,574

Figure 3-20: Total Centre Region emissions by source sector in 2006

State 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 3-21: Total 2006 GHG emissions within each Centre Region municipality

The 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)3.

Figure 3-22: Per capita emissions in 2006

3 These differences in per capita emissions mainly result from different levels of emissions within the transportation, electricity, and on-site fuels sectors (described in the previous section).

27

3.02 MunicipalitiesThis section presents charts of GHG emissions sources for each Centre Region

municipality. Total values can be found in Table 3-1, above.

(a) College Township

Figure 3-23

(b) Ferguson Township

Figure 3-24

(c) Halfmoon Township

Figure 3-25

(d) Harris Township

Figure 3-26

(e) Patton Township

Figure 3-27

29

(f) State College Borough

Figure 3-28

30

4. Emissions Over Time: Historical Estimates and Projections

4.01 Historical 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 4-12: Historical estimate of GHG emissions in 1990 (MTCO2e)College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Local transportation 16,036 23,593 3,994 10,181 26,177 42,059 122,040Electricity 34,580 51,518 8,190 32,178 64,928 142,990 334,383On-site fuels 11,461 15,416 2,129 7,680 12,028 42,136 90,849Waste management 746 1,061 141 474 1,243 3,596 7,262Agriculture & synthetic chemicals

1,329 20,523 7,980 2,575 2,908 58 35,372

Total 64,150 112,111 22,434 53,088 107,283 230,839 589,905

4.02 Future 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 4-13: Projection of GHG emissions in 2025 (MTCO2e)College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region


896 9,026 2,731 1,680 1,789 60 16,182

Total 93,231 210,478 43,458 78,996 170,369 235,124 831,656

4.03 Comparing 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 4-29: GHG emissions estimates for 1990, 2006, and 2025

32

5. Methodology

5.01 Population, housing, and businesses(a) Data sources

We 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 (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).

(b) 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.

5.02 Transportation(a) Data sources

Emissions 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).

(b) 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

33

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 (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 5-14: Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2006

College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris PattonState College

Centre Region

Cars and light trucks

41,875,735 80,383,894

16,033,500 22,758,224 66,228,304

83,802,544 311,082,202

Heavy trucks 1,596,005 3,063,662 611,083 867,382 2,524,152 3,193,957 11,856,240Transit vehicles

141,528 165,252 0 23,447 129,952 316,064 776,242

Source: PennDOT

CATA 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 (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 (Steuer 2004).

Formula

34

MTCO2E = (vehicle-miles * CO2 coefficient) + (vehicle-miles * CH4 coefficient) + (vehicle-miles * N2O coefficient)

Table 5-15: Emissions coefficients for the local transportation sectorCO2 CH4 N2O

Motor vehicles VMT 0.000393965 1.8125 x 10-6 8.40852 x 10-6

Heavy trucks VMT 0.001438754 1.57357 x 10-6 7.77665 x 10-6

Transit vehicles VMT 0.004264 0.000286 0.000048Source: EIIP 2003; CACP 2009

5.03 Electricity(a) Data sources

This 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 (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 (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.

(b) 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

35

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 (2004). Total emissions coefficients for each GHG were then multiplied by the electricity usage (kWh) across each municipality.

Formula

MTCO2E = (% 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 5-16: Emissions coefficients for the electricity sectorCO2 CH4 N2O

Coal (tons) 0.001 0.00000018 0.00000091Natural gas (MCF) 0.000476 0.0000002 0.0000026Fuel oil (barrels) 0.000847 0.00000017 0.0000011Other 0 0 0Source: Steuer 2004

5.04 On-site fuels(a) Data sources

The 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

36

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).

(b) 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).

Formula

37

MTCO2E = (fuel usage * CO2 coefficient) + (fuel usage * CH4 coefficient) + (fuel usage * N2O coefficient)

Table 5-17: Emissions coefficients for the on-site fuels sectorCO2 CH4 N2O

Natural gas (MCF)0.0545

0.000023

0.000302

Bottled, tank, or LP gas (barrels)0.2499

0.000095

0.00548

Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. (barrels)0.4224

0.000089

0.000584

Coal or coke (tons) 2.29 0.00040.00201

Source: Steuer 2004

5.05 Waste management(a) Data sources

Data 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 (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.

