Overall Rating | Silver |
---|---|
Overall Score | 50.13 |
Liaison | Ronnie Dorsnie |
Submission Date | April 25, 2023 |
John Abbott College
OP-1: Emissions Inventory and Disclosure
Status | Score | Responsible Party |
---|---|---|
2.08 / 3.00 |
Catherine
Scheer Manager - FMS Facilities Management Services |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Part 1. Greenhouse gas emissions inventory
Yes
A copy of the most recent GHG emissions inventory:
A brief description of the methodology and/or tool used to complete the GHG emissions inventory:
The College hired Ecometrica, a professional firm specializing in sustainability measurement and reporting, to provide a platform for data entry, to verify our inputs against source documents provided by the College and to calculate the carbon outcomes of our entries.
Ecometrica carries out the carbon footprint assessment in accordance with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute's (WBCSD/WRI) Greenhouse Gas Protocol; a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, including the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. This protocol is considered current best practice for corporate or organizational greenhouse gas emissions reporting. GHG emissions have been reported by the three WBCSD/WRI Scopes.
Ecometrica carries out the carbon footprint assessment in accordance with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute's (WBCSD/WRI) Greenhouse Gas Protocol; a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, including the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. This protocol is considered current best practice for corporate or organizational greenhouse gas emissions reporting. GHG emissions have been reported by the three WBCSD/WRI Scopes.
Has the GHG emissions inventory been validated internally by personnel who are independent of the GHG accounting and reporting process and/or verified by an independent, external third party?:
Yes
A brief description of the GHG inventory verification process:
Our agreement with Ecometrica included the guidance of a professional analyst throughout the data gathering and input process as well as data verification for quality assurance.
The Ecometrica web-based platform provided a database of emissions factors and a calculation engine that reduce user calculation errors and inconsistencies.
The Ecometrica web-based platform provided a database of emissions factors and a calculation engine that reduce user calculation errors and inconsistencies.
Documentation to support the GHG inventory verification process:
Scope 1 GHG emissions
Weight in MTCO2e | |
Stationary combustion | 1,286 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Other sources (mobile combustion, process emissions, fugitive emissions) | 18.40 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total gross Scope 1 GHG emissions, performance year:
1,304.40
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Scope 2 GHG emissions
Weight in MTCO2e | |
Imported electricity | 12.90 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Imported thermal energy | 0 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Total gross Scope 2 GHG emissions, performance year:
12.90
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
GHG emissions from biomass combustion
0
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Scope 3 GHG emissions
Yes or No | Weight in MTCO2e | |
Business travel | No | --- |
Commuting | Yes | 5,043 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Purchased goods and services | No | --- |
Capital goods | No | --- |
Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2 | No | --- |
Waste generated in operations | Yes | 148 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent |
Other sources | --- | --- |
Total Scope 3 GHG emissions, performance year:
5,191
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
A brief description of how the institution accounted for its Scope 3 emissions:
Annual commuting data was extrapolated from surveys of students and staff regarding their commuting behaviors during one week in the winter semester. The survey included questions designed to gather data on alternate modes of transport during warmer periods (spring and fall) as well. Survey data was separated between three groups - Day Students, Continuing Education Students and Staff - to preserve any distinct characteristics associated with each group thereby increasing the accuracy of the results. Kilometers travelled by each respondent were assigned based on respondents' stated postal codes in order to preserve any transportation modal selection characteristics that might be associated with distance travelled.
The participation rates for the largest group - Day Students - was approximately 26% (1913 respondents out of approximately 7496 students enrolled in credit courses).
Waste data was developed based on observed seasonal volumes at pick up and known pick up frequencies.
The participation rates for the largest group - Day Students - was approximately 26% (1913 respondents out of approximately 7496 students enrolled in credit courses).
Waste data was developed based on observed seasonal volumes at pick up and known pick up frequencies.
Part 2. Air pollutant emissions inventory
No
Annual weight of emissions for::
Weight of Emissions | |
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) | --- |
Sulfur oxides (SOx) | --- |
Carbon monoxide (CO) | --- |
Particulate matter (PM) | --- |
Ozone (O3) | --- |
Lead (Pb) | --- |
Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) | --- |
Ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs) | --- |
Other standard categories of air emissions identified in permits and/or regulations | --- |
Do the air pollutant emissions figures provided include the following sources?:
Yes or No | |
Major stationary sources | --- |
Area sources | --- |
Mobile sources | --- |
Commuting | --- |
Off-site electricity production | --- |
None
A brief description of the methodology(ies) the institution used to complete its air emissions inventory:
---
Optional Fields
12.90
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Gross Scope 2 GHG emissions from imported thermal energy (location-based) :
0
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
Website URL where information about the institution’s emissions inventories is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
---
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.