Carbon Footprint Analysis

CARBON
FOOTPRINT
ANALYSIS
Concepts, Methods,
Implementation, and Case Studies
Matthew John Franchetti

Defne Apul
CARBON
FOOTPRINT
ANALYSIS
Concepts, Methods,
Industrial Innovation Series
Series Editor
Adedeji B. Badiru
Department of Systems and Engineering Management
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) – Dayton, Ohio
PUBLISHED TITLES
Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case Studies,
Computational Economic Analysis for Engineering and Industry, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Olufemi A. Omitaomu
Conveyors: Applications, Selection, and Integration, Patrick M. McGuire
Global Engineering: Design, Decision Making, and Communication, Carlos Acosta, V. Jorge Leon,
Charles Conrad, and Cesar O. Malave
Handbook of Industrial Engineering Equations, Formulas, and Calculations, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Olufemi A. Omitaomu
Handbook of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Adedeji B. Badiru
Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering, Adedeji B.Badiru & Marlin U. Thomas
Industrial Control Systems: Mathematical and Statistical Models and Techniques, Adedeji B. Badiru,
Oye Ibidapo-Obe, & Babatunde J. Ayeni
Industrial Project Management: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques, Adedeji B. Badiru, Abidemi Badiru,
& Adetokunboh Badiru
Inventory Management: Non-Classical Views, Mohamad Y. Jaber
Kansei Engineering - 2 volume set
• Innovations of Kansei Engineering, Mitsuo Nagamachi & Anitawati Mohd Lokman
• Kansei/Affective Engineering, Mitsuo Nagamachi
Knowledge Discovery from Sensor Data, Auroop R. Ganguly, João Gama, Olufemi A. Omitaomu,
Mohamed Medhat Gaber, & Ranga Raju Vatsavai
Learning Curves: Theory, Models, and Applications, Mohamad Y. Jaber
Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, Lincoln Harding Forbes &
Syed M. Ahmed
Moving from Project Management to Project Leadership: A Practical Guide to Leading Groups,
R. Camper Bull
Project Management: Systems, Principles, and Applications, Adedeji B. Badiru
Quality Management in Construction Projects, Abdul Razzak Rumane
Social Responsibility: Failure Mode Effects and Analysis, Holly Alison Duckworth &
Rosemond Ann Moore
Statistical Techniques for Project Control, Adedeji B. Badiru & Tina Agustiady
STEP Project Management: Guide for Science, Technology, and Engineering Projects, Adedeji B. Badiru
Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century Problems, John Turner Boardman & Brian J. Sauser
Techonomics: The Theory of Industrial Evolution, H. Lee Martin
Triple C Model of Project Management: Communication, Cooperation, Coordination, Adedeji B. Badiru
FORTHCOMING TITLES
Essentials of Engineering Leadership and Innovation, Pamela McCauley-Bush & Lesia L. Crumpton-Young
Project Management: Systems, Principles, and Applications, Adedeji B. Badiru
Sustainability: Utilizing Lean Six Sigma Techniques, Tina Agustiady & Adedeji Badiru
Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Environmental Remediation Technology, Mark N. Goltz
CARBON
FOOTPRINT
ANALYSIS
Concepts, Methods,

Defne Apul
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2013 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20120501
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-5784-7 (eBook - PDF)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................xi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................... xiii
Author Biographies................................................................................................xv
Section I Why Carbon Footprint Analysis

and Reduction?
1 Definitions of Carbon Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts........3

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................3
1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis...................................................................6
1.3 Greenhouse Gases..................................................................................7
1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change.................. 8
1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon.................................9
1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints............. 14
1.7 Pollution Prevention............................................................................ 17
1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line....................................... 18
1.9 Acronyms..............................................................................................22
1.10 Units.......................................................................................................22
References........................................................................................................ 23
2 Benefits of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction and

Minimization................................................................................................. 25
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 25
2.2 Environmental Benefits....................................................................... 26
2.3 Economic Benefits................................................................................ 29
2.4 Corporate Image Benefits....................................................................30
2.5 Personal and Social Benefits............................................................... 31
References........................................................................................................ 31
3 Environmental Laws and Regulations...................................................... 33

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 33
3.2 The U.S. Clean Air Act........................................................................ 33
3.3 The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990................................................34
3.4 Energy Policy Act of 2005...................................................................34
3.5 American Clean Energy and Security Act....................................... 35
3.6 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.......................... 35
3.7 Kyoto Protocol...................................................................................... 35
References........................................................................................................ 36
v
vi Contents
Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods
4 Standards for Carbon Footprint Analysis................................................ 39

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 39
4.2 Product-Based Standards.................................................................... 39
4.3 Activity-Based Standards................................................................... 41
4.4 Iterative Carbon Management Steps.................................................43
References........................................................................................................ 45
5 GHG Protocol................................................................................................. 47
5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 47
5.2 GHG Protocol Overview..................................................................... 47
5.3 The GHG Protocol’s Overarching Principles................................... 50
5.4 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................ 50
5.5 Boundary Setting................................................................................. 57
5.6 Organizational Boundary Setting..................................................... 58
5.7 Operational Boundary Setting........................................................... 59
5.7.1 Scope 1 Emissions................................................................... 59
5.7.2 Scope 2 Emissions................................................................... 60
5.7.3 Scope 3 Emissions...................................................................63
5.8 Temporal Boundary Setting...............................................................64
References........................................................................................................64
6 Metrics and Performance Measurement for Carbon Footprint

Analyses.......................................................................................................... 67
6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 67
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Measurement......................................... 67
6.2.1 Absolute Measures................................................................. 68
6.2.2 Measures Indexed to Output................................................ 68
6.2.3 Measures Indexed to Input.................................................... 69
6.2.4 Measures Indexed to Throughput........................................ 69
6.2.5 Measures Indexed to Activity............................................... 69
6.3 Business and Financial Measurement.............................................. 69
6.4 Customer and Stakeholder Satisfaction Measurements................. 71
Reference.......................................................................................................... 73
7 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators Available on the Internet.... 75

7.1 Overview of Calculators and Comparisons..................................... 75
7.2 American Forests................................................................................. 75
7.3 Bonneville Environmental Foundation............................................77
7.4 Clearwater.............................................................................................77
7.5 The Conservation Fund....................................................................... 78
7.6 Green Mountain Energy..................................................................... 78
7.7 TerraPass............................................................................................... 78
Contents vii
7.8 The U.S. Department of Energy—Home Energy Saver.................. 79

7.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)............................ 79
8 Carbon Footprints of Some Entities.......................................................... 81

8.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 81
8.2 Carbon Footprint of Persons, Organizations, and Nations........... 81
8.3 Embedded Carbon of Products..........................................................84
References........................................................................................................ 86
Section III Systems Approach to Project Implementation
9 Introduction: The System Approach to Carbon Footprint and

Energy Reduction.......................................................................................... 89
10 The Six Sigma Systems Approach for Deployment............................... 93

10.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 93
10.2 Define Stage.......................................................................................... 95
10.3 Measure............................................................................................... 100
10.4 Analyze................................................................................................ 101
10.5 Improve............................................................................................... 101
10.6 Control................................................................................................. 102
10.7 Summary............................................................................................. 103
References...................................................................................................... 104
11 Deployment Alternatives........................................................................... 105

11.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 105
11.2 Choosing a Waste Minimization Provider or Partner.................. 107
11.3 Essential Elements of the Deployment Plan.................................. 108
12 Creating a Successful Project Launch..................................................... 111

12.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 111
12.2 Executive Leadership........................................................................ 111
12.3 Strategic Goals.................................................................................... 112
12.4 Resources............................................................................................. 114
12.5 Metrics................................................................................................. 117
12.6 Culture................................................................................................. 118
12.7 Communications................................................................................ 118
12.8 Lessons Learned................................................................................. 119
12.9 Summary............................................................................................. 121
Reference........................................................................................................ 121
13 The General Approach to Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analyses.... 123

13.1 Introduction to the Systems Approach Framework...................... 123
13.2 Establish the Team and Define the Project (Step 1)....................... 124
viii Contents
13.2.1 Upper-Management Support.............................................. 126

13.2.2 The Project Team................................................................... 126
13.2.3 Initial Training and Introductory Meeting....................... 127
13.2.4 Project Goals and Metrics.................................................... 128
13.2.5 Team Charter......................................................................... 128
13.2.6 Project Timeline.................................................................... 129
13.2.7 Project Budget........................................................................ 129
13.3 Existing Records Review (Step 2).................................................... 131
13.4 Process Mapping and Production Analysis (Step 3)..................... 136
13.5 On-Site Data Collection (Step 4)....................................................... 142
13.5.1 Preparation for On-Site Data Collection............................ 142
13.5.2 Assessment Guide................................................................ 147
13.6 Data Analysis (Step 5)....................................................................... 148
13.7 Identify Minimization Opportunities (Step 6).............................. 149
13.8 Determine, Evaluate, and Select Alternatives (Step 7)................. 152
13.8.1 Generating Alternatives....................................................... 152
13.8.2 Common Minimization Alternatives................................ 156
13.8.3 Screening Alternatives......................................................... 157
13.8.4 Analyzing and Selecting Alternatives............................... 160
13.8.4.1 Case Study Discussion—Evaluating and
Selecting Alternatives.......................................... 169
13.9 Documentation and the Deployment Plan (Step 8)....................... 179
13.9.1 Overview of the Deployment Plan..................................... 179
13.9.2 Obtaining Funding............................................................... 180
13.9.3 Contents of the Documentation and Deployment Plan.... 181
13.9.3.1 Cover Sheet........................................................... 181
13.9.3.2 Overview............................................................... 182
13.9.3.3 Assessment Findings and Recommendations.... 182
13.9.3.4 Assumptions, Dependencies, and
Constraints............................................................ 182
13.9.3.5 Operational Readiness........................................ 182
13.9.3.6 Timeline for Implementation............................. 182
13.9.3.7 Training and Documentation............................. 183
13.9.3.8 Notification of Deployment................................ 183
13.9.3.9 Operations and Maintenance Plans.................. 183
13.9.3.10 Contingency Plan................................................. 183
13.9.3.11 Appendices........................................................... 184
13.10 Implementation and Execution (Step 9).......................................... 184
13.11 Validate the Program versus Goals (Step 10)................................. 185
13.12 Monitor and Continually Improve Performance (Step 11)........... 186
14 Employee Training...................................................................................... 189

14.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 189
14.2 Strategy................................................................................................ 189
14.3 Agendas for Training........................................................................ 191
Contents ix
Section IV Case Studies

15 Higher Education Carbon Management................................................. 195
15.1 Organizations and Programs That Encourage and Support
Carbon Footprint Analysis and Management............................... 195
15.2 Case Study of the University of Toledo........................................... 201
15.2.1 Background and Acknowledgments................................. 201
15.2.2 Using Wiki Technology to Facilitate Communication.... 202
15.2.3 Project Process....................................................................... 203
15.2.4 Project Boundaries and Raw Data...................................... 207
15.2.5 Emissions Summary............................................................. 212
15.2.6 Emissions Projections........................................................... 212
15.2.7 Scope 1 Reduction Strategies............................................... 213
15.2.10 Carbon Offsets...................................................................... 216
15.2.11 Education............................................................................... 217
References...................................................................................................... 217
16 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Manufacturing...................... 219

16.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 219
16.2 Methodology....................................................................................... 220
16.3 Data Analysis...................................................................................... 220
16.3.1 Offices..................................................................................... 220
16.3.2 Entryway................................................................................ 221
16.3.3 Kitchenette.............................................................................222
16.3.4 Manufacturing......................................................................222
16.3.5 Other Areas...........................................................................223
16.4 Cost Savings Opportunities/Recommendations.......................... 223
16.4.1 Offices.....................................................................................223
16.4.2 Entryway................................................................................225
16.4.3 Kitchenette............................................................................. 226
16.4.4 Manufacturing...................................................................... 226
16.4.5 Other Areas........................................................................... 227
16.5 Recommendations and Summary................................................... 227
17 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Health Care............................ 231

17.1 Introduction and Background.......................................................... 231
17.2 Methodology....................................................................................... 231
17.3 Lighting Results................................................................................. 232
17.4 Lighting Recommendations.............................................................234
17.4.1 Lighting Sensors on the Exterior of the Parking
Structure.................................................................................234
17.4.2 LED Tube Retrofits for the F40T12 Bulbs...........................234
17.4.3 LED Retrofits for Exit Signs................................................. 235
x Contents
17.5 Economic Analysis of Lighting Recommendations...................... 235

17.6 Environmental Impact...................................................................... 239
17.7 Other Areas for Energy Reduction.................................................. 241
References...................................................................................................... 242
18 Energy Analysis in Minimization in Construction and

Manufacturing............................................................................................. 243
18.1 Background......................................................................................... 243
18.2 Methodology....................................................................................... 243
18.3 Data Analysis...................................................................................... 244
18.3.1 Machine Shop........................................................................ 244
18.3.2 Warehouse............................................................................. 244
18.3.3 Office....................................................................................... 244
18.4 Cost-Saving Opportunities............................................................... 245
18.4.1 The Machine Shop................................................................ 245
18.4.2 Warehouse............................................................................. 246
18.4.3 Office Area............................................................................. 246
18.4.4 Other Areas........................................................................... 246
18.5 Recommendations and Summary................................................... 247
Preface
The negative impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human

activities are dramatically reshaping the environmental, political, and social
landscape. Numerous research reports have linked these emissions to global
warming, pollution, violent weather patterns, and species extinction. To mit-
igate these negative impacts, governments around the world have passed
legislation to measure and reduce carbon emissions, most notably, the Kyoto
Treaty. Many governmental, private and nonprofit organizations, local move-
ments, and individuals understand that climate change is one of the most
pressing sustainability problems of our generation. They have been track-
ing their GHG emissions and have begun taking steps toward adapting to
a world that is marked with energy and climate crises. These developments
iterate the importance and need to properly measure and reduce energy and
GHG emissions.
While the topic is timely and urgent and somewhat haphazardly prac-
ticed, the relevant content and skill set for carbon footprint management
has been published in bits and pieces in a wide range of papers, reports, and
standards. It is difficult for an individual or an organization to understand
how the different kinds of technical information and practices fit together
toward reducing their carbon footprint. Lack of a reference book on carbon
management also became a problem for us in the classes we teach. Both of
us teach sustainability-related engineering courses and wished there was a
comprehensive technical book on carbon management that we could share
with our students. We hope to have overcome these issues with the writing
of this book.
Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case Studies
provides up-to-date technical information and practical guidance on mea-
suring and reducing energy and GHG emissions. It is a reference book for
both individuals and organizations aiming to reduce their carbon footprints.
This book provides a comprehensive framework for carbon management
and is separated into four parts:
• Section I provides definitions, concepts, benefits, and background

information regarding carbon footprint analyses.
• Section II discusses the GHG accounting methods.
• Section III provides the general systems framework for conducting
an audit.
• Section IV features four case studies in higher education, service,
and manufacturing organizations.
xi
xii Preface
Some sections of the book have detailed discussions on the concepts,

whereas others introduce the concepts and explain how the different
concepts fit together. Each chapter has a list of references that readers can
consult for further learning. For instructors considering adopting this book,
we are compiling a separate reference document filled with active learning
exercises related to book content. These exercises will be posted on our web-
sites when available.
We are confident and excited that this book will help individuals and orga-
nizations in their efforts to reduce their carbon footprints and begin adapt-
ing to a carbon-constrained world. We hope readers will enjoy learning and
practicing carbon footprint analysis.
Matt Franchetti and Defne Apul

Acknowledgments
Defne Apul thanks all her colleagues and students who have shared a
vision for climate action and worked together in various local sustainabil-
ity projects. University of Toledo Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 sustainability
engineering students are especially acknowledged for paving the way for
analyzing carbon footprint of institutions as part of a class project. Their
hard work is presented in Chapter 15.
Acknowledgments also go to her son, Derin Apul, who has been the inspi-
ration for all sustainability learning and actions that she has taken since
he’s been born. Finally, a special thanks to her husband, Tolga Apul, for his
patience and support without which this book would not have come to be.
Matthew Franchetti would like to thank the Lucas County Board of

Commissioners and the Lucas County Solid Waste Management District for
their continued support of sustainability research in Northwest Ohio. The
research funding provided by these groups made the case studies and prac-
tical results possible.
In addition, Matthew Franchetti would like to acknowledge his wife, Laura,
and children, Jack and Kate, for their support and inspiration during the
development of this book.
xiii
Author Biographies
Dr. Matthew Franchetti is an assistant professor of Mechanical, Industrial,

and Manufacturing Engineering and the director of Undergraduate Studies
of the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Programs at the University of
Toledo. He also is the director of the Environmentally Conscious Design
and Manufacturing Laboratory and principal investigator of the Business
Waste Reduction Assistance Program, a joint effort with the Lucas County
Solid Waste Management District, a research group that has assisted more
than 100 companies in various sustainability assessments. Dr. Franchetti
received his PhD in 2003 and his MBA in 2000 from the University of
Toledo. He has worked as an industrial engineer and technical manager
for the U.S. Postal Service and has extensive consulting experience in the
automotive industry. Dr. Franchetti is Certified Six-Sigma Black Belt from
the American Society of Quality (ASQ) and has consulting and research
experience with more than 25 companies across the country. He has pub-
lished more than 60 books, articles, and conference proceedings in the field
of sustainability.
Dr. Defne Apul is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at the

University of Toledo. She received her PhD from the University of New
Hampshire in 2004 and joined the University of Toledo shortly after.
Dr. Apul’s expertise is in environmental engineering with a focus on sus-
tainability engineering. Her prior research has spanned a wide variety of
topics from recycled material use in road construction to surface water qual-
ity, geochemical modeling, and risk assessment. Her research focus and pub-
lications in the most recent years have been on life cycle assessment and
ecological design principles related to infrastructure issues. Dr. Apul devel-
oped and currently teaches the sustainability engineering and life cycle
engineering classes at the University of Toledo.
xv
Section I
Why Carbon Footprint