(b) 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 (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.

38

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 (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.

Formula

MTCO2E = (waste type * CO2 coefficient) + (waste type * CH4 coefficient) + (waste type * N2O coefficient)

Table 5-18: Emissions coefficients for the waste management sectorCO2 CH4 N2O

Solid waste (tons) 0 0.117 0Wastewater BOD, aerobic (tons) 0 0 0Wastewater BOD, anaerobic (tons) 0 0.48 0Wastewater (gallons) 0 0 5.05 x 10-7

Septic wastewater (gallons) 0 0.00000483 5.05 x 10-7

Source: EIIP 2003, Steuer 2004, CACP 2009

39

5.06 Agriculture and synthetic chemicals(a) Data sources

The 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 (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 (PA DA 2007b, 2007a, 2008). Data on amounts of fertilizer used on park lawns were obtained from Centre Region Parks and Recreation (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 (USDA 2009).

(b) 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 5-19: Emissions coefficients for the agriculture and synthetic chemicals sectorCO2 CH4 N2O

Nitrogen fertilizer (lbs) 0 0 0.004198Agricultural lime (lbs) 0.0002 0 0Beef cattle (head) 0 1.44 0.617Milk cows (head) 0 2.91 1.165Poultry, broilers (head) 0 0.000019 0.0029Poultry, layers & pullets (head) 0 0.00046 0.005Poultry, turkeys (head) 0 0.00009 0.0086Horses (head) 0 0.49 0.741Swine (head) 0 0.15 0.0367Sheep (head) 0 0.19 0.138Goats (head) 0 0.19 0.138Source: Steuer 2004

40

6. ReferencesBTS. 2006. America on the Go: Long Distance Transportation Patterns: Mode Choice.

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. http://www.bts.gov/publications/america_on_the_go/long_distance_transportation_patterns/.

BTS. 2004. National Transportation Statistics: Long-Distance Travel in the United States by Selected Traveler Characteristics: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html.

BTS. 2009. National Transportation Statistics: U.S. Passenger-Miles. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_37.html.

CACP. 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 Authority.

CCSWA. 2009. [insert title]. Bell: Centre County Solid Waste Authority.

CEI. 2009. Community Energy: Utility Provider, Allegheny Power. Community Energy, Inc. http://www.communityenergyinc.com/individuals/map-product-locator/wind-farm-utility-allegheny/ (last accessed 21 September 2009).

Centre County Government: Planning and Community Development Office. 2006. Building Permit Reports. Bellefonte, PA. http://www.co.centre.pa.us/planning/data.asp#permit.

COG. 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. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SPA_a.htm (last accessed 16 June 2009).

EIA. 2009b. Pennsylvania Number of Natural Gas Consumers. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_num_dcu_SPA_a.htm (last accessed 16 June

2009).

EIA. 2008. State Energy Data System Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2006. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_num_dcu_SPA_a.htm (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. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume08/index.html.

EPA. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

GCRP. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. New York: U.S. Global Change Research Program. www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts.

IPCC. 2007a. Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis". Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm.

IPCC. 2007b. Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group II, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm.

IPCC. 2007c. Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group III, "Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_report_mitigation_of_climate_change.htm.

Kearney, 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. http://www.puc.state.pa.us//PcDocs/665571.xls.

Leppo, 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. http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/lib/agriculture/farmlandfiles/ASA_Registered_Township_List.pdf.

43

PA 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. http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=141900.

PA DA. 2008. Pennsylvania Reported Liming Materials Consumption. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=141886.

PA DEP. 2009. Pennsylvania Landfill Methane Projects. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?A=1238&Q=463620#Shade.

PennDOT. 2007a. Pennsylvania Highway Statistics 2006. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdPlanRes.nsf/infoBPRHighwayStats2007Rpt (last accessed 8 June 2009).

PennDOT. 2007b. Pennsylvania Traffic Counts 2006. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MetadataDisplay.aspx?entry=PASDA&file=PaTraffic2007_01.xml&dataset=56 (last accessed 10 June 2009).