Analysis and Reduction?
1
Definitions of Carbon Footprint
Analysis and Related Concepts
1.1 Introduction
According to the world-recognized business and environmental author Paul
Hawken, “Sustainability is about stabilizing the currently disruptive rela-
tionship between Earth’s two most complex systems—human culture and
the living world” (Hawken 2008). Sustainability strives to align human prog-
ress and the Earth’s ecological system so that both are operating in harmony
and in a synergistic manner that does not deteriorate or destroy the other.
Perhaps today’s largest and most dramatic misalignment between human
progress and the Earth’s ecological system is the humans’ impact on the cli-
mate. While many other environmental problems exist, climate change and
its associated implications on Earth rise in temperature is one of the most
pressing sustainability issues of our generation.
The perils of climate change have received increased worldwide atten-
tion since the early 1990s via respected scientists and high-profile advocates,
including former U.S. vice president Al Gore. As the Earth’s average tempera-
ture rises, many scientists predict and are already observing rising sea levels,
an increasing number and intensity of violent hurricanes, mass flooding, and
long periods of drought accompanied by higher extinction rates of species
and a decrease in the worldwide food supply. Scientists have attributed the
climate change phenomena to increased energy and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), associated with human activity. At
the center of these human activities is the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., for such
things as gasoline-powered automobiles, electricity generated from coal, and
other fossil fuel-burning activities) and various industrial/manufacturing
processes that emit GHGs.
The public is still largely unaware of the climate change science and issues.
Several activist and educational websites do an excellent job of summarizing
the information and engaging the public; they are worth exploring for both
the novice and advanced reader. For example, the Climate Communication
website (http://climatecommunication.org/) “publicizes and illuminates the
3
4 Carbon Footprint Analysis
latest climate research in plain language, making the science more accessible
to the public and policy makers.” It has separate data- and science-based
sections on what is happening to our climate, how it will affect us, and what
we can do. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also have
science-based educational websites on climate change with specific links for
the public, kids, or educators (e.g., http://climate.nasa.gov/; http://epa.gov/
climatechange/). The nonprofit organization Post Carbon Institute (http://
www.postcarbon.org/) aims to aid the transition to a world in which our
civilization no longer depends on hydrocarbon fuels, and no longer emits
climate-changing levels of carbon into the atmosphere.
Two websites with very simple messages have been especially effective in
educating and engaging the public with condensed and simple ideas. For
example, the CO2Now website (http://co2now.org/) makes it easy to see the
most current CO2 level and its implications. At the writing of this book, in
September 2011, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 389.00 parts per
million (ppm), up from 384.79 ppm and 386.80 ppm in Septembers of 2009
and 2010, respectively. A second website, the 350 website (http://www.350.
org) aims to build a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. It
explains in the simplest terms how the preindustrial CO2 concentration was
275 ppm, how it has been rising at about 2 ppm every year, and how the most
recent science suggests that we need to bring it down to at least 350 ppm to
achieve a safe and relatively stable planet Earth. The 350 ppm target comes
from Hansen et al.’s (2008) seminal paper, which noted that “if humanity
wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed
and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing
climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current
385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.” Unfortunately, the
atmospheric CO2 concentration has been above 350 ppm since 1988, and
the necessary political effort to bring it down to the 350 level was still miss-
ing at the writing of this book.
The level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is important for our civiliza-
tion because it determines the extent of adverse impacts on Earth’s systems.
In 2005, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 379 ppm, and the increase in
Earth’s temperature was 0.74°C above preindustrial levels (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007). The sea level is expected to rise 0.4 to
3.7 m for CO2 concentrations up to 790 ppm, and temperature is expected
to rise up to 6.1°C above preindustrial levels (IPCC 2007). This rise in sea
level will have catastrophic results on the 70% of the world’s population that
reside in coastal areas. For global average temperatures rising above 3.5°C
from preindustrial levels, model projections suggest significant extinctions
(40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe (IPCC 2007). The upper safe
limit for avoiding serious economic and ecological threats was determined
to be 2°C (IPCC 2007).
Definitions of Carbon Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts 5
Climate change is often linked to and discussed in the context of energy

use because the climate and energy are inseparable issues. On one hand is
the rising of atmospheric GHG concentrations primarily due to burning of
fossil fuels. On the other hand, there is the issue of peaking of fossil fuels.
Within the lifetime of today’s generation, fossil fuel’s availability is expected
to decline to a point that will cause major energy crises. Therefore reducing
fossil fuel use is beneficial in managing and adapting to both the climate
change and the energy crises problems.
Adapting to a world that does not rely on fossil fuels is now a priority
effort for many organizations. This motivation comes from both the environ-
mental problems with burning of fossil fuels as well as the limited supply of
fossil fuels that are estimated to peak or have peaked in the twenty-first cen-
tury. The scientific explanation for this peaking and reduction of fossil fuel
supplies in today’s and future generations comes from the Hubbert peak the-
ory proposed by American geophysicist King Hubbert. Hubbert peak theory
has been most commonly applied to and discussed in the context of peak oil,
but it also applies to other fossil fuels such as peak natural gas and peak coal,
since all fossil fuels are limited in supply and nonrenewable within the time
frame of the human civilization. Sometimes the phrase “post carbon” is used
to refer to a world that does not rely on fossil fuels and to promote the cur-
rent transition to such a world. The Post Carbon Institute has popularized
the use of the phrase “post carbon.”
Action related to climate change and adaptation efforts to a postcarbon
world are already apparent in all aspects of our society. These actions are
often tied to larger sustainability initiatives. For example, local food move-
ments and buy-local campaigns aim to promote local economy, and while
doing so they also promote strategies that are typically less reliant on fos-
sil fuels and extensive uses of energy. Reduced transportation distances for
foods and goods reduce the fossil fuel demand. Similarly, local food systems
are often less dependent on fossil fuel-derived pesticides.
At the international level, to mitigate the negative impacts of climate
change, governments around the world have passed legislation to mea-
sure and reduce carbon emissions, most notably the Kyoto Treaty and the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. These events iterate the
importance and need to properly measure and reduce energy and GHG
emissions. While addressing climate change is likely to be one of the most
important tasks of our generation, and there exist many resources on climate
science, a systems perspective on how to measure and manage the GHG
emissions, especially for organizations, has been missing in the literature.
This book addresses this issue by presenting information compiled from
various resources and from the authors’ own experience in this matter.
Many analytical models have been developed to help companies achieve
the goal of energy and GHG reduction. One such method, the systems
approach, is presented in this book. This method has been applied to over
20 companies and has achieved demonstrated environmental and economic

results. The model hinges on the business maxim “If you can’t measure it,
you can’t manage it.” The purpose of the model is to quantify energy and
GHG emissions and achieve the following goals:
• Identify important sources of emissions and prioritize areas of emis-

sion reductions and increasing efficiencies.
• Begin adapting to a postcarbon world by reducing GHGs and the
organization’s reliance on energy and fossil fuels.
• Increase business competitiveness through reduced energy costs
and optimized use of raw materials.
• Improve corporate image as companies become more green.
• Reduce pollution through reduced energy usage, and the application
of clean and renewable energy sources.
The primary goal of this type of work is to empower companies and orga-
nizations to reduce environmental impact and operating costs by limiting
the amount of energy used and GHGs emitted for their operations. This
includes minimizing GHG emissions, energy consumption, transportation
and storage, reducing environmental fees, and limiting pollution to improve
the quality of the environment. Many organizations are able to increase
profit by reducing energy costs, raw-material purchases, and other operating
costs. However, many companies do not have the capability to perform an
energy and carbon footprint analysis evaluation due to time constraints and
lack of knowledge in the field.
This book provides a detailed framework and reference material for energy
and carbon footprint analysis and reduction. In this chapter, we discuss the
terms, definitions, and concepts related to carbon footprint analysis. In the
environmental field, people often have differing expectations upon hearing
many of the common terms. To compound the problem, finding universal
definitions for these terms can be challenging, as many companies and gov-
ernment agencies create their own designations, often using combinations
of technical and operational components. This next section discusses these
key terms and definitions as they relate to the topics covered in this book.
1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis

First and foremost, it is important to define carbon footprint analysis. Carbon
footprint analysis is the measurement of GHG-emitting processes, their ori-
gins, and their composition and amounts. The GHG sinks and removal rates
should also be included in a carbon footprint analysis to determine the “net”

emission rates. In general, the phrase “carbon footprint” is typically loosely
used to indicate the extent of GHG emissions resulting from a person’s or
an organization’s activities. It is also possible to estimate the carbon foot-
prints of nations, events, products, or services. The phrase “carbon footprint
analysis” is synonymous with the phrase “greenhouse gas inventory.” The
word carbon is used because CO2 is the predominant GHG being emitted
from humans’ actions. Yet other GHG emissions, including methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O), also have significant contributions to global warm-
ing. So as to have one unit for reporting results, emissions from these other
gases are normalized to the mass of CO2, and the carbon footprint results
are reported as mass of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) (e.g., kg of CO2e or metric
tons of CO2e).
Many people use energy footprint and carbon footprint phrases inter-
changeably, since most of a person’s, product’s, or organization’s emissions
come from fossil fuel-based energy use. The phrase “carbon footprint” is
therefore often associated with GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuel-
based energy. However, technically this is incorrect since fossil fuels are not
the only sources of GHGs. Depending on the characteristics of the organiza-
tion or product, other sources such as industrial processes, agriculture, land
use, land-use change, forestry, and waste may be relevant in inventorying
greenhouse gases and calculating the carbon footprint.
Carbon footprint analysis is often accomplished through an audit or
assessment procedure. This involves tracking and quantification of data
and possibly a walk-through of the facility if relevant. Energy and carbon
footprint reduction is the process of reducing energy and GHG emissions
through energy reduction, process/equipment changes, and the reallocation
of resources. From a corporate perspective, the energy and carbon footprint
audit typically involves:
• Researching the company’s process and overall energy and GHG

generation
• Designing recommendations to maximize process efficiency and
reduce energy and GHG emissions and energy costs
• Giving to the companies a detailed reference list of vendors that
complement the recommendations
1.3 Greenhouse Gases
GHGs are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within
the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the
greenhouse effect and the warming of the Earth. The primary energy emis-
sions and GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O
(laughing gas), and ozone. All these GHGs are found naturally on Earth. In
carbon footprint analysis, typically six types of gases included in the Kyoto
Protocol are accounted for: CO2, CH4, N2O, and other anthropogenic gases
such as sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocar-
bons (PFCs).
1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change

It is interesting to note that the concept of global warming has become popu-
lar in the past couple of decades but has been around for more than a century.
A Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius is credited as the first person to
hypothesize (he did so in 1896) that human activity and the resulting fossil
fuel combustion may result in increased global warming (American Institute
of Physics 2011). He argued that a relationship existed between atmospheric
CO2 concentrations and temperature. Limited mainstream attention was
paid to the issue until the 1980s when scientists observed the annual mean
temperature of Earth begin to rise. The curve increased to such a high degree
that the global warming theory began to gain traction. In 1988, the United
Nations and the World Meteorological Organization formed the IPCC to
study the impact of the greenhouse effect (Climate Change Challenge 2011).
Over 2000 experts serve on the IPCC in a wide variety of fields and back-
grounds. The IPCC is considered the leading organization regarding GHG
emissions and global warming, and the group releases periodic climate
change reports.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth’s near-
surface air and oceans since the mid-t wentieth century and its projected
continuation (Universal Green Society 2011). The Earth’s average surface tem-
perature was about 14.5°C in 2006 (IPCC 2007). This temperature is a com-
bined estimate from land and sea surfaces. For example, in the last century
(from 1901 to 2000) the global mean annual surface temperature estimates
were 8.5°C for land surface, 16.1°C for sea surface, and 13.9°C for land and
sea surface combined (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-
National Climatic Data Center [NOAA-NCDC] 2011). The combined surface
temperature has been increasing since the preindustrial times, although
land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (IPCC 2007).
IPCC is the world’s leading authority on climate change science. IPCC
reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical, and socioeco-
nomic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of
climate change. IPCC’s assessment reports are the most widely used and
cited resources on climate change. IPCC published its First Assessment
Report (FAR), Second Assessment Report (SAR), Third Assessment Report

(TAR), and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007,
respectively. In AR4, IPCC noted that the global surface temperature rise
over the 100-year period from 1906 through 2005 was 0.74 ± 0.18°C (IPCC
2007). According to AR4, for the last 50 years the linear warming trend
has been 0.13°C (0.10 to 0.16°C) per decade (IPCC 2007). Eleven of the last
12 years (1995–2006) ranked among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental
record of global surface temperature (since 1850) (IPCC 2007). More recently,
researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) reported
that the global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on
record (NASA GISS 2011). Most of the observed temperature increase since
the middle of the twentieth century has been caused by increasing concen-
trations of GHGs, which result from human activity such as the burning of
fossil fuel and deforestation.
Global warming is a concern, but the increasing temperatures by them-
selves are not the primary reason for the concern from global warming.
Global warming changes Earth’s climate, which then adversely affects Earth’s
physical (e.g., freshwater availability, sea level), chemical (e.g., ocean pH), and
biological (species adaptation) systems irreversibly and away from param-
eters upon which our current civilization relies. Therefore it is the effect of
global warming on Earth’s systems and these systems’ effect on our civili-
zation that are of concern. For this reason, climate change or global change are
more appropriate terms for understanding and addressing the problem than
the term global warming. GHGs cause global warming, and global warming
causes climate change, which then causes global change. Global warming
refers to the increase in Earth’s surface temperatures. Climate change refers
to the change in Earth’s climate due to these increased temperatures. These
changes include, among others, changes in precipitation patterns, freshwater
availability, glacier and sea ice amount, ecosystem health, and biodiversity.
Global change is the most encompassing term and refers to global change of
all kinds, some of which are due to climate change (e.g., sea levels, ocean pH,
biodiversity) and others to effects such as population, globalization, econ-
omy, and pollution.
1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon

A life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life cycle analysis, eco-balance,
and cradle-to-grave analysis) is the investigation and evaluation of the envi-
ronmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessitated by
its existence (Oakleaf Intelligent Waste Management 2011). The purpose of
LCA is to evaluate a product or service based on the environmental dam-
ages that may be associated with its production, use, and disposal so that the
Raw material
extraction
Impacts Impacts
Material
End of life
processing
Impacts
Life Cycle
Impacts
Assessment
Impacts Impacts
Production/
Use Manufacturing/
Assembly
Impacts Impacts
Impacts
FIGURE 1.1
Life cycle assessment concept showing product life cycle phases and associated impacts
including impacts from transportation.
least harmful option can be determined. LCA is a method to account for the
impact and effects of the technological chains responsible for the production
and use of goods and services.
A schematic of the LCA approach is shown in Figure 1.1. The term life cycle
refers to the notion that a fair, holistic assessment requires the assessment
of raw-material production, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal
including all intervening transportation steps necessary to or caused by the
product’s existence (Greenlabs 2011). The sum of all those steps—or phases—
is the life cycle of the product. The assessment of this life cycle provides a
comprehensive approach to understanding the impact of the product. The
LCA concept can be used to optimize the environmental performance of a
single product (eco-design) or to optimize the environmental performance of
a company (Greenlabs 2011).
Analysis of many different environmental impacts is possible in LCA
(Table 1.1). Environmental impacts may be assessed at midpoint level
TABLE 1.1
Life Cycle Environmental, Social, and Economic Impact Types
Environmental Impacts Social Impacts Economic Impacts
Climate change Human rights Labor costs
Resource depletion Working conditions Material costs
Land use Health and safety
Water use Cultural heritage
Biodiversity Governance
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Human toxicity
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
(e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) or end-point level (e.g.,

human health, natural resources) (Bare and Gloria 2006). In addition, social
and economic impacts can now be incorporated into the LCA framework
using social LCA (SLCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) frameworks.
Most recently, life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) has emerged as the
primary sustainability tool with its consideration of all three pillars of sus-
tainability (economic, social, and environmental) (Guinee et al. 2011; United
Nations Environmental Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry [UNEP/SETAC] Life Cycle Initiative 2011). Many different types
of life cycle sustainability impacts can be considered (Table 1.1). The carbon
footprint analysis is only a measure of the climate change impact, whereas
the other environmental, social, and economic impacts may be relevant and
important for decision making on a given problem or analysis.
There are many uncertainties in methods used to estimate the impacts
used in life cycle studies. Yet due to the presence of more developed sci-
ence and databases, perhaps the impact that can be estimated with least
uncertainty is the global warming potential, which is a measure of the GHG
emissions. In the global warming potential impact category, emissions from
different GHGs are normalized to the equivalence of CO2 and expressed as
mass (metric tons or pounds) of CO2 equivalence. Global warming poten-
tial is likely the most popular life cycle impact category analyzed in most
recent years.
By its use of the global warming potential impact category, LCA pro-
vides an important methodological framework for carbon footprint studies.
However, we emphasize again that carbon footprint analysis is only one of
the outcomes of a more comprehensive LCA (Table 1.1). LCA is designed to
analyze all relevant impact categories. Analyzing just the global warming
implications may provide a limited perspective of the problem and may
result in “shifting of burdens.” In other words, for a given product, ser-

vice, or activity the environmental impacts typically involve not just global
warming but also other types of impacts such as eutrophication, acidifica-
tion, human toxicity, terrestrial toxicity, or land use, among others. A more
informed decision can be made if all relevant environmental impacts are
quantified. Focusing only on carbon footprint analysis at the expense of not
evaluating other impacts may provide a limited perspective and, as stated
previously, result in shifting the burden, for example, from global warming
to eutrophication. While this book is on carbon footprint analysis, the read-
ers are cautioned on the limitation of making decisions based just on carbon
footprint data. More thorough and balanced decisions can be made if all
relevant environmental impacts are analyzed.
LCA methodology was developed for analysis of products or services, but
theoretically, the LCA framework can be used to estimate the carbon foot-
print of any entity such as a person, industry, organization, community, or
nation. When LCA and the global warming impact category are used for
products, and the analysis excludes the operation and end-of-life phases,
sometimes the term carbon footprint may be replaced with embedded carbon.
Embedded carbon is a measure of the sum of GHG emissions that have hap-
pened at each step from mining the raw material to producing intermedi-
ate materials and finally the ultimate product. Similarly, the term embedded
energy of a product indicates the sum of all energy used in making the product.
While the LCA approach can theoretically be applied to pretty much
anything (e.g., organization, industry, or community), it has been primar-
ily developed for and applied to analysis of products or services. There are
two reasons for this. First, LCA tracks emissions from all life cycle phases of
the entity of interest. For products, it is fairly simple to identify what the
life cycle phases are, and once these phases are determined, the emissions
from them can be quantified. However, for persons, organizations, com-
panies, or communities, the life cycle phases are too long and too variable,
and are therefore impossible or irrelevant to determine. Second, LCA tracks
direct emissions, indirect emissions from electricity, and other indirect emis-
sions from upstream and downstream processes. Indirect emissions from
upstream and downstream processes are very difficult to accurately quan-
tify. As the entity being studied gets more complex (as in organizations and
industries), it becomes almost impossible to quantify these indirect emissions
because the entity would have too many of them to be tracked. These emis-
sions can be more easily quantified and modeled for products or services
whose boundaries and interactions with other entities are better understood.
Where the LCA framework becomes irrelevant or cannot be easily applied
to estimate the carbon footprint of a person, company, or an organization,
a narrower scope approach can be used that measures not all the life cycle
phases but just the emissions for a given period, typically for one year.
Therefore, the carbon footprint of a company refers to its annual emissions
from its operations. The GHG Protocol is the primary methodology used in
such measurements. In such studies direct emissions and indirect emissions
from electricity use are always tracked. Measurement of indirect upstream
and downstream emissions is optional. The relationship between LCA and
the GHG Protocol is further discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
LCA is a fairly new but booming scientific field. LCA concepts date back
to the 1960s and 1970s when the first studies on product comparisons were
made. Some popular comparisons of the time were paper (disposable) ver-
sus cotton (washable) baby diapers; glass versus carton versus plastic milk
packaging; and comparison of nine types of beverage containers made
from glass, plastic, aluminum, or steel (Guinee et al. 2011). In the 1990s,
LCA became popular worldwide and its methods were standardized by
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and SETAC. In
the 2000s, LCA methods were developed further. In addition LCA stud-
ies became ever more abundant. This can be seen from a simple keyword
search in Web of Knowledge, which is one of the most extensive and popular
research database for academic journal, conference proceeding, and website
content. A search in Web of Knowledge using the keywords life cycle assess-
ment shows that the number of articles on this topic is increasing every year
and has increased from about 200 in 1995 to 1300 in 2010 (Figure 1.2). While
this simple keyword search might have captured some articles not related to
LCA (e.g., articles on life cycles of organisms), the increasing trend is due
to the booming of LCA literature.
1400
1200
Number of articles from “life cycle
assessment” keyword search
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
FIGURE 1.2
Number of published LCA-related articles in content covered by Web of Knowledge.
1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints

The footprint concept has been applied to the use of three other globally
relevant resources: water, nitrogen, and ecosystems. Developers and lead-
ers of each of these concepts have designed websites to educate the public
and allow them to calculate their individual water footprint (http://www.
waterfootprint.org), nitrogen footprint (N-Print Calculator 2011), or ecologi-
cal footprint (http://www.footprintnetwork.org).
The nitrogen and water footprint concepts are similar to the energy footprint
concept. They are indicators for indirect and direct use of an environmental
indicator, in this case reactive nitrogen and freshwater, respectively. The water
footprint concept and its importance are relatively easy to understand because
freshwater water quantity and quality issues are abundant in the news and
people have a general understanding of their water needs. The water footprint
concept provides a quantitative metric to enhance this understanding.
In contrast to the abundance of popular news on carbon and water foot-
prints, the knowledge and discussion of the nitrogen footprint has been
fairly limited, and the public is largely oblivious of the relevance and impor-
tance of the nitrogen footprint concept. The nitrogen footprint is a quanti-
tative metric used to better understand humans’ disruption of the global
nitrogen cycle. The disruption of the global nitrogen cycle is due to humans’
extensive conversion of unreactive nitrogen (N2) to more reactive forms of
nitrogen (e.g., N2O, nitrate [NO3–], nitrite [NO2–], ammonia [NH3], and
ammonium [NH4+]). This conversion has had adverse impacts on human
and ecosystem health. Before industrialization, human creation of reactive
nitrogen and the dispersal of this reactive nitrogen to the environment were
insignificant. Between 1860 and the early 1990s, reactive nitrogen creation
by anthropogenic processes increased by 10-fold (15 to 156 Tg reactive N per
year) (Galloway et al. 2004) from burning of fossil fuels, biological nitrogen
fixation in human-cultivated land, and conversion of atmospheric, nonreac-
tive N2 to ammonia fertilizer using the Haber-Bosch process.
The Haber-Bosch process has made the lives of half of humanity possible
by increasing food production (Erisman et al. 2008); however, it also had
major impacts on the nitrogen cycle by increasing N2O concentrations in air
and NO3– concentrations in soil and water. These increased concentrations
then cause major environmental problems, such as worsening the green-
house effect, reducing the protective ozone layer, adding to smog, contribut-
ing to acid rain, and contaminating drinking water. The National Academy
of Engineers has identified managing the global nitrogen cycle as one of the
14 grand challenges of engineering. The nitrogen footprint concept and asso-
ciated tool is an important step toward better managing the global nitrogen
cycle and addressing this grand challenge.
The interpretation of the ecological footprint is slightly different from
that of water, carbon, energy, or nitrogen footprints. While the former are
expressed in terms of the quantity of water, carbon, energy, or nitrogen, the

ecological footprint is expressed in terms of global hectares. Ecological foot-
print is a measure of humanity’s demand from nature and measures how
much biologically productive land and water an individual, population, or
activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the
carbon dioxide emissions it generates (http://www.footprintnetwork.org). In
2007, the ecological footprint of Earth (2.7 global hectares per capita) was 1.5
times more than Earth’s biocapacity (1.8 global hectares per capita) suggest-
ing that 1.5 planet Earths are needed to sustain human’s current demands
from nature. Since more is being demanded than what the Earth can pro-
vide, we are currently in an ecological deficit (of 0.9 global hectares per capita
[2.7 – 1.8 = 0.9]). This imbalance is referred to as overshoot and indicates that
we are depleting Earth’s life-supporting natural capital by demanding more
than what the Earth can annually provide.
The per capita carbon, nitrogen, ecological, and water footprints for the
United States and the world are shown in Table 1.2. Since the nitrogen foot-
print calculator is currently in development, the world per capita nitrogen
footprint was unavailable at the time of writing this book. For carbon, water,
and ecological footprints, the U.S. per capita footprints are higher than the
world per capita footprints.
One can imagine that the footprint concept can be expanded to other envi-
ronmental problems. For example, Rockstrom et al. (2009) identified the safe
operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system. They set
boundaries for nine Earth-system processes; climate change, rate of biodi-
versity loss, nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, stratospheric ozone depletion,
ocean acidification, global freshwater use, change in land use, atmospheric
aerosol loading, and chemical pollution (Table 1.3). Of these nine Earth sys-
tems, the boundaries of climate change, biodiversity loss, and nitrogen cycle
have been crossed and there now exist footprint calculators for each one of
TABLE 1.2
Annual per Capita Carbon, Nitrogen, Water, and Ecological Footprints of a U.S.
and a World Resident
U.S. World
Resident Resident
Footprint Type Units Footprint Footprint Data Source
Carbon footprint Kg CO2e equivalence 24.5 5.6 Baumert, Herzog,
per year per capita and Pershing
(2005)
Water footprint M3 of water per year 2842 1385 Mekonnen and
per capita Hoekstra (2011)
Nitrogen footprint Kg reactive nitrogen 41.4 Unavailable Leach et al. (2011)
per year per capita
Ecological footprint Global hectares per 8.0 2.7 Global Footprint
of consumption capita per year Network (2010)
TABLE 1.3
Planetary Boundaries Identified by Rockstrom et al. (2009)
Earth System Proposed Current Preindustrial
Process Parameters Boundary Status Value
Climate change (i) Atmospheric 350 387 280
concentration (parts per
million by volume)
(ii) Change in radiative 1 1.5 0
forcing (watts per meter
squared)
Rate of biodiversity Extinction rate (number of 10 >100 0.1–1
loss species per million species
per year)
Nitrogen cycle (part Amount of N2 removed 35 121 0
of boundary with from the atmosphere for
the phosphorus human use (millions of
cycle) tonnes per year)
Phosphorus cycle Quantity of P flowing into 11 8.5–9.5 –1
(part of boundary the oceans (millions of
with the nitrogen tonnes per year)
cycle)
Stratospheric ozone Concentration of ozone 276 283 290
depletion (Dobson unit)
Ocean acidification Global mean saturation state 2.75 2.90 3.44
of aragonite in surface sea
water
Global freshwater Consumption of freshwater 4000 2600 415
use by humans (km3 per year)
Change in land use Percentage of global land 15 11.7 Low
cover converted to
cropland
Atmospheric aerosol Overall particulate concen To be determined
loading tration in the atmosphere,
on a regional basis
Chemical pollution Emission rates, To be determined
concentrations or Earth
system effects of persistent
organic pollutants,
plastics, endocrine
disruptors, heavy metals,
and nuclear waste
Note: For processes shaded in gray, the boundaries have been crossed.
these problems. Although ecological footprint is not a direct measure of bio-

diversity, it has been adopted by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as
a biodiversity indicator because it provides an indicator of the pressure on
ecosystems and biodiversity by measuring the competing level of ecological
demand that humans place upon the biosphere. There is a water footprint
estimation method and a calculator even though the global freshwater use
planetary boundary has not yet been crossed. To the authors’ knowledge,
there do not exist widely accepted methods and calculator tools for estimat-
ing the footprints for other Earth-system processes. This will be an area of
ongoing research to develop other indicators to estimate humans’ footprint
on earth.
1.7 Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention is the broadest and most difficult term to concisely
define. In essence, it is the overall process of reducing waste and preventing
pollution from entering the environment through the air, water, or ground.
It encompasses both the aspects of source reduction and waste reduction.
USEPA has defined pollution prevention as follows (USEPA 2011): “Pollution
prevention means source reduction, as defined under the Pollution Prevention
Act, and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants
through:
• Increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or

other resources, or
• Protection of natural resources under conservation.”
Davidson et al. (2007) made an interesting observation in placing pollution

prevention in historical context (Table 1.4). They note that in the 1950s there
was little environmental concern. In 1960, the world population had become
TABLE 1.4
Changes in Global Population and Ways of Dealing with Environmental Problems,
1950–Present
Approximate World
Year Population Way of Dealing with Environmental Problems
1950 2.5 billion Little concern
1960 3.0 billion Rise in environmental interest
1970 3.7 billion Dilution and end-of-pipe treatment
1980 4.5 billion Modified operation/control for pollution prevention
1990 5.3 billion Green design: Resource conservation and improved efficiency
2000 6.1 billion Environmental, economic, and social sustainability: Systems
engineering
Note: Adapted from C. Davidson, H. S. Matthews, Davidson, C., H. S. Matthews, M.
Hendrickson, W. Bridges, B. R. Allenby, J. Crittendon, Y. Chen, E. Williams, D. Allen,
and C. Murphy, Environmental Science and Technology 41(14): 4847–50, 2007.
3 billion, and there was a rise in environmental interest. In the 1970s, the
environmental engineering field emerged with end-of-pipe treatment meth-
ods. In the 1980s, the world population was more than 4 billion, and the
concept of pollution prevention became popular. This environmental solu-
tion was deemed insufficient and was complemented with the green design
concept in the 1990s, when resource conservation and improved efficiency
were promoted for addressing environmental problems. Finally, in the 2000s
when the world population was now over 6 billion, the need for systems
engineering and economic, social, and environmental sustainability con-
siderations emerged. As of the writing of this book, the world population
was expected to reach 7 billion before the end of 2011, and the sustainability
engineering and systems approach to solving problems remain popular and
accepted paradigms for the engineering profession.
1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line

Carbon footprint analysis has become a relevant concept and a neces-
sary practice because of the climate change crises. Since climate change
is one of the biggest challenges of the current sustainability efforts, it is
imperative that we define sustainability to understand the larger context
for carbon footprint analysis. Yet sustainability is difficult to define. There
exist some 300 definitions of sustainability and sustainable development
broadly within the domain of environmental management and the associ-
ated disciplines (Johnston et al. 2007). In reality there may be as many defi-
nitions of sustainability and sustainable development as there are groups
trying to define it (Sustainable Measures 2011). While sustainability has
been defined in many different ways, there is common agreement that the
sustainable development definition put out by the UN World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED) in the 1987 Brundlandt report
is the most common one. The formal title of this report is “Our Common
Future”; however, the report and the definition are often referred to as
the Brundlandt report and the Brundlandt definition in recognition of
former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland’s role as chair
of WCED. Based on the Brundlandt definition, “sustainable development
is development that meets the needs of the present without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” While very
commonly used, this definition has been criticized for being an oxymo-
ron since “development” cannot be continuously sustained on Earth with
finite resources.
From an engineering perspective, sustainability has been defined as “the
design of human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind’s use of
natural resources and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life due
either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on

social conditions, human health and the environment” in the seminal paper
titled “Sustainability Science and Engineering: The Emergence of a New
Metadiscipline” (Mihelcic et al. 2003). This is likely the most commonly cited
sustainability engineering definition. At the writing of this book, this seminal
paper was cited 124 times in Google Scholar.
Another common definition of sustainability is the triple bottom line (TBL)
concept. This term was first coined by John Elkington in 1994 (Elkington 2011)
and published by him in his 1998 book titled Cannibals with Forks (Elkington
1998). The World Summit on Sustainable Development, also referred to
as the Earth Summit 2002, helped in furthering the wide use of this con-
cept. The summit produced the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development, which reported the summit’s convergence on a “collective
responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually
reinforcing pillars of sustainable development—economic development,
social development and environmental protection—at the local, national,
regional and global levels” (UN Documents 2011).
Many organizations use the TBL concept to measure sustainability suc-
cess and outcomes in three areas: economic, environmental, and social.
Sustainability as defined by the TBL concept is the intersection of strong per-
formance in economic, environmental, and social initiatives as displayed in
Figure 1.3. The TBL concept has also been defined as an evaluation method
for the 3 P’s: people, profit, and planet; or people, prosperity, and planet.
Viable
Environment Economic
Sustainability
Bearable Equitable
Social
FIGURE 1.3
The triple bottom line intersection.
In practical terms, TBL accounting means expanding the traditional report-

ing framework to take into account ecological and social performance in
addition to financial performance. To elaborate on each measurement of the
TBL, the “economic” bottom line is the economic value created by the orga-
nization for society. It differs from the traditional definition of profit in that
it encompasses value to society and the community in addition to internal
measures such as profit per share and rate of return. The “environmental”
bottom line refers to sustainable environmental practices. This component
focuses on living in harmony with the natural world and the elimination of
harm to all aspects of the environment. It involves carefully managing its
consumption of energy and nonrenewable resources and reducing manu-
facturing waste, as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of
it in a safe and legal manner. The “social” measurement of TBL pertains to
fair and beneficial business practices toward the labor force, the community,
and the region in which a corporation conducts its business. This compo-
nent emphasizes the interrelatedness of all three components of the TBL
and seeks to benefit all stakeholders. For companies, this measurement may
include aspects of “giving back” by contributing to strengthen and grow the
host community with such things as health care and education. The “social”
measurement is often the most difficult to quantify and can be problematic
and subjective.
The concept of TBL places strong emphasis on the stakeholders of an orga-
nization versus the shareholders. Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or
organizations that are influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions
of the company or organization. The TBL concept adds social and environ-
mental values to the traditional economic measures of an organization’s suc-
cess. In terms of organizational decision making, the TBL concept moves
beyond ranking alternatives based strictly on the financial bottom line and
requires evaluating alternatives based on how they will impact the envi-
ronment in terms of pollution, and how those alternatives will successfully
integrate into the culture of the organization or community. For example,
if a company is considering implementing an office recycling program, the
management team would need to evaluate each alternative program on eco-
nomic factors (initial costs, program costs, revenue, payback period, and
rate of return), environmental factors (waste diverted from landfills, energy
usage, and changes in emissions), and social factors (capability/willingness
of the employees to participate in the program and the positive and nega-
tive perceptions from the community related to the implementation of such
a program). An alternative may meet the requirements of one or two of the
TBL measures, but must meet all three to maximize sustainability success.
While many useful and some very popular sustainability definitions exist,
to this day there is no single universally accepted all-encompassing defini-
tion of sustainability, and many would argue that such a universal and rigid
definition should not exist considering the many different approaches and
contexts for sustainability. In addition, as noted in the Brundlandt report,
“sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process

of change.” Given this understanding, it is then important to understand
the necessary conditions for creating sustainability change. Realizing this
problem, Swedish scientist Karl-Henrik Robèrt developed four system con-
ditions necessary for sustainability progress. These conditions now form the
foundation for the Natural Step process, a popular sustainability strategy
(http://www.naturalstep.org). These conditions are derived from the laws
of thermodynamics and state that “in the sustainable society, nature is not
subject to systematically increasing
1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust,