PJM Environmental Information Services. 2007. PJM Regional Average Disclosure Label for 2006. Norristown, PA: PJM Interconnection. http://www.dcpsc.org/pdf_files/customerchoice/RatesAndStatistics/pmjfuelmix2006.pdf.

Shortle, 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. http://factfinder.census.gov/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006b. 2005-2007 American Community Survey. Washington, DC. http://factfinder.census.gov/.

44

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2008 Population Estimates. Washington, DC. http://factfinder.census.gov/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1991. Census 1990: Summary Tape File 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_tabId=DEC2&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=271591302200 (last accessed 2 July 2009).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000: Summary file 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html (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. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/climate-change-pa.html.

UNFCC. 2009. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php (last accessed 22 September 2009).

USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/.

Wahl, 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. http://www.puc.state.pa.us//PcDocs/665571.xls.

45

Appendix 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 A-0-20: Greenhouse gas emissions, including estimated emissions from long-distance travel (MTCO2e)


State College

Centre Region


1,005 11,864 3,989 2,301 2,288 59 21,506

Long-distance travel 18,135 31,263 6,451 9,832 23,799 62,116 151,596

Total 83,162 166,301 32,236 57,826 132,765 232,284 856,170

Figure A-0-30: 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 A-0-21: Emissions within the long-distance travel sector (MTCO2e)College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton State College Centre Region

Air travel 9,785 16,579 3,586 5,392 12,365 30,074 77,781Bus & rail travel 201 340 74 111 254 617 1,596Passenger vehicle travel

8,149 14,344 2,792 4,329 l11,180 31,425 72,220

Total 18,135 31,263 6,451 9,832 23,799 62,116 151,596

47

Figure A-0-31: Long distance travel emissions by travel mode and municipality

Table A-22: Long distance travel passenger miles by mode.

College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris PattonState College

Centre Region

Air passenger-miles

12,601,817 21,351,725 4,618,254 6,943,791 15,925,118 38,732,773 100,173,479

Bus & rail passenger-miles

850,365 1,440,804 311,638 468,564 1,074,620 2,613,669 6,759,660

Passenger vehicle miles

20,162,647 35,488,376 6,907,567 10,711,637 27,660,440 77,749,106 178,679,773

48

Methodology for Estimating Long-Distance Travel Emissions(a) Data sources

Specific 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 (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).

(b) MethodsLong-distance travel is composed of trips that are more than 50 miles from home to

destination (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 vehicle4.

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 A-0-23: Emissions coefficients for the long-distance travel sectorCO2 CH4 N2O

Air passenger-miles 0.000773570 1.75199 x 10-7 2.71422 x 10-9

Rail passenger-miles 0.000188657 7.75595 x 10-8 9.60129 x 10-9

Bus passenger miles 0.000251748 3.28732 x 10-7 2.00829 x 10-9

Passenger vehicle passenger-miles 0.000393965 1.18125 x 10-6 8.40852 x 10-6

Source: CACP 2009

4 “Other” modes sampled by the NHTS, including ships and ferries, represent less than 0.5% of all trips and were not included in the inventory due to the lack of ship or ferry trips originating in the Centre Region.

49

Appendix B: Example Scenario—A Possible Option for Climate Change Action

This 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 Region5 (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 year6. 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 B-0-24:Residential electricity generated by fossil fuels, annual 2006 266,869,064 kWh

5 This scenario assumes the fuel mix for electricity transmitted over the PJM Interconnection remains at 2006 levels. This likely a conservative overestimate: the number also assumes a similar level of residential energy efficiency to that in 2006, with a slight increase in per-household electricity use.

6 The price for Renewable Energy Certificates would likely drop by 2025 as new wind farms are brought online.

50

2025 323,274,518 kWh

Number of housing units in the Centre Region 2006 31,8532025 37,695

Average fossil electricity use per housing unit 2006 8,378 kWh2025 8,576 kWh

Renewable 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 $17.87

GHG emissions reduced 2025

309,589 MTCO2e37.2% below total 2025 emissions25.9% below total 2006 emissions11.5% below total 1990 emissions

Figure B-0-32: Potential GHG emissions reduction from the purchase of wind energy credits.

51

centre region greenhouse gas emissions inventory web viewcentre region greenhouse gas emissions ......

Documents