2. concentrations of substances produced by society,
3. degradation by physical means, and
4. in that society people are not subject to conditions that systemati-
cally undermine their capacity to meet their needs.”
The Natural Step process also supports the importance of economic,

social, and environmental aspects of sustainability. However, instead of the
TBL model, the Natural Step process uses three nested and interdependent
spheres (Figure 1.4). As noted in the U.S. Sustainability Primer, “The larg-
est sphere represents the environment, or earth, upon which all economic
and social progress ultimately depends. That’s our natural capital: it pro-
vides the ecosystem services and natural resources that we need to survive.
The middle sphere represents society, or human capital. Our economy is the
smallest circle because it is governed by the rules, regulations and structures
of the other two spheres. The economy depends on human capital and natu-
ral capital to thrive. You can’t have one at the expense of another” (Natural
Step 2009).
Environment
Society
Economy
FIGURE 1.4
The natural environment-constrained model of the economic, environmental, and social
aspects of sustainability.
1.9 Acronyms
Following is a list of commonly used acronyms in the sustainability field:
GHG: greenhouse gas

LCA: life cycle assessment
LCI: life cycle inventory
CAP: Climate Action Plan
CFC: chlorofluorocarbon
CFL: compact fluorescent lightbulb or compact fluorescent lighting
CO2: carbon dioxide
EDF: Environmental Defense Fund
GWP: global warming potential
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kWh: kilowatt-hour (also MWh, megawatt-hour; GWh, gigawatt-hour)
LED: light-emitting diode
NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
TBL: triple bottom line
TNC: The Nature Conservancy
WCS: Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF: World Wildlife Fund or Worldwide Fund for Nature
1.10 Units
In the field of carbon footprint analysis, measurements are typically
taken in terms of metric tons (1000 kilograms) of gas emitted per year
for a given product, activity, or process. In the United States the British
Gravitational system is still predominant, and pounds of gas emitted may
be used. Table 1.5 displays common metric system units for other mea-
surements typically taken during the energy and carbon footprint analy-
sis process.
TABLE 1.5
Commonly Used Metric System Units and Symbols
in Energy and Carbon Footprint Analysis
Quantity Measured Unit Symbol
Mass metric ton t
Temperature degree Celsius ºC
Volume cubic meter m3
Power kilowatt kW
Energy kilowatt-hour kWh
Time second s
Length kilometer km
Concentration parts per million ppm
References
American Institute of Physics. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Effect. http://www.aip.org/
history/climate/co2.htm.
Bare, J., and T. Gloria. 2006. Critical Analysis of the Mathematical Relationships and
Comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Approaches. Environmental
Science and Technology 40(4):1104–13.
Baumert, K. A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the Numbers.
Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, World Resources
Institute Report. http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf.
Climate Change Challenge. 2011. Causes of Climate Change. http://www.
climatechangechallenge.org/Resource%20Centre/Climate-Change/3-what_
causes_climate_change.htm.
Davidson, C., H. S. Matthews, M. Hendrickson, W. Bridges, B. R. Allenby, J. Crittendon,
Y. Chen, E. Williams, D. Allen, and C. Murphy. 2007. Adding Sustainability to
the Engineer’s Toolbox: A Challenge for Engineering Educators. Environmental
Science and Technology 41(14):4847–50.
Elkington, John. 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
Elkington, John. 2011. Ideas beyond the Triple Bottom Line. http://www.
johnelkington.com/activities/ideas.asp.
Erisman, J. W., M. A. Sutton, J. Galloway, Z. Klimont, and W. Winiwarte. 2008. How a
Century of Ammonia Synthesis Changed the World. Nature Geoscience 1:636–39.
Galloway, J. N., F. J. Dentener, D. G. Caopne E. W. Boyer, R. W. Howarth, S. P.
Seitzinger, G. P. Asner, et al. 2004. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future.
Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.
Global Footprint Network. 2010. 2010 Data Tables. http://www.footprintnetwork.
org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/.
Greenlabs. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). http://greenlabs-usa.com.
Guinee, J. B., H. Reinout, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici, T.

Ekvall, and T. Rydberg. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future.
Environmental Science and Technology 45(1):90–96.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte,
M. Pagani, et al. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity
Aim? Open Atmosphere Science Journal 2: 17–31.
Hawken, Paul. 2008. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston:
Back Bay Books.
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): Synthesis
Report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Johnston, P., M. Everard, D. Santillo, and K.-H. Robert. 2007. Reclaiming the Definition
of Sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14(1):60–66.
Leach, A. M., J. N. Galloway, A. Bleeker, J. W. Erisman, R. Kohn, and J. Kitzes. 2011.
A Nitrogen Footprint Model to Help Consumers Understand Their Role in
Nitrogen Losses to the Environment. Environmental Development, forthcoming.
Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2011. National Water Footprint Accounts: The
Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Production and Consumption. Value of
Water Research Report Series no. 50, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report50-NationalWaterFootprints-
Vol1.pdf.
Míhelcic, J., J. Crittenden, M. Small, D. Shonnard, D. Hokanson, Q. Zhang, H. Chen,
et al. 2003. Sustainability Science and Engineering: The Emergence of a New
Metadiscipline. Environmental Science and Technology 37(23):5314–24.
N-Print Calculator. 2011. Nitrogen Footprint Calculator. http://www.n-print.org/
sites/n-print.org/files/footprint_sql/index.html#/home.
NASA GISS. 2011. Research News: NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest
Year on Record. January 12 2011. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/
20110112/.
NOAA NCDC. 2011. Global Surface Anomalies. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/
anomalies.php#mean.
Natural Step. 2009. United States Sustainability Primer: Step by Natural Step. http://
www.iusb.edu/~csfuture/Primer_USEdition_print_072009.pdf.
Oakleaf Intelligent Waste Management. 2011. Glossary. http://www.oakleafwaste.
com/Glossary.aspx.
Rockstrom, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton,
et al. 2009. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461:472–75.
Sustainable Measures. 2011. Definitions of Sustainability. http://www.sustainablemea-
sures.com/node/35.
UN Documents. 2011. UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements. World
Summit on Sustainable Development. September 4, 2022. http://www.un-
documents.net/jburgdec.htm.
Universal Green Society. 2011. Global Warming. http://ugsamerica.org/global-
warming.html.
UNEP)/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment:
Making Informed Choices on Products. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
USEPA. 2011. Climate Change—Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/individual.html.
2
Benefits of Energy and Greenhouse
Gas Reduction and Minimization
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of a project, plan, or initiative (energy and GHG emission min-
imization or otherwise) is to achieve measurable results that can be sus-
tained and tied in to the original goal. These results or benefits are often
critical in determining the feasibility or acceptance of a project proposal.
These benefits are also the key selling points used when promoting GHG
and energy minimization to stakeholders and decision makers. The ben-
efits of GHG minimization and energy reduction can be separated into
four areas:
• Environmental
• Economic
• Corporate image
• Personal and social
Ideally, an organization would like to create a situation where multiple ben-

efits can be realized from a single project. This synergistic approach allows
for the creation of win-win situations when applied appropriately using the
system approach discussed in this book. Specifically, the company will real-
ize cost benefits, the public image will be enhanced, the environment will be
protected, and the stakeholders of the organization (including employees)
often gain a sense of well-being and harmony with the environment and the
feeling that the organization is protecting the greater good for society. This
chapter discusses in greater detail these benefits and includes examples that
may be used to promote GHG minimization and energy reduction to deci-
sion makers.
25
2.2 Environmental Benefits
The world has changed significantly over the past century. Societies are shift-
ing to a convenience-oriented mindset, if not yet already shifted. World pop-
ulation is increasing, and therefore waste emissions are increasing, which
is creating new environmental impacts. For example, from a convenience
standpoint, emissions rates are increasing due to rapid industrialization in
developing countries including the proliferation of automobiles.
Per capita, the United States generates 17.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide
(USEPA 2011a). Another source reported that the United States generates
24.5 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per capita, whereas the world gener-
ates 5.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per capita (Baumert et al. 2005). The
impact is intensified by an ever-increasing population. The U.S. Census
Bureau estimates the current world population at 6.6 billion people, with
a projected annual growth rate of approximately 1.2% (U.S. Census Bureau
2011). By 2050, the world population is projected to be over 9 billion (U.S.
Census Bureau 2011). Globalization and the development of developing
counties are compounding these issues as well. More people generating
more emissions is not a good combination for the environment.
One of the central purposes of GHG and energy minimization is to reduce
or eliminate the environmental impacts of individual companies and indus-
tries. An understanding of these impacts is critical when determining direc-
tions for reduction efforts. These impacts include:
• Significant weather changes, including increased frequency and

intensity of storms and droughts
• Rising temperatures and sea levels, which may lead to increased
flooding and reduced freshwater supplies
• Loss of animal habitat and increased extinction of species
• Increased spread of disease, such as malaria, as warmer conditions
expand the proliferation
Unfortunately, there can be a temporal and spatial gap between these

impacts and the environments in which an organization operates. For exam-
ple, an organization emitting GHGs right now would be contributing to
climate change. However, while the effects of climate change are already
apparent, if this trend is continued the effects would be much magnified at a
later date. As such, the organization may not be able to internalize its respon-
sibility when the impacts are expected to be greater at another time than
now. Similarly, the organization’s emissions contributing to climate change
may lead to a severe flood at a location other than the origin of the organiza-
tion’s particular emissions. These indirect effects can sometimes be a barrier
to an organization’s understanding of the two-way interaction between an
Benefits of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Minimization 27
organization’s impact on the environment from its GHG emissions and the
resultant climate change’s impact on the organization. Yet, as organizations
better understand these issues, they will be more inclined to take action in
reducing their carbon footprint.
GHG emission minimization efforts are a big step forward in moving
toward a sustainable environment. Three of the greatest environmental ben-
efits of these efforts are related to climate change, health, and the protection
of natural resources, including habitats for wildlife. The following list sum-
marizes the key benefits to the environment that can be derived from GHG
and energy minimization:
• Healthier environments and reduced pollution

• Conservation of natural resources and habitats
• Reductions in climate change and violent weather patterns
Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from

cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heat waves, to
altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop fail-
ures (Patz et al. 2005). Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or
resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-
quality data sets as well as the large influence of socioeconomic factors and
changes in immunity and drug resistance. Evidence indicates that climate–
health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of
climate change, and that the warming trend over recent decades has already
contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the
world (Patz et al. 2005). Certain areas may be more vulnerable, such as land
near the Pacific and Indian oceans that experiences large rainfall variability.
Climate change can impact worldwide health in many ways, including clean
water, breathable air, and ample food supplies.
Extremely high air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardio
vascular and respiratory disease, particularly among elderly people. In the
heat wave of summer 2003 in Europe, for example, more than 70,000 excess
deaths were recorded (World Health Organization 2010). High tempera-
tures also raise the levels of ozone and other pollutants in the air, which
exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Scientists estimate that
urban air pollution causes about 1.2 million deaths every year (World Health
Organization 2010). Pollen and other aeroallergen levels are also higher in
extreme heat. These can trigger asthma, which affects around 300 million
people. Ongoing temperature increases are expected to increase this bur-
den. Climatic conditions strongly affect waterborne diseases and diseases
transmitted through insects, snails, or other cold-blooded animals. Changes
in climate are likely to lengthen the transmission seasons of important
vectorborne diseases and to alter their geographic range. For example, cli-
mate change is projected to widen significantly the area of China where
the snailborne disease schistosomiasis occurs (World Health Organization

2010). Additionally, many leading scientists predict increase in the spread of
malaria as mosquito pollutions grow.
Fossil fuel burning increases not only global temperatures due to release
of GHGs, but also concentrations of other air pollutants such as particulate
matter, smog, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Air pollution can harm
lung development in children, help cause early childhood asthma, and pro-
duce a range of respiratory symptoms in children and adults. Higher air
pollution levels have also been associated with a higher incidence of heart
problems, including heart attacks, and toxic air pollutants can cause noncan-
cer health effects and increase the risk of developing cancer (Santa Barbra
County Air Pollution Control District 2011).
In terms of environmental protection, GHG and energy minimization aid in
protecting habits and conserving natural resources. By conserving energy and
utilizing renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, less destruc-
tion to the environment results from decreased mining activities. Less mining
conserves resources and reduces the impact to the natural habitats of wildlife.
From microscopic organisms to large animals, the greenhouse effect can harm
wildlife permanently by altering natural habitats. Several leading scientists
predict that a quarter of the world’s animal and plant life will face extinction
by 2050 due to climate change (Goudarzi 2006). Loss of sea ice in the Artic
is also impacting the health of polar bears and reducing the population as a
result of food shortages. In Antarctica, the Adelie penguin’s numbers have also
diminished because of rising temperatures and loss of sea ice (Goudarzi 2006).
Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has
more than tripled since the 1960s (World Health Organization 2011). Every
year, these disasters result in over 60,000 deaths, mainly in developing coun-
tries. Rising sea levels and increasingly extreme weather events will destroy
homes, medical facilities, and other essential services. More than half of the
world’s population lives within 60 km of the sea (World Health Organization
2011). Large groups of people may be forced to relocate, which may increase
cases of health effects such as mental disorders and communicable diseases.
Increasingly variable rainfall patterns are likely to affect the supply of
freshwater. A lack of safe water can compromise hygiene and increase the
risk of diarrheal disease, which kills 2.2 million people every year (World
Health Organization 2011). In very extreme cases, water scarcity may lead
to drought and famine, especially in developing countries. By the 2090s,
climate change is likely to widen the area affected by drought, double the
frequency of extreme droughts, and increase their average duration sixfold
(World Health Organization 2011).
Global warming may also intensify flooding in frequency and impact.
Floods can contaminate freshwater supplies, heighten the risk of waterborne
diseases, and create breeding grounds for disease-carrying insects such as
mosquitoes as found after Hurricane Katrina in the United States.
Rising temperatures and variable precipitation are likely to decrease the

production of staple foods in many of the poorest regions—by up to 50% by
2020 in some African countries. This will increase the prevalence of malnu-
trition and undernutrition, which currently cause 3.5 million deaths every
year (World Health Organization 2011).
2.3 Economic Benefits
A common problem the government agencies face from U.S. corporations
is perceived poor economics of GHG reduction programs. Many corporate
leaders believe that GHG reduction is not profitable for their company. This
common attitude is problematic and hinders GHG reduction efforts across
the United States. The paradigm must be shifted from this attitude to one
that stresses that concern for the environment makes good business sense.
Corporate environmental concern makes sense because it can be economi-
cally beneficial, positively raises public opinion, and assists corporations in
complying with environmental regulations. The U.S. Department of Labor
estimates that over 4.8 million corporations operated in the United States
in the year 2001 (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).
The fact that such a large number of corporations are operating in the United
States, each generating GHG, stresses the importance of widespread waste
reduction. Economic justification of GHG and energy reduction will increase
top corporations’ efforts to improve the environment and minimize GHGs.
The economic benefits of GHG minimization are often the key selling
points when promoting environmentally conscious initiatives to businesses.
Other than regulatory compliance, the cost benefits from energy and pol-
lution minimization can turn an “environmental decision” into a wise
business decision that will improve an organization’s financial statements.
Oftentimes, when promoting a GHG and energy minimization program to
the decision makers of an organization, the most influential benefits are the
cost savings generated from the program. In many cases, the single larg-
est area for organizations to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce energy
consumption from nonrenewable energy sources that generate the GHGs. In
essence, reducing energy consumption has the combined benefit of reducing
GHG emissions and operating costs associated with energy needs.
Often, when the creation of a carbon footprint study is first discussed with
management the first response is “we do not have a budget.” This is far from
the truth; the budget does exist and the starting point is the funds that the
company is currently paying for energy usage and legal compliance. The
systems approach to GHG and energy minimization looks for cost-effective
methods to better utilize these funds and protect the environment.
Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston, coauthors of Green to Gold, state that the
blunt economic reality is that by reducing GHG emissions, an organization
will (Esty and Winston 2006):
• Save money now because any company that cuts its GHG emissions
has to increase its energy efficiency, and that makes companies more
profitable
• Save money later because, by adopting a renewable-energy model,
a company can count on zero variable costs for wind and sunshine
• Reduce risk by avoiding all the liabilities associated with competing
for commodities in short supply, such as water and oil
• Attract and retain the best people, especially the next generation,
which assumes financial success and corporate social responsibility
go hand in hand
• Drive innovation
• Keep the United States safer from global conflicts
• Make the United States more competitive in a world that demands
clean energy
Many organizations are surprised to learn that GHG and energy minimi-
zation can make strong business sense. A common environmental adage is
“become green to make green.” The Business Waste Reduction Assistance
Program at the University of Toledo has identified over $450,000 in annual
savings for Northwest Ohio businesses in the 10 GHG assessments that
the program has completed. For example, at a bearing manufacturer with
150 employees, approximately $25,000 in annual cost benefits were iden-
tified via reduced energy consumption, the application of green energy
sources, and process changes. Other areas of cost benefit achieved through
a GHG minimization program include reduced heating, ventilation, and
air-conditioning (HVAC) costs via the installation of more energy-efficient
equipment, reduced lighting costs via the installation of LED lights and
enhanced use of natural light, and reduced energy costs through the appli-
cation of wind turbines, solar cells, or geothermal energy systems.
2.4 Corporate Image Benefits

Corporate imaging and product branding play a critical role in the profit-
ability of any organization. Successfully maintaining and strengthening
these concepts are one of the chief duties of any marketing department and
environmental initiatives can go a long way to bolster them. Specifically, by

focusing on GHG minimization and publicizing these efforts, an organiza-
tion can:
• Increase sales by attracting environmentally conscious consumers.

• Improve the recruitment of employees that share similar values.
• Attract environmentally conscious partners.
• Attain free corporate publicity.
• Increase employee involvement and commitment to the organization.
• Maintain cleaner facilities.
2.5 Personal and Social Benefits

GHG minimization also offers personal and social benefits. Although many
of these benefits are somewhat intangible and difficult to measure, they are
worth mentioning because they can be selling points when promoting an
environmental program. Following is a list of some of these benefits:
• Personal satisfaction for helping the environment

• Sustainable environment for future generations
• Cleaner facilities
• Buy-in at work programs (EI, i.e., employee involvement)
• Healthier environments and a higher standard of living
References
Baumert, K. A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse
Gas Data and International Climate Policy. World Resources Institute Report.
http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf (accessed October 18, 2011).
Esty, Daniel C., and A. Winston. 2006. Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use
Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Goudarzi, S. 2006. Quarter of Species Gone by 2050. http://www.livescience.com/4056-
quarter-species-2050.html.
Patz, J., D. Campbell-Lendrum, T. Holloway, and J. Foley. 2004. Impact of Regional
Climate Change on Human Health. Nature 438:310–17.
Santa Barbra County Air Pollution Control District. 2011. Air Pollutants and Our
Health. http://www.sbcapcd.org/sbc/pollut.htm.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Overview of Demographic
Data. http://www.bls.gov/bls/demographics.htm.
World Health Organization. 2010. Climate Change and Health Fact Sheet.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/index.html.
3
Environmental Laws and Regulations
3.1 Introduction
Governments play a critical role in managing the environment, including the
atmosphere, land, water bodies, and all natural resources. Governments are
valuable institutions for resolving problems involving natural resources at
both local and global scales. Although in recent decades the economic mar-
ket has been identified as a suitable mechanism for managing environmen-
tal quality, markets have serious failures, and governmental intervention
and regulation is still often required for the proper, just, and sustainable
management of the environment. This chapter discusses several of the key
environmental laws and regulations that pertain to GHG emissions.
3.2 The U.S. Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act is the law that defines the USEPA’s responsibilities for pro-
tecting and improving the nation’s air quality and the stratospheric ozone
layer (USEPA 2011a). The last major change in the law, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, was enacted by Congress in 1990. The Clean Air Act is a
U.S. federal law enacted by Congress to control air pollution on a national level.
It requires the USEPA to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general
public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazard-
ous to human health. The act was passed in 1963 and significantly amended in
1970, 1977, and 1990. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 proposed emis-
sions trading; added provisions for addressing acid rain, ozone depletion, and
toxic air pollution; and established a national permits program. The amend-
ments also established new auto gasoline reformulation requirements.
The USEPA has issued regulatory actions under the Clean Air Act to
include GHGs as “regulated air pollutants.” Some of these are listed on
the USEPA’s climate change website (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
initiatives/index.html). For example, for transportation sources, the USEPA
and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety
33
Administration (NHTSA) developed two programs to reduce GHG emis-

sions and improve fuel efficiency, one for heavy-duty trucks and buses and
another one for light-duty vehicles. For stationary sources, the USEPA issued
a rule that establishes thresholds for GHG emissions that define when per-
mits are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
3.3 The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 is a measure that declared pollution
prevention as national policy, and directed the USEPA to undertake a series
of activities aimed at preventing the generation of pollutants, rather than
controlling pollutants after they are created (USEPA 2011c). Matching grants
were authorized for states to establish technical assistance programs for
businesses, and the USEPA was directed to establish a Source Reduction
Clearinghouse to disseminate information. The act also imposed new report-
ing requirements on industry. Firms that were required to file an annual
toxic chemical release form under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 were also required to file a report detailing their
source reduction and recycling efforts over the previous year (USEPA 2011c).
USEPA has developed a pollution prevention program strategic plan for
the years 2010–14 (USEPA 2010). This strategic plan identifies four strategic
goals, one of which focuses on reducing the generation of GHG emissions to
mitigate climate change.
3.4 Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act addresses energy production in the United States,
including: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal;
(5) tribal energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels,
including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives;
(11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technol-
ogy (USEPA 2011e). For example, the act provides loan guarantees for entities
that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the by-production of
GHGs. Another provision of the act increases the amount of biofuel that
must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States.
Environmental Laws and Regulations 35
3.5 American Clean Energy and Security Act

In 2009, an energy bill was proposed in the United States that would have
established an emissions cap and trade plan. This bill would require the
United States to reduce its emissions 83% by 2050 from the benchmark year
2005 (Wikipedia 2011a). This bill was called the American Clean Energy
and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). The bill was approved by the House of
Representatives but died in the Senate.
3.6 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule

In 2009, USEPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule
in response to the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The rule is referred
to as 40 CFR Part 98 (Part 98). Implementation of Part 98 is referred to as the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (USEPA 2011c). Based on this
rule, facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHGs are
required to submit annual reports to USEPA. The reporting is done online
using the electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT).
3.7 Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2011). The major fea-
ture of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets, primarily for indus-
trialized countries, for reducing GHG emissions. These targets amount to
an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008–12. The
protocol was initially adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered into force
in 2005. As of September 2011, 191 states had signed and ratified the protocol
(Wikipedia 2011b). As of the writing of this book, the United States was the
only industrialized country and the only remaining signatory not to have
ratified the protocol.
References
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2011. Kyoto Protocol.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
USEPA. 2010. 2010–2014 Pollution Prevention (P2) Program Strategic Plan. http://www.
epa.gov/p2/pubs/docs/P2StrategicPlan2010-14.pdf.
USEPA. 2011a. The Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
USEPA. 2011b. Climate Change—Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/individual.html.
USEPA. 2011c. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
USEPA. 2011d. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. http://www.epa.gov/p2/
pubs/p2policy/act1990.htm.
USEPA. 2011e. Summary of the Energy Policy Act. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/
laws/epa.html.
Wikipedia. 2011a. American Clean Energy and Security Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act (accessed November 15, 2011).
Wikipedia. 2011b. Kyoto Protocol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
(accessed November 15, 2011).
Section II
Carbon Footprint
Analysis Methods
4
Standards for Carbon Footprint Analysis
4.1 Introduction
Carbon footprint values are becoming more and more widely reported.
Some products now report their carbon footprint as an indication of their
commitment to reducing their carbon footprint. Similarly, carbon footprints
of companies, cities, states, and governments can often be obtained from a
simple web search. As more and more entities report their carbon footprints,
it becomes increasingly more important that a standardized method is used
that will allow meaningful comparisons among reported data, as well as
proper interpretation of the absolute value reported. Standards, protocols,
and specifications have been developed for carbon footprint analysis of vari-
ous entities. This chapter compiles and introduces these standards.
As briefly described in Chapter 1, section 1.5, the carbon footprint analysis
can be done from a product perspective or from the perspective of activities
of individuals, groups, or organizations. The product perspective aligns with
the LCA framework and reports the GHG emissions from the entire life cycle
or a subset of the life cycle phases of a good or service. In contrast, the activ-
ity perspective is an annual inventory of the GHG emissions resulting from
activities of individuals, groups, organizations, companies, or governments.
In this chapter, we introduce separately the standards for each of these two
perspectives. In addition, we discuss the iterative steps for reducing the car-
bon footprint from activities.
4.2 Product-Based Standards
The ISO has two standards for LCA that form the foundation for most if not
all LCA studies:
• ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—
Principles and framework
• ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—
Requirements and guidelines
39
In addition, two other standards are available for life cycle impact assess-
ment and for data documentation:
• ISO/TR 14047:2003 Environmental management—Life cycle impact

assessment—Examples of application of ISO 14042
• ISO/TS 14048:2002 Environmental management—Life cycle assess-
ment—Data documentation format
These four ISO standards are for any kind of LCA study; they are not
specific to evaluating carbon footprint of products. Currently the most
established product carbon footprint standard is PAS 2050, which is an inter-
national standard for the carbon footprinting of goods and services across
the full life cycle (British Standards Institution [BSI] 2011). PAS stands for
Publicly Available Specification. PAS 2050 was prepared and published by
the BSI in 2008 and later updated in 2011. PAS 2050 builds on existing LCA
methods established through ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 by giving require-
ments specifically for the assessment of GHG emissions within the life cycle
of goods and services. These requirements further clarify the implementa-
tion of these standards in relation to the carbon footprint analysis of goods
and services.
PAS 2050 is the standard that is currently being used in carbon labeling of
some products. For example, the Carbon Trust, a not-for-profit company, uses
PAS 2050 when it works with companies to develop their Carbon Reduction
Label. The Carbon Reduction Label is placed on the product and shows that
a company is working to reduce its carbon footprint. In addition, it reports
the GHG emissions per unit use of the product. For example, the Carbon
Reduction Label was used by the Dyson Airblade company, which produces
hand dryers. On this label it can be seen that 3.4 g of CO2 equivalence is
emitted per each use of the dryer. Similarly, the Carbon Reduction Label was
used by the Walkers Crisps company to display on their potato chips bags
that 75 g of CO2 equivalence is emitted per every bag of chips.
In 2011 the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative published another standard
for carbon footprint analysis of products: the Product Life Cycle Accounting
and Reporting Standard (GHG Protocol Initiative 2011). This document
builds on the framework and requirements established in the ISO 14040, ISO
14044 LCA, and PAS 2050 standards with the intent of providing additional
specifications and guidance to facilitate the consistent quantification and
public reporting of product life cycle GHG inventories. As of the writing of
this book, a third product standard was in progress. ISO is currently devel-
oping ISO 14067: Carbon footprint of products—Requirements and guide-
lines for quantification and communication.
While carbon footprint labels on products are currently being used by
a limited number of companies, it would be expected that more and more
businesses will seek carbon labeling as climate change continues to receive
Standards for Carbon Footprint Analysis 41
more attention. The standards developed by the GHG Protocol Initiative, BSI,
and ISO will play an important role in helping companies adopt these labels
and accurately display the carbon footprint of their products.
4.3 Activity-Based Standards
A summary of the various standards and tools available for analyzing the
carbon footprint of individuals, groups, or various organizations is shown in
Table 4.1. All of these standards and tools provide details for how to inventory
the GHG emissions resulting from the activities of the corresponding groups.
While there is a different standard or tool for analyzing the carbon footprint
of different groups, the fundamentals for all of the standards and tools are
the same and are derived from the IPCC and GHG Corporate Protocol docu-
ments. In 1996, the IPCC published the Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories; the Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories; and the Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-
Use Change and Forestry (IPCC 1996a, 1996b, 1996c). In 2001, the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol Initiative published the Corporate GHG Protocol standard,
which was developed based on guidance from the IPCC documents. Since
that time, various other tools, standards, and specifications have been pub-
lished, some specifically for a certain sector. All of these other tools have
been developed in accordance with guidance given in the IPCC and corpo-
rate GHG Protocol documents. The GHG inventorying fundamentals are all
the same among the different tools, standards, and specifications. The differ-
ences are primarily on elaborations of approaches specific to the entity. For
example, a primary consideration of the inventory is determination of the
boundaries that the entity has control over. Since this boundary is different
for a person versus a company versus any other group, a different standard
exists for different types of entities. In addition the different standards and
tools are tailored for the different activities expected to be important and
relevant for the entity.
Table 4.1 lists the tools and standards for different groups. This table is
not comprehensive by any means, since companies and organizations are
constantly developing and offering a variety of tools. However, the table is
representative of some of the most popular and established instruments for
analyzing the carbon footprints of different entities. As shown in Table 4.1,
ISO has five standards related to GHG inventories of organizations. There
currently exist no standards for carbon footprint analysis of individu-
als. However, there is an abundance of tools that are briefly introduced in
Chapter 7. Various other tools are also available for specific sectors, including
tools for developing the carbon footprint of schools, universities, local gov-
ernments, parks, and other specific sectors.
TABLE 4.1
Standards and Tools for Carbon Footprint Analysis of Different Groups and
Organizations
Standard or Tool for Standard or Tool Name Developed by
Organizations in ISO 14064-1:2006 Greenhouse ISO
general gases—Part 1: Specification with
guidance at the organization
level for quantification and
reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions and removals
ISO 14064-2:2006 Greenhouse
gases—Part 2: Specification with
guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and
reporting of greenhouse gas
emission reductions or removal
enhancements
ISO 14064-3:2006 Greenhouse
gases—Part 3: Specification with
guidance for the validation and
verification of greenhouse gas
assertions
ISO 14065:2007 Greenhouse
gases—Requirements for
greenhouse gas validation and
verification bodies for use in
accreditation or other forms of
recognition
ISO 14066:2011 Greenhouse
gases—Competence
requirements for greenhouse gas
validation teams and verification
teams
Individuals See Chapter 7 Various groups
Companies A Corporate Accounting and GHG Protocol Initiative
Reporting Standard: Revised
Edition, 2004
Companies Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas USEPA
Inventory Protocol: Design
Principles, 2005
Companies Simplified GHG Emissions USEPA
Calculator (SGEC)
Parks The Climate Leadership in Parks USEPA and U.S. National Park
Tool (CLIP) System (NPS)
Universities Campus Carbon Calculator Clean Air Cool Planet
Schools Climate Change Emission USEPA
Calculator Kit (Climate CHECK)
TABLE 4.1 (continued)
Standards and Tools for Carbon Footprint Analysis of Different Groups and
Organizations
Standard or Tool for Standard or Tool Name Developed by
Local governments Local Government Operations California Climate Action
Protocol, 2010 Registry (CCAR), the
California Air Resources Board
(CARB), ICLEI Local
Governments for Sustainability
(ICLEI), and The Climate
Registry (The Registry)
Other specific Various protocols available for GHG Protocol Initiative
sectors service sector, small office based
organizations, U.S. Public sector,
agricultural sector, and GHG
reduction projects. See Chapter 5,
Section 5.2, for a more extensive
list
Nations 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National IPCC
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
For businesses, the GHG Protocol Initiative’s corporate standard (GHG

Protocol Initiative 2004) serves as the primary guidance for conducting
company carbon footprint analyses. In the United States, USEPA added
additional guidance and further clarified the corporate protocol in a new
guidance document (Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol:
Design Principles) and an accompanying spreadsheet tool (Simplified GHG
Emission Calculator: SGEC) (USEPA 2005). These efforts were part of the
Climate Leaders Program, which was launched in 2002 and terminated in
2011. This program was a USEPA industry–government partnership that
worked with companies to develop comprehensive climate change strate-
gies. The program was terminated due to the availability of climate pro-
grams operated by the states and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
and the advent of USEPA’s GHG Reporting Program.
4.4 Iterative Carbon Management Steps

For groups and organizations, conducting the GHG inventory is only one
of the steps in a broader carbon management initiative. Figure 4.1 shows
the different steps involved in managing an organization’s carbon footprint.
First, the organization needs to commit to reducing their carbon footprint
and developing their GHG inventory. Once the inventory is available, the
1. Commit
2. Conduct energy
8. Communicate and greenhouse
gas inventory
7. Monitor results,
3. Set targets
evaluate
4. Develop energy
6. Implement
and climate action
plans
plans
5. Communicate
FIGURE 4.1
Iterative steps for energy and climate action plans.
next step is to set targets for reducing emissions. Setting targets leads to
development of a climate action plan (CAP).
Some organizations may consider doing both an energy plan and a CAP.
These two plans are slightly different in nature. Reduced emissions from
reducing process emissions or from switching to alternative energy sources
would not be as directly visible from an energy plan where the focus may
be in reducing energy use. Some institutions and stakeholders may not be
ready to act upon climate change and therefore may be reluctant to do a CAP
while being very open to developing an energy plan. Currently, in the United
States there is no direct financial incentive for reducing one’s GHG emis-
sions. However, energy reduction often relates directly to reduced energy
costs. Since development of the CAP requires energy data and planning, it is
fairly easy to scope out the energy plan from the CAP.
Reduction strategies are discussed within the energy plans and CAPs.
Reduction strategies may vary considerably but should be based on the
inventory and feasible ways to reduce the energy and emissions toward
meeting the target. For example, an organization should not spend too much
time in reducing emissions that contribute only a small percentage of their
total carbon footprint. More information on reduction strategies is given in

Chapter 15 in the discussion of the University of Toledo’s CAP.
Once an energy plan or a CAP is developed, the next steps are to imple-
ment the action plan and monitor the results. Communication with all stake-
holders is relevant at each step of the process but may be most effective after
the development of the plan and then after the evaluation of the progress.
After communicating the progress, the inventory should be conducted
again, ideally on an annual basis, and the process repeated. The process is
iterative or adaptive because organizations change over the course of time,
and their emissions, target goals, and reduction methods may need to be
revised regularly to meet their reduction goals. The iterative process coupled
with multiple communication opportunities also allows institutionalization
of the commitment. The more the work and progress are communicated,
the more the energy and climate goals will be shared by all stakeholders. In
addition, communicating findings to an audience promotes the CAP team
to more critically analyze the data and plans, since the team would strive to
minimize the errors and deficiencies of the work prior to its presentation to
stakeholders. Therefore the communication part is an essential component
of improving the quality of the product resulting from CAP development
and progress evaluation stages.
References
BSI. 2011. PAS 2050. Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London: BSI.
GHG Protocol Initiative. 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and
Reporting Standard (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
GHG Protocol. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. http://www.
ghgprotocol. org/ (accessed August 11, 2011).
IPCC. 1996a. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Geneva, Switzerland:
IPCC.
IPCC. 1996b. The Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
IPCC. 1996c. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.
Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
USEPA. 2005. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Design Principles.
http://epa.gov/climateleaders/guidance/design-principles.html.
5
GHG Protocol
5.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 4, there are many standards for carbon footprint
analysis of different types of organizations and institutions. However, these
standards are primarily based on the GHG Corporate Protocol. Therefore,
understanding the GHG Corporate Protocol methods and the perspective
of the GHG Protocol Initiative can give a solid foundation of GHG inven-
tory methodology. For this reason, this chapter is devoted to explaining the
GHG Protocol.
5.2 GHG Protocol Overview

The largest and most respected initiative in GHG accounting is the GHG
Protocol Initiative. The GHG Protocol Initiative is a partnership between
the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (Figure 5.1). As discussed on its website,
the initiative arose when WRI and WBCSD recognized that an international
standard for corporate GHG accounting and reporting would be necessary
in light of evolving climate change policy (GHG Protocol 2011). The GHG
Protocol Initiative works with businesses, governments, and environmental
groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and effective
programs for tackling climate change. It is considered to be the second most
important climate program after the Kyoto Protocol in the successful mea-
surement and management of climate change. The GHG Protocol Initiative
serves as the foundation for nearly every GHG standard and program in the
world. Most other tools and calculations are developed based on methods
described in the GHG Protocol Initiative documents and tools.
The GHG Protocol Initiative has published numerous documents for dif-
ferent sectors or groups. These documents include:
47
World Resources World Business Council

Institute for Sustainable
Development
The Greenhouse Gas

Protocol Initiative
FIGURE 5.1
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative is a partnership between a think tank (World
Resources Institute) and a CEO-led global association of companies (World Business Council
for Sustainable Development).
• Corporate accounting and reporting standard

• GHG protocol for project accounting
• Guidelines for Quantifying GHG Reductions from Grid-Connected
Electricity Projects
• Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Guidance for GHG Project
Accounting
• Designing a Customized Greenhouse Gas Calculation Tool
• Hot Climate, Cool Commerce: A Service Sector Guide to Greenhouse Gas
Management
• Working 9 to 5 on Climate Change: An Office Guide
• Measuring to Manage: A Guide to Designing GHG Accounting and
Reporting Programs
• Designing a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Registry
• The Greenhouse Gas Protocol for the U.S. Public Sector
• Corporate Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the Agricultural Sector: Proposed
Accounting and Reporting Steps
The GHG Protocol Initiative also provides spreadsheet tools for different
sectors and cross sectors. For example, spreadsheet models for cross sectors
include:
• GHG emissions from stationary combustion

• GHG emissions from purchased electricity
• GHG emissions from transport or mobile sources
• Measurement and Estimation Uncertainty of GHG Emissions
GHG Protocol 49
• Allocation of Emissions from a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant

• Emission Factors from Cross-Sector Tools
• GHG emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning
Sector-specific spreadsheet models include:
• GHG emissions from the production of aluminum

• CO2 emissions from the production of cement (USEPA)
• CO2 emissions from the production of iron and steel
• CO2 emissions from the production of lime
• CO2 emissions from the production of ammonia
• N2O emissions from the production of nitric acid
• HFC-23 emissions from the production of HCFC-22
• GHG emissions from pulp and paper mills
• N2O emissions from the production of adipic acid
The GHG Protocol Initiative works with partners around the world to adopt
and implement the GHG Protocol as the foundation for GHG programs and
registries. The registries may then have specific guidance for each country.
For example, the relevant registry for North America is the Climate Registry,
which was established in 2007 as a 501(c)(3) by U.S. states and Canadian
provinces. The Climate Registry is a bottom-up type of collaboration among
North American states, provinces, territories, and Native Sovereign Nations
and is governed by senior officials from these entities. The mission of the
Climate Registry is to “set consistent and transparent standards to calculate,
verify and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions into a single registry
by supporting both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs and pro-
viding comprehensive, accurate data to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”
(Climate Registry 2009).
Most GHG inventory tools in North America are based on methods pro-
vided by the GHG Protocol and the Climate Registry. Different guidance
documents and tools have been developed for specific purposes, and these
are all based on methods approved by the GHG Protocol and sometimes
by the Climate Registry. For example, Clean Air Cool Planet, in collabora-
tion with the University of New Hampshire, has developed a specific tool
for GHG inventories for universities and colleges (Clean Air Cool Planet
2008). Similarly, the Climate Registry adopted a specific guidance document
and tool for local government operations such as city and county opera-
tions (Climate Registry 2010). The Climate Registry has also adopted three
other sector-specific guidance documents: the General Reporting Protocol,
Electric Power Sector Protocol, and Oil and Gas Production Protocol. As
another example, USEPA has a Climate Leaders Program, which was a
USEPA industry–government partnership that works with companies to

develop long-term comprehensive climate change strategies. USEPA devel-
oped a Design Principles Guidance (USEPA 2005) specifically for this pro-
gram, which, as others, is also based on the GHG Protocol Initiative, and
particularly the corporate accounting and reporting standard. In the Design
Principles Guidance document, all changes and additions to the GHG
Identifying and Calculating GHG Emissions Protocol made by USEPA are
identified using italics.
5.3 The GHG Protocol’s Overarching Principles

The GHG Protocol Initiative has identified five overarching principles that
are expected to guide GHG accounting and reporting, especially in ambig-
uous cases. In developing and reporting any inventory, the following five
principles should be used (GHG Protocol Initiative 2004):
1. Relevance: The inventory should contain relevant information for

decision making.
2. Completeness: All GHG emissions for selected boundary should be
reported and any exclusions should be justified and disclosed.
3. Consistency: Consistent methods should be used to allow compari-
son over time for an entity or among entities.
4. Transparency: Sufficient information should be presented to enable
internal reviewers and external verifiers to determine the credibility
of the work.
5. Accuracy: Emissions should not be systematically under- or overesti-
mated to enable users to make decisions with reasonable assurance.
5.4 Greenhouse Gases
There are many gases that exhibit GHG properties (Table 5.1). Despite
having an effect on climate, some of these gases are not to be invento-
ried based on the GHG Protocol guidelines if they are not included in the
Kyoto Protocol. For example, fluorinated ethers, CFCs, and perfluoropoly-
ethers are anthropogenic GHGs that have been successfully controlled
by the Montreal Protocol and are not included in the Kyoto Protocol. The
substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol are ozone-depleting gases
that also have a greenhouse effect. Phasing out of these Montreal Protocol
TABLE 5.1
Lifetimes, Radiative Efficiencies, and GWPs of GHGs
Radiative GWP
Industrial Designation or Lifetime Efficiency from SAR GWP GWP GWP
GHG Protocol
Common Name Chemical Formula (years) (W m–2 ppb–1) (100-yr) 20-yr 100-yr 500-yr
Carbon dioxide CO2 1.4 × 10–5 1 1 1 1
Methane CH4 3.7 × 10–4 21 72 25 7.6
Nitrous oxide N2O 114 3.03 × 10–3 310 289 298 153
Substances Controlled by the
Montreal Protocol
CFC-11 CCl3F 45 0.25 3,800 6,730 4,750 1,620
CFC-12 CCl2F2 100 0.32 8,100 11,000 10,900 5,200
CFC-13 CClF3 640 0.25 10,800 14,400 16,400
CFC-113 CCl2FCClF2 85 0.3 4,800 6,540 6,130 2,700
CFC-114 CClF2CClF2 300 0.31 8,040 10,000 8,730
CFC-115 CClF2CF3 1,700 0.18 5,310 7,370 9,990
Halon-1301 CBrF3 65 0.32 5,400 8,480 7,140 2,760
Halon-1211 CBrClF2 16 0.3 4,750 1,890 575
Halon-2402 CBrF2CBrF2 20 0.33 3,680 1,640 503
Carbon tetrachloride CCl4 26 0.13 1,400 2,700 1,400 435
Methyl bromide CH3Br 0.7 0.01 17 5 1
Methyl chloroform CH3CCl3 5 0.06 100 506 146 45
HCFC-21 CHCl2F 1.7 0.14 530 151 46
HCFC-22 CHClF2 12 0.2 1,500 5,160 1,810 549
HCFC-123 CHCl2CF3 1.3 0.14 90 273 77 24
HCFC-124 CHClFCF3 5.8 0.22 470 2,070 609 185
continued
51
52
Radiative GWP
HCFC-141b CH3CCl2F 9.3 0.14 600 2,250 725 220
HCFC-142b CH3CClF2 17.9 0.2 1,800 5,490 2,310 705
HCFC-225ca CHCl2CF2CF3 1.9 0.2 429 122 37
HCFC-225cb CHClFCF2CClF2 5.8 0.32 2,030 595 181
Hydrofluorocarbons
HFC-23 CHF3 270 0.19 11,700 12,000 14,800 12,200
HFC-32 CH2F2 4.9 0.11 650 2,330 675 205
HFC-41 CH3F 2.4 0.02 150 323 92 28
HFC-125 CHF2CF3 29 0.23 2,800 6,350 3,500 1,100
HFC-134 CHF2CHF2 9.6 0.18 1000 3,400 1,100 335
HFC-134a CH2FCF3 14 0.16 1,300 3,830 1,430 435
HFC-143 CH2FCHF2 3.5 0.13 300 1,240 353 107
HFC-143a CH3CF3 52 0.13 3,800 5,890 4,470 1,590
HFC-152 CH2FCH2F 0.6 0.09 187 53 16
HFC-152a CH3CHF2 1.4 0.09 140 437 124 38
HFC-161 CH3CH2F 0.3 0.03 43 12 3.7
HFC-227ea CF3CHFCF3 34.2 0.26 2,900 5,310 3,220 1,040
HFC-236cb CH2FCF2CF3 13.6 0.23 3,630 1,340 407
HFC-236ea CHF2CHFCF3 10.7 0.3 4,090 1,370 418
HFC-236fa CF3CH2CF3 240 0.28 6,300 8,100 9,810 7,660
HFC-245ca CH2FCF2CHF2 6.2 0.23 560 2,340 693 211
HFC-245fa CHF2CH2CF3 7.6 0.28 3,380 1,030 314
Carbon Footprint Analysis
HFC-365mfc CH3CF2CH2CF3 8.6 0.21 2,520 794 241
HFC-43-10mee CF3CHFCHFCF2CF3 15.9 0.4 1,300 4,140 1,640 500
Perfluorinated Compounds
Sulfur hexafluoride SF6 3,200 0.52 23,900 16,300 22,800 32,600
Nitrogen trifluoride NF3 740 0.21 12,300 17,200 20,700
GHG Protocol
PFC-14 CF4 50,000 0.1 6,500 5,210 7,390 11,200

PFC-116 C2F6 10,000 0.26 9,200 8,630 12,200 18,200
PFC-218 C3F8 2,600 0.26 7,000 6,310 8,830 12,500
PFC-318 c-C4F8 3,200 0.32 8,700 7,310 10,300 14,700
PFC-3-1-10 C4F10 2,600 0.33 7,000 6,330 8,860 12,500
PFC-4-1-12 C5F12 4,100 0.41 7,500 6,510 9,160 13,300
PFC-5-1-14 C6F14 3,200 0.49 7,400 6,600 9,300 13,300
PFC-9-1-18 C10F18 >1,000f 0.56 >5,500 >7,500 >9,500
trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride SF5CF3 800 0.57 13,200 17,700 21,200
Perfluorocyclopropane c-C3F6 >1,000 0.42 >12,700 >17,340 >21,800
Fluorinated Ethers
HFE-125 CHF2OCF3 136 0.44 13,800 14,900 8,490
HFE-134 CHF2OCHF2 26 0.45 12,200 6,320 1,960
HFE-143a CH3OCF3 4.3 0.27 2,630 756 230
HCFE-235da2 CHF2OCHClCF3 2.6 0.38 1,230 350 106
HFE-245cb2 CH3OCF2CF3 5.1 0.32 2,440 708 215
HFE-245fa2 CHF2OCH2CF3 4.9 0.31 2,280 659 200
HFE-254cb2 CH3OCF2CHF2 2.6 0.28 1,260 359 109
HFE-347mcc3 CH3OCF2CF2CF3 5.2 0.34 1,980 575 175
HFE-347pcf2 CHF2CF2OCH2CF3 7.1 0.25 1,900 580 175
HFE-356pcc3 CH3OCF2CF2CHF2 0.33 0.93 386 110 33
continued
53
54
Radiative GWP
HFE-449sl(HFE-7100) C4F9OCH3 3.8 0.31 1,040 297 90
HFE-569sf2 (HFE-7200) C4F9OC2H5 0.77 0.3 207 59 18
HFE-43-10pccc124 (H-Galden 1040x) CHF2OCF2OC2F4OCHF2 6.3 1.37 6,320 1,870 569
HFE-236ca12 (HG-10) CHF2OCF2OCHF2 12.1 0.66 8,000 2,800 860
HFE-338pcc13 (HG-01) CHF2OCF2CF2OCHF2 6.2 0.87 5,100 1,500 460
(CF3)2CFOCH3 3.4 0.31 1204 343 104
CF3CF2CH2OH 0.4 0.24 147 42 13
(CF3)2CHOH 1.8 0.28 687 195 59
HFE-227ea CF3CHFOCF3 11 0.4 4,540 1,540 468
HFE-236ea2 CHF2OCHFCF3 5.8 0.44 3,370 989 301
HFE-236fa CF3CH2OCF3 3.7 0.34 1,710 487 148
HFE-245fa1 CHF2CH2OCF3 2.2 0.3 1,010 286 87
HFE 263fb2 CF3CH2OCH3 0.2 0.1 38 11 3.7
HFE-329mcc2 CHF2CF2OCF2CF3 6.8 0.49 3,060 919 279
HFE-338mcf2 CF3CH2OCF2CF3 4.3 0.43 1,920 552 168
HFE-347mcf2 CHF2CH2OCF2CF3 2.8 0.41 1,310 374 114
HFE-356mec3 CH3OCF2CHFCF3 0.94 0.3 355 101 31
HFE-356pcf2 CHF2CH2OCF2CHF2 2 0.37 931 265 80
HFE-356pcf3 CHF2OCH2CF2CHF2 3.6 0.39 1,760 502 153
HFE 365mcf3 CF3CF2CH2OCH3 0.27 0.11 41 11 4
HFE-374pc2 CHF2CF2OCH2CH3 5 0.25 1,930 557 169
(CF2)4CH(OH) 0.3 0.85 258 73 23
(CF3)2CHOCHF2 3.1 0.41 1,330 380 115
(CF3)2CHOCH3 0.25 0.3 94 27 8.2
GHG Protocol
Perfluoropolyethers
PFPMIE CF3OCF(CF3)CF2OCF2OCF3 800 0.65 7,620 10,300 12,400
Hydrocarbons and Other
Compounds—Direct Effects
Dimethylether CH3OCH3 0.015 0.02 1 1 <<1
Chloroform CHCl3 0.51 0.11 4 108 31 9.3
Methylene chloride CH2Cl2 0.38 0.03 9 31 8.7 2.7
Methyl chloride CH3Cl 1 0.01 45 13 4
CH2Br2 0.41 0.01 5.4 1.54 0.47
Halon-1201 CHBrF2 5.8 0.14 1,380 404 123
Trifluoroiodomethane CF3I 0.005 0.23 <1 1 0.4 0.1
Note: Greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are shaded in dark gray. Data are taken from Table 2.14 Errata of AR4 (IPCC 2007).
55
substances by signing of this international treaty in 1987 has therefore had

mitigating effects not only on ozone depletion but also on climate change.
Fluorinated ethers are solvents and cleaners that can also be used as refrig-
erant gases. Perfluoropolyethers are used as heat transfer fluids, cleaning
agents, and dermatological cosmetics. The global warming potential for
fluorinated ethers and perfluoropolyethers was not reported by the IPCC
in their 1995 report.
Only six types of gases are to be accounted for based on the GHG Protocol
(shaded in gray in Table 5.1). These gases are the six internationally recog-
nized GHGs regulated under the Kyoto Protocol:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
The emissions for each one of these gases are inventoried separately in
metric tons (MTs) of each gas. One goal of an inventory is to estimate the
impact of the GHGs on the climate. While each one of these gases has a
warming impact on the atmosphere, the extent of this warming, and there-
fore the ultimate impact, depends on both the gas type and its amount. So
as to calculate one ultimate impact category, emissions from all GHGs are
normalized to the GWP of the CO2 gas.
For example, CH4 has a 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 because
it has a higher heat-trapping ability in the atmosphere. Therefore every MT
of CH4 is equivalent to 25 MT of CO2. The GWP factor for N2O is 298, and
those of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are typically much greater. In the inventory,
the final values used are in terms of CO2 equivalence. The emissions of each
gas are calculated separately and then normalized to CO2 equivalence using
GWP factors.
The GWP factors used in GHG inventories are typically for a 100-year
time horizon. Yet, one must realize that the GWP of a gas depends on the
time period analyzed, and a different GWP factor should be used if the time
period analyzed is different. Typically, the GWP factors are estimated for 20,
100, and 500 years. Each gas has a different lifetime in the atmosphere and a
different capacity to absorb infrared radiation (and therefore trap heat and
cause global warming). The GWP factors for each time period reflect both
the lifetime and infrared radiation efficiency of the gas.
The IPCC has reported GWP factors for many of the GHGs in its SAR
(IPCC 1995). These data were then revised in 2001 and 2007 in the IPCC TAR
and AR4 (IPCC 2001, 2007). The Local Government Operations Protocol of
GHG Protocol 57
the Climate Registry recommends the use of global GWP values from SAR
and FAR (Climate Registry 2010). Yet the most up-to-date information is
from the Errata of Table 2.14 of AR4 (IPCC 2007), which is shown in Table 5.1.
Occasionally, the reader may see a slight variation in GWP numbers used by
different parties. This variation may result from the use of SAR versus AR4
data. However, as seen in Table 5.1 the GWP numbers did not change consid-
erably between these two reports.
5.5 Boundary Setting
The GHG protocol has guidance on boundary setting for GHG inventories.
Boundary questions arise as soon as one begins conducting an inventory.
Boundaries determine the necessary data for the inventory and should
match the goals of the project as well. A decision structure for boundary set-
ting is shown in Figure 5.2. Three types of boundaries are relevant: organiza-
tional boundary, operational boundary, and temporal boundary. A variety of
decisions will need to be considered for each one of these boundary settings.
Boundary
Setting
Organizational Operational Temporal

Boundary Boundary Boundary
Setting a base
Public Sector Private Sector Scope 1
year
Tracking
Operational Control
Scope 2 emissions over
Control Approach
time
Equity Share
Financial Control Scope 3
Approach
Joint Control
FIGURE 5.2
Decision levels for boundary setting.
5.6 Organizational Boundary Setting

A GHG inventory can be conducted for a project, for a business, or for any
type of organization including local governments, NGOs, or companies and
their operations. The legal and structural boundaries of these entities may
vary. How does one then deal with complex organizational structures and
shared GHG emissions ownership? The organizational boundary needs to
be selected and defined to answer this question.
The approach for setting the organizational boundary depends on whether
the analysis is being done for the private or public sector. For the private
sector, the equity share approach may be relevant. Under the equity share
approach, a company accounts for GHG emissions from operations accord-
ing to its share of equity in the operation. A company may choose to use
either the equity share or the control approach. The equity share approach is
irrelevant for the public sector. Therefore only the control approach is used
by the public sector.
Within the control approach one of three subapproaches must be used:
operational control, financial control, or joint control. For local governments,
the operational control approach is recommended. If the local government
owns the operation or facility or has full authority to introduce and imple-
ment its operating policies at the operation, then it has operational control
over that operation, and emissions from this operation should be included in
the inventory. Financial control is demonstrated if the operation is fully con-
solidated in the organization’s financial accounts. The joint-control situation
may arise if an entity has joint financial control over an operation but not
operational control. In such cases, the contractual arrangements would need
to be analyzed to determine whether any one of the partners has enough
authority for operational control.
The Local Government Operations Protocol (Climate Registry 2010) notes
that in most cases the local government inventory results will be similar
regardless of whether operational or financial control is used, although
there may be some differences in some cases. Either way, the organizational
boundary approach selected should be consistently used instead of switch-
ing back and forth or mixing the two approaches.
In defining the organizational boundary, one must also consider the level
at which data can be conveniently collected. For example, the University of
Toledo and the Medical College of Ohio merged into a single institution in
2008, after which there were three major campus locations for the university:
the main campus, Health Sciences campus, and Scott Park campus. The uni-
versity committed to doing a GHG inventory shortly after the merger. They
considered doing the inventory only for the main campus because collect-
ing and analyzing the data for all three campuses was inconvenient at the
time due to various joint positions, services, and relocations resulting from
the merger.
GHG Protocol 59
5.7 Operational Boundary Setting

Once the organizational boundary is determined, the next big question is
the operational boundary, which refers to what is being counted. So as to
avoid double counting, the GHG Protocol has come up with three categories
of emissions:
Scope 1: Direct emissions

Scope 2: Indirect emissions
Scope 3: Other optional indirect, typically upstream or downstream,
emissions
By separating out the emissions in this way, it is possible to separately count

an organization’s direct and indirect emissions. Also, one organization’s
direct emissions will be another organization’s indirect emissions. For exam-
ple, the GHGs coming from power production would be Scope 1 emissions
for the power industry, but the use of electricity from this power generation
would be Scope 2 emissions for another industry. This way, direct and indi-
rect emissions can be counted separately for a given region without double
counting the emissions.
5.7.1 Scope 1 Emissions
A schematic for possible sources for each one of the scope emissions is shown
in Figure 5.3. Direct emissions (Scope 1) can be from mobile sources such
as vehicles or from stationary combustion for producing electricity, heat, or
steam. For example, any on-site burning of coal or natural gas would be con-
sidered Scope 1 emissions. Fugitive emissions in Scope 1 are unwanted or
unintended emissions, typically of HFCs. Refrigerators for example may leak
gases, and while the leakage may be small, the impact may be relatively large
due to very high GWP factors of HFCs. Agricultural sources may include N4
emissions from animals and N2O emissions from fertilizers.
Also included in Scope 1 are process emissions. Some entities may own or
operate a manufacturing process for different materials, and emissions may
occur not only from fossil fuel burning but also as part of the process. Here
we provide two simple reaction equations from the cement and aluminum
industries to explain process emissions.
In cement production, one source of CO2 emissions is a result of clinker produc-
tion from carbonates where 1 ton of CO2 is produced for every 1 ton of Portland
cement clinker manufactured based on the following chemical reaction:
5CaCO3 + 2SiO2 A (3CaO,SiO2)(2CaO,SiO2) + 5CO2

Scope 1: Direct Emissions
Mobile Fugitive emissions

Process Stationary Combustion
combustion from refrigeration Agriculture
emissions from for producing
from vehicles and other chemicals
manufacturing of M20 emission

electricity
cement from fertilizer
manufacturing of CH4 emissions

heat
aluminum from animals
manufacturing of steam
other materials
Scope 2: Indirect Scope 3: Other Indirect

Emissions Emissions (Optional)
Employee Upstream emissions from

Waste-related Distribution losses from
Purchased commuting or directly financed purchases
emissions purchased electricity
electricity, business travel of materials and fuels
heating,
steam,
cooling Solid waste
Food
Waste water
Paper
Water
Others
FIGURE 5.3
Operational boundaries categorized as Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
In aluminum production, some CO2 emissions occur at the carbon anode

that is used to convert alumina (with oxygen) into aluminum based on the
following chemical reaction:
2Al2O3 + 3C → 4Al + 3CO2
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions that are neither owned nor oper-
ated by the organization, but whose products are directly linked to the
GHG Protocol 61
organization’s energy consumption. Scope 2 emissions include purchased

energy in the form of purchased electricity, steam, or chilled water.
Purchased electricity is likely to dominate Scope 2 emissions in most
cases. In the United States, emission factors for electricity production can
be estimated from USEPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID). eGRID is a comprehensive inventory of environmental
attributes of electric power systems. eGRID reports emission factors for dif-
ferent subregions. A copy of the eGRID emission factors document for 2005
emissions is shown in Figure 5.4 (USEPA 2007). The electricity is generated
using a variety of methods that have different emission impacts resulting in
different emission factors for each subregion. For example, in Ohio, 85% of
electricity is generated from coal, resulting in relatively high emission fac-
tors for the RFCW (Ohio Valley) subregion. In contrast, electricity in New
England states is produced primarily from nuclear power and some natural
gas with fairly small percentages of coal in the mix, resulting in lower emis-
sions factors for the NEWE subregion.
To determine the emissions from electricity use, one needs to determine
which eGRID subregion the organization belongs to. For example, the rel-
evant subregion for Toledo is RFCW. In 2009, the average annual electric-
ity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,896 kWh
(U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2011). Assuming an annual
electricity use of 11,000 kWh and using the emission factors from Figure 5.4
and SAR’s 100-year GWP factors from Table 5.1, the estimated emissions for
this electricity use in Toledo can be calculated as follows:
CO2 emissions:
10,000 kWh * 1,537.82 lbs CO2/MWhr * 1 MWhr/1000 kWh *

1 kg/2.205 lbs * 1 MT /1000kg = 6.974 MT CO2
CH4 emissions:
10,000 kWh * 18.23 lbs CH4/GWhr * 1 GWhr/106 kWh * 1 kg/2.205 lbs

* 1 MT/1000 kg * 21 kg CO2 (equivalence)/1 kg CH4 = 0.002 MT
CO2 equivalent
N2O emissions:
10,000 kWh * 25.71 lbs N2O/GWhr * 1 GWhr/106 kWh * 1 kg/2.205 lbs

* 1 MT /1000kg * 310 kg CO2 (equivalence)/1 kg N2O = 0.036 MT
CO2 equivalent
Total CO2 equivalence:
Total CO2 equivalence = 6.974 + 0.002 + 0.036 = 7.012 MT CO2 equiva-

lent [7.012 MT CO2e]
FIGURE 5.4
eGRID emission factors document for 2005 emissions. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
documents/egridzips/eGRID2007V1_1_year05_GHGOutputRates.pdf.
GHG Protocol 63
Therefore using eGRID values, the total annual emissions from electric-
ity use of an average household is about 7 MT CO2e. The eGRID subregion
emission factors are representative for that geographic area. However, mul-
tiple utility companies may be operating within that region. If the utility
company provides emission factors specifically for their utility, these should
be used for greater accuracy instead of eGRID emission factors.
The GHG protocol recommends that at least Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
are included in the GHG inventory, while accounting for Scope 3 emis-
sions is considered optional. One type of emissions that can be included
in Scope 3 is waste-related downstream emissions such as emissions from
management of solid waste and wastewater. For example, solid waste man-
agement produces emissions from transportation of the waste to a landfill
(gasoline use in transportation vehicle) and from landfill gas emissions
resulting from methanogenesis (formation of methane by microbes known
as methanogens) in anaerobic conditions. Wastewater treatment emis-
sions include emissions from energy used in wastewater treatment (pur-
chased electricity and emissions from fuel-combusting equipment) and
from process emissions. Wastewater treatment process emissions are typi-
cally CH4 emissions from anaerobic processes and N2O emissions from
nitrification/denitrification processes as well as effluent discharge to receiv-
ing aquatic environments.
Another type of emissions to include in Scope 3 are those from commuting
and business travel. For universities, the commuting category may be a large
fraction of all emissions and should be considered in the GHG inventory.
When electricity is produced at a power plant, it travels large distances to
where it is used. Some of the electricity is lost during this transmission and
distribution (T and D). While purchased electricity is included in Scope 2
emissions, these T and D losses are to be included in Scope 3 emissions.
Other than commuting, business travel, and waste-related emissions,
Scope 3 emissions include upstream emissions related to purchasing of
products such as food, water, fuel, and other materials. These emissions are
more difficult to estimate because the life cycle emissions from a product are
largely unknown or uncertain. The GHG Protocol has recently developed
new guidance for estimating Scope 3 emissions using LCA-type approaches.
This new guidance was in draft format for stakeholder review at the time
of writing this book (GHG Protocol Initiative 2010). Once finalized, it will
be a very useful addition to the guidance documents provided by the GHG
Protocol Initiative. Apart from this Scope 3 guidance, standards for product
carbon footprint analysis would also be useful in estimating product-related
Scope 3 emissions. These standards are discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.2.
5.8 Temporal Boundary Setting

The third type of boundary that needs to be considered is the time frame and
the base year. First, a base year is selected, which then serves as the reference
point for tracking emissions and setting targets. The base year is used to
track progress toward reduction goals. Reduction goals are set in reference
to the base year. For example, if the base year is 1990, one can set a target of
20% reduction by 2010 and do the GHG inventory for the year 1990 and for
every year after that. Many of the countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol
are using 1990 as the base year. However, data from this early in history
may not be available for many institutions constructing a GHG inventory.
The institution should consider data availability, program requirements, and
existing reduction efforts in selecting a base year.
References
Clean Air Cool Planet. 2008. Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator, v. 6.6.
http://www.cleanair-c oolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-c alculator.php (accessed
August 11, 2011).
Climate Registry. 2009. The Climate Registry. http://www.theclimateregistry.org/
(accessed August 11, 2011).
Climate Registry. 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol: For the Quantification
and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, v. 1.1. May 2010. http://
www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2010/05/2010-05-06-LGO-1.1.pdf.
EIA. 2011. Frequently Asked Questions: How Much Electricity Does an Average
American Home Use? http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
(accessed August 11, 2011).
GHG Protocol. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. http://www.ghgprotocol.
org/ (accessed August 11, 2011).
GHG Protocol Initiative. 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard (Rev. ed.). http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/
corporate-standard (accessed August 11, 2011)
GHG Protocol Initiative. 2010. Product Accounting and Reporting Standard: Draft
for Stakeholder Review. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-
protocol-product-standard-draft-november-20101.pdf.
IPCC. 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995, the Science of
Climate Change. Working Group I report.
IPCC. 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, the Physical
Science Basis. Working Group I report.
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, the Physical
Science Basis. Working Group I report.
GHG Protocol 65
USEPA. 2005. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Design Principles.
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/design-principles.
pdf.
USEPA. 2007. eGRID Subregion GHG Output Emission Rates for Year 2005. http://
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2007V1_1_year05_
GHGOutputRates.pdf.
USEPA. 2011a. The Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
USEPA. 2011b. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/
p2policy/act1990.htm.
6
Metrics and Performance Measurement
for Carbon Footprint Analyses
6.1 Introduction
Accurately measuring carbon emissions, energy usage, and tracking trends
are critical steps for a successful minimization program. Measurement is
needed before a company can begin to manage and reduce carbon footprints
or energy consumption. Without establishing a starting point, or baseline
measurement, it is very difficult to develop strategies to meet organizational
carbon and energy reduction goals. This chapter addresses this issue and
discusses the various metrics to evaluate carbon and energy and minimiza-
tion performance. The metrics can be separated into three categories:
• Environmental impact in terms of mission rates and energy

consumption
• Business and financial performance
• Voice of the customers and stakeholders
The remainder of this chapter will address these three categories and dis-
cuss their role in developing a strong GHG minimization program.
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Measurement

Measuring and tracking GHG emission trends and the performance of indi-
vidual companies is critical to successfully managing and reducing GHG
emissions. For any process improvement, an accurate data-driven baseline
must be created and monitored to measure success toward meeting a goal—
in this case, measuring a company’s carbon emission levels and the related
energy usage. Traditionally, carbon emissions are reported by total output.
For example, the plant generated 50 metric tons of GHGs this month. This
67
measurement approach has a very serious shortcoming. The primary flaw is

that is does not consider production levels or resource inputs. For example,
if two similar manufacturing plants emit the same amounts of GHGs, but
the second plant has only half the production volume, the second plant is
not doing as good a job of managing its emissions. Several other approaches
have been developed to compensate for these flaws and allow for an equal
“apples-to-apples” comparison. Five of the most common metrics by which
GHGs can be measured are:
1. Absolute measures
2. Measures indexed to a production output-based quantity
3. Measures indexed to a production input-based quantity
4. Measures indexed to throughput
5. Measures indexed to a production activity
All except the first of these metrics are based on the ratio of generation to
some measure of business activity.
6.2.1 Absolute Measures
A comparison of the amount of GHGs emitted in one year to the amount that
is emitted in another year is an absolute measure of emissions. Such mea-
surements are consistent and easy to understand; for example; one metric ton
of carbon emitted last year is equal to one metric ton of carbon emitted this
year. The major drawback is that they ignore production levels or business
activities associated with waste generation. For example, if a manufacturing
plant reduces its total emissions by 50%, it might indicate a major effort to
reduce pollution or it might be associated with a large drop in production
volume, such as the loss of a large contract that accounts for 50% of its total
production volume. The solution to this problem is to normalize the data or
index GHG to some measure of production.
6.2.2 Measures Indexed to Output

GHG emissions can be indexed to the mass of products, number of products,
or dollar value of products. A good example of this in the automobile indus-
try is emissions per vehicle produced. Using this index, a company will have
a more meaningful comparison of emission rates at different production
levels. A drawback of this approach is that it does not consider significant
changes to output. For example, if the automobile plant shifts form produc-
ing sport utility vehicles to compact hybrid cars, emissions per vehicle would
be expected to drop too. This drop may not be linked to a GHG reduction
program, but rather to a major change in business processes.
Metrics and Performance Measurement for Carbon Footprint Analyses 69
6.2.3 Measures Indexed to Input

GHG emissions can also be indexed to inputs, such as raw materials, dollar
value of raw materials, or the number of employees. This is not a commonly
used metric, but it can offer several advantages including:
• Raw-material data and employee numbers are easily available.

• The information is widely applicable to different processes and
facilities.
6.2.4 Measures Indexed to Throughput

This index is similar to an output index but links GHG emissions to an inter-
mediate product generated, not a final product. This may be beneficial and
more meaningful in some situations, such as a company that would like to
measure and track its emissions for an internal unit that supplies another unit
within the company. For example, in a final assembly plant for automobiles,
the unit that produces the seats for the cars could use this index to measure
the emissions that car seat assembly produced. This measure would be more
meaningful to the seat assembly unit than a final product index (vehicles
produced), since the seat assembly unit may produce a different number of
seats for different car models (a sports car may have only two seats whereas a
sports utility vehicle may have eight seats).
6.2.5 Measures Indexed to Activity

Finally, GHG emissions may be indexed to a business activity, such as the
number of times an emissions activity occurs not necessarily related to pro-
duction levels. In some cases an activity ratio may be a more accurate mea-
sure than a production ratio. For example, at a university how often the
school holds orientation sessions or training sessions will impact the rate of
emissions, since more people and activity will take place. An index to the
number of training sessions conducted may be more meaningful than
the number of students or faculty at the school.
6.3 Business and Financial Measurement

From a business standpoint, projects are evaluated based on their impact to
the bottom line of the organization. An understanding of the financial ben-
efits of a GHG minimization project is critical to determining, evaluating,
comparing, and selecting projects. In addition, a thorough understanding of
the financial impact of the project will aid in promoting the project to upper
management and other stakeholders. From a financial standpoint, the three

areas by which GHG minimization projects are evaluated are:
• Initial investment
• Payback period (and discounted payback period)
• Internal rate of return (IRR)
The initial investment is the startup funds required to begin a given GHG
minimization program. This includes the cost for collection/monitoring
equipment, provider fees, and training costs. The payback period is the
period of time (usually given in years) required for the project’s profit or
other benefits to equal the project’s initial investment. The equation is:
Cost
Payback Period =
Uniform Annual Benefits
The payback period measures how long the project will take to recoup the
initial investment, or in other words gauges the rapid return of investment
for an organization. Many organizations use the payback period as a litmus
test to screen projects based on a predetermined threshold, say three to four
years for many companies. There are some limitations to the payback period,
such as:
• The payback period is an approximation, not an exact economic

analysis.
• All costs and all profits (or savings) of the investment before payback
are included without considering differences in timing.
• All economic consequences after the payback period are ignored.
• Being an approximation, the payback period may not select the opti-
mal project.
The IRR is the interest rate at which the present worth and equivalent
annual worth of a project are equal to zero. Another way to think about
the IRR is as the annualized interest rate that a project earns over its life. In
most cases, organizations have a predetermined minimum attractive rate of
return (MARR), which is the minimum interest rate that the organization
could accept as the return on a project and still remain profitable. For a given
project, if the IRR is greater than or equal to the MARR, it is a profitable deci-
sion to accept the project. To solve IRR, the net present worth (NPW) is set
equal to zero, as shown in the following equation:
n
NPW = ∑ (1 C+ r )
t
t =0
t=1
where
t = the time of the cash flow
N = the total time of the project
r = the discount rate (the rate of return that could be earned on an invest-
ment in the financial markets with similar risk)
Ct = the net cash flow (the amount of cash) at time t
GHG minimization projects should be evaluated based on these three

areas, the initial investment, the payback period, and the IRR. The initial
investment is important to determining and allocating the start-up funds an
organization has available to begin the project. This is needed to determine
the starting point for the minimization efforts. The payback period and the
IRR measure the “success” of the project in financial terms.
6.4 Customer and Stakeholder Satisfaction Measurements

A recent study on employee and customer satisfaction indicated that
“being green” bolsters employees’ and customers’ opinions of the orga-
nization. In February 2008, Brockman & Company, the customer insight
firm, released its latest independent report on being green and its relation-
ship to business performance (Brockman 2008). The report, entitled The
Power of Green, reviews buyer preferences for green brands and consid-
ers the state of green in over 100 organizations from around the world.
Findings from this report indicate that consumers are concerned about
the cost associated with being “green.” In the study the author links being
“green” to higher customer satisfaction, higher employee satisfaction, and
higher revenues per employee (Brockman 2008). Additional findings from
the report included:
• The reliability, accessibility, and quality of video conferencing is the

most significant variable influencing the study’s result.
• Counterintuitively, top performers don’t use disincentives for busi-
ness travel, leaving it to the discretion of employees as to the most
effective use of their time and company resources.
• It’s not just about green technology adoption, but about green prac-
tices and management attitudes that influence corporate culture on
questions like encouraging public transit and tele-working.
There are numerous methods to investigate whether customers are satis-

fied with an organization, products, and the service offered. Common meth-
ods are:
• Use face-to-face interviews. As customers enter or leave your facility,

store, or office, ask them their opinions.
• If you have a customer phone number list, and their permission,
consider calling them after their visit and ask how satisfied they are.
• Mail customers a questionnaire.
• E-mail customers an invitation to take a customer satisfaction survey.
• Partner with a market research firm to gather and collect data.
Following are some common questions to ask related to business and envi-
ronmental performance perception:
• How satisfied are you with the purchase you made (of a product or
service)?
• How satisfied are you with the service you received?
• How satisfied are you with the company overall?
• How do you rate the environmental image of the company?
And ask the customer loyalty questions, such as:
• How likely are you to buy from us again?

• How likely are you to recommend our product/service to others?
• How likely are you to recommend our company to others?
Also ask what the customer liked and didn’t like about the product, your
service, and your company.
Employee attitude surveys can provide significant insights into an orga-
nization’s needs related to training and development. These surveys can be
used to solicit employee opinions on a variety of issues such as the com-
pany’s success in communicating its mission to employees and various
environmental initiatives. The items included in these surveys may concern
areas such as:
• Creativity
• Innovation
• Satisfaction
• Senior management
• Interpersonal relations
• Functional expertise
• Compensation
• Ability to listen
• Customer service
• Communication
• Obtaining results
• Analytical thinking
• Mentoring
• Strategic leadership
• Teamwork
• Adaptability
• Staff development
• Leadership
The results of this type of feedback process provide an understanding of

how the employee perceives the organization along different areas as well as
its processes and value. This feedback can be essential to facilitating devel-
opment and organizational change and can be used to improve employee
satisfaction. With customer and employee surveys, information should be
collected over a period of time on a routine cyclical basis so that trends can
be developed and studied. These trends are a tool to gauge the opinions and
attitudes of these key stakeholders.
Reference
Brockman, P. 2008. Study: Being Green Linked to Higher Business Performance. http://
forum.brockmann.com/about/news/51-press-releases/1191-study-b eing-
green-linked-to-higher-business-performance.
7
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators
Available on the Internet
7.1 Overview of Calculators and Comparisons

Several websites have emerged to assist organizations in estimating their
energy and GHG or carbon footprints. These websites typically utilize a
calculator format that requires input from the user, performs calculations
based on the entered data, and then provides output of the estimated annual
energy and GHG emissions. Several sites offer recommendations and strate-
gies to reduce emissions. Similarities and differences exist among the calcu-
lators, and significant differences may exist in their output. Major categories
of differences and similarities among the calculators include:
• The calculator developer (government, nonprofit, or private company)

• Market served (home, commercial, manufacturing)
• Fee for usage
• Support provided
• Calculation method
The remaining sections provide a description of each calculator, including

the website address, fees, and calculation methods. Table 7.1 provides a sum-
mary and compilation of these calculators.
7.2 American Forests
(http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/)
American Forests is America’s oldest nonprofit conservation organization,
founded in 1875. The organization works with individuals, communities,
75
76
TABLE 7.1
Energy and GHG Calculator Comparison
Calculator Name Funding Market Served Fees Input Data Output Data
American Forests Nonprofit Homes No cost Home energy and Annual CO2 generation
travel usage
Bonneville Nonprofit Homes and nonmanufacturing No cost Home energy and travel Annual CO2 generation, annual
Environmental businesses usage water usage, and comparisons to
Foundation (BEF) national averages
Clearwater Nonprofit Homes and nonmanufacturing No cost Home energy and travel Annual CO2 generation
businesses usage
The Conservation Nonprofit Homes No cost Home energy and travel Annual CO2 generation and number
Fund usage of trees required to offset emissions
Green Mountain For-profit Homes and nonmanufacturing No cost Home energy and Annual CO2 generation and
Energy business businesses travel usage comparisons to national averages
TerraPass For profit Businesses No cost Energy and travel usage Annual CO2 generation
U.S. Department Government Homes, businesses, and No cost Energy usage Energy usage, costs, and annual
of Energy agency manufacturers CO2 emissions
USEPA Government Homes No cost Home energy and travel Annual CO2 generation
agency usage
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators Available on the Internet 77
and policy makers to protect and restore forests around the world, and raise
awareness of how important these ecosystems are to all forms of life on the
planet. A primary focus of this group involves forest conservation, from
planting trees to educating future generations about trees’ benefits.
The calculator is designed to assist an individual household in calculat-
ing their annual carbon emissions. It collects information regarding home
energy usage, automobile usage, and airline usage per year. If energy usage
is unknown, the user is able to use averages provided by the system. The cal-
culator is provided at no cost and allows users to offset carbon emissions by
donating $1 to plant a tree.
7.3 Bonneville Environmental Foundation

(http://www.b-e -f.org/carbon/calc/)
Bonneville Environmental Foundation is an entrepreneurial nonprofit orga-
nization designed to fundamentally transform the relationship between
humans and the earth’s energy and water resources. The organization offers
a no-cost calculator for households and businesses for CO2 emissions and
water usage (a feature that differentiates this from other calculators). This
calculator does not provide the advanced data entry required for manufac-
turing organizations.
7.4 Clearwater
(http://www.clearwater.org/carbon.html)
Clearwater is a regional environmental organization that released a Microsoft
Excel based carbon calculator for free download. It is easy to use, and allows
individuals, households, and institutions such as businesses and universities
to accurately measure their carbon emissions, and then guides them in tak-
ing measurable steps to reduce carbon emissions.
Using the Clearwater Carbon Calculator, consumers can collect simple
data on their consumption of gasoline, electricity, paper, air travel, and other
products, and know instantly the amount of carbon being released to the
environment as CO2 and other pollutants. They can also use this informa-
tion to reduce carbon emissions.
7.5 The Conservation Fund

(http://www.conservationfund.org/gozero)
The Conservation Fund supports government agencies, land trusts, nonprofit
organizations, and other partners in acquiring and protecting landscapes.
Their offerings include real estate services that identify, negotiate, and finance
land purchases that fulfill their partners’ priorities. The carbon calculator is
available at no cost and requires the user to enter energy use, daily transporta-
tion, and air travel. The calculator estimates the carbon footprint for the year, as
well as the approximate number of trees it will take to neutralize the personal
impact on climate change. The calculator is for individual household use only.
7.6 Green Mountain Energy

(http://www.greenmountainenergy.com/green-mountain-e nergy-company-
store/c arbon-calculator)
Green Mountain Energy Company offers carbon offsets and renewable-
energy certificates (RECs) to individuals, businesses, and other organizations
to aid them in estimating and reducing their impact on the environment. The
for-profit organization was founded in 1997 and works in various regions
in the United States to aid customers in purchasing green and renewable
energy for home or business use. The calculator is provided at no cost, but
provides advertisement for fee-based services offered by the company. The
online calculator requests vehicle, electricity, travel, and heating usage, and
outputs annual carbon dioxide emissions in MTs. The calculator also pro-
vides comparisons to national averages. This calculator does not provide the
advanced data entry required for manufacturing organizations.
7.7 TerraPass
(http://www.terrapass.com/business/)
TerraPass was established in 2004 by a University of Pennsylvania faculty
member as a way to help everyday people reduce the climate impact of
their driving. Within its first year, TerraPass registered over 2400 members,
reduced 36 million pounds of CO2, and earned countless national press and
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators Available on the Internet 79
blog articles. The company works directly with carbon reduction projects,
providing revenue to dairy farms, landfill gas installations, and other proj-
ects that yield carbon credits. The company offers a carbon calculator of spe-
cific businesses that requests more detailed information from users. Users
are required to submit a valid e-mail address to access the calculator.
7.8 The U.S. Department of Energy—Home Energy Saver

(http://hes.lbl.gov/consumer/)
The Home Energy Saver (HES) calculator is provided as a free online service
to assist individual households, businesses, and manufacturers in reducing
energy usage. HES identifies strategies for homeowners and renters to save
money and reduce energy use in their homes. The web-based calculator iden-
tifies energy-saving upgrades that are appropriate to the home and make
sense for the home’s climate and local energy prices. The money invested in
these upgrades commonly earns “interest” in the form of energy bill savings,
at an annual rate of 20% or more. HES also estimates the home’s carbon foot-
print and shows how much it can be reduced. For professional users, HES
offers HESpro. The purposes of the calculator are to collect energy usage for
a single building and identify strategies for cost and energy reductions. As a
by-product of the calculator, CO2 emissions are also calculated.
7.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html)
USEPA is an agency of the U.S. government designed to protect human health
and the environment. USEPA provides a detailed carbon emission calculator
for individual households that provides a general estimate of a person’s or
family’s energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The calculator also explores
the impact of taking various actions to reduce emissions and is broken into
three sections:
• Section 1: Estimate current total household emissions.

• Section 2: Explore actions to reduce your energy and greenhouse gas
emissions, energy use, and waste disposal costs.
• Section 3: See how much can be saved (in dollars and emissions) by
taking the actions you chose in Section 2.
8
Carbon Footprints of Some Entities
8.1 Introduction
Carbon literacy includes knowing what magnitude of carbon footprint is rel-
evant for different entities. In this chapter we report some carbon footprint
values that can be helpful in understanding the level of emissions from dif-
ferent organizations and products.
8.2 Carbon Footprint of Persons, Organizations, and Nations

Some examples of individual, organizational, and governmental carbon foot-
prints are shown in Table 8.1. Individual emissions in the United States are esti-
mated to be 24.5 MT CO2e per year, which is about four times greater than the
world per capita emissions. Emissions from Chicago and the state of Michigan
are in the order of millions of MTs CO2e. Global emissions are 41 billion MT
CO2e, and about 16% of these emissions come from the United States.
In 2009, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6633 Tg or million met-
ric tons CO2e (Table 8.2). Total U.S. emissions increased by 7.3% from 1990
to 2009. However, there was a 6.1% decrease in emissions from 2008 to 2009
by (427.9 Tg CO2e) due to (1) a decrease in economic output resulting in a
decrease in energy consumption across all sectors, and (2) a decrease in the
carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity due to fuel switching
as the price of coal increased, and the price of natural gas decreased signifi-
cantly. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of
0.4% (USEPA 2011).
The emission sources can be categorized in different ways. IPCC has
identified six sectors that are direct sources of emissions (Table 8.2). Energy
production creates the highest amount of emissions in the United States fol-
lowed by the emissions from agriculture. In the United States, land use, land
use change, and forestry provide a sink for emissions that amount to reduc-
tion of emissions by one-sixth, resulting in a net emissions of 5618 million
81
TABLE 8.1
Some Examples of Individual, Organizational, and Government Carbon Footprints
Annual GHG
Entity Emission Estimates Source
World per 5.6 MT CO2e (2005) http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf
capita
United States 24.5 MTCO2e (2005) http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf
per capita
University of 81,445 MT CO2e (2010) CAP report: http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/civil/
Toledo newweb/sustainability/Sustainability%20
Curriculum.htm
City of Chicago 36.2 million MT CO2e http://www.chicagoclimateaction.org/filebin/
(2005) pdf/finalreport/CCAPREPORTFINALv2.pdf
State of 62.6 million MT CO2e University of Michigan Report:
Michigan (2002) http://css.snre.umich.edu/publication/
michigan-greenhouse-gas-inventory-1990-
and-2002
United States 6,633 million MT CO2e USEPA GHG Inventory Report:
(2009) http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-
Executive-Summary.pdf
World 41,715 million MT http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=/
CO2e (2000) World-FlowChart
TABLE 8.2
U.S. Emissions and Sinks in 2009 by IPCC Sector
Emissions
IPCC Sector (millions of MT CO2e)
Energy 5751.1
Agriculture 419.3
Industrial processes 282.9
Waste 150.5
Land use, land use-change, and forestry (emissions) 25
Solvent and other product use 4.4
Total emissions 6633.2
Net CO2 flux from land use, land-use change, and forestry (sinks) 1015.1
Net emissions (sources and sinks) 5618.1
Source: USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009, EPA 430-R-
11-005, http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html, 2011.
MT CO2e from the United States. When emissions are analyzed based on
economic sectors, it can be seen that the emissions are primarily coming
from the electric power, transportation, and industrial economic sectors,
whereas agriculture, commercial, and residential economic sectors contrib-
ute relatively less to emissions (Table 8.3). When emissions from electricity
Carbon Footprints of Some Entities 83
TABLE 8.3
U.S. Emissions in 2009 by Economic Sector
Emissions
Economic Sector (Millions of MT CO2e)
Electric power industry 2193
Transportation 1812.4
Industry 1322.7
Agriculture 490
Commercial 409.5
Residential 360.1
U.S. territories 45.5
Total 6633.2
Source: USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990–2009, EPA 430-R-11-005, http://epa.
gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.
html, 2011.
TABLE 8.4
U.S. Emissions in 2009 by Economic Sector with
Electricity Distributed
Economic Sector Emissions
with Electricity Distributed (Millions of MT CO2e)
Transportation 1816.9
Industry 1910.9
Agriculture 516
Commercial 1184.9
Residential 1158.9
U.S. territories 45.5
Total 6633.2
Source: USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990–2009, EPA 430-R-11-005, http://epa.
gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.
html, 2011.
are distributed to economic sectors where the electricity is used, a different

picture is observed (Table 8.4). The emissions from agriculture and trans-
portation sectors do not increase that much, but the emissions from the resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial sectors increase considerably, making
industry and transportation the highest-emitting sectors followed by almost
equal amounts of emissions from the commercial and industrial sectors. The
emissions source by gas type reveals that most of the emissions are in CO2,
followed by CH4 and N2O (Table 8.5).
TABLE 8.5
2009 U.S. GHG Emissions by Gas
Gas Percentage
CO2 83.0
CH4 10.3
N2O 4.5
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 2.2
Total 100
Source: USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009, EPA 430-
R-11-005, http://epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/usinventoryreport.html, 2011.
In general, the carbon footprint of products is likely to be more uncer-

tain than the emissions of organizations, since the LCA process is typically
more complex than estimating the annual GHG emissions of organizations.
Carbon footprints of several products are shown in Table 8.7. Since compa-
nies may not prefer to reveal the carbon footprint of their product or may
not have these data, the carbon footprint values of products are relatively
harder to obtain. However, most recently, Berners Lee (2011) compiled car-
bon footprints of many products in a book. In addition, scientific literature
also abounds with life cycle-based estimations of carbon footprints of an
expansive variety of products.
8.3 Embedded Carbon of Products

The embedded energy and carbon values for some UK-specific con-
struction materials, compiled by Hammond and Jones (2011) are shown
in Table 8.6. These values are specific to UK construction materials and
UK energy mix, but theoretically, similar tables can be developed for any
material produced anywhere. Such tables are helpful in understanding
the energy and emission impacts of different products and can aid in
purchase or design decisions. For example, from Table 8.7 it can be seen
that recycled aluminum and steel have much lower embedded energy and
emissions compared to their virgin products and should be selected if
energy and emission minimization is a primary goal of the construction
project. In Table 8.7, it can also be observed that for most materials, there
is about 10% less difference in values between the third and fourth col-
umns, indicating that most of the emissions from making a product are
CO2. In PVC and paint, the contribution of non-CO2 GHGs to the total
emissions is greater than 15%.
Carbon Footprints of Some Entities 85
TABLE 8.6
Embodied Energy and Carbon of Some Construction Materials
Embodied Energy Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon
(MJ/kg) (kg CO2/kg) (kg CO2 equivalent/kg)
Virgin aluminum 218 11.46 12.79
Recycled aluminum 29.0 1.69 1.81
Paint 70.00 2.42 2.91
PVC 77.20 2.61 3.10
Virgin steel 35.40 2.71 2.89
Recycled steel 9.40 0.44 0.47
Timber* 10.00 0.30fos + 0.41bio 0.31fos + 0.41bio
Cement 4.5 0.73 0.74
Asphalt, 4% (bitumen) 2.86 0.059 0.066
binder content (by mass)
Common brick 3.00 0.23 0.24
Concrete 0.75 0.100 0.107
Glass 15.00 0.86 0.91
Sand 0.081 0.0048 0.0051
Note: From G. Hammond and C. Jones, Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), v. 2.0, http://
www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/, 2011.
* Emissions from timber are from fossil fuel (fos) and biomass (bio) sources. Biomass source of
0.41 kg CO2/kg timber represents emissions from an unsustainably managed forest. If the
timber is from a sustainably managed forest, then the CO2 emissions from biomass source
would be zero.
TABLE 8.7
Carbon Footprints of Some Products
Carbon Footprint
Company Product (kg CO2e) Reference
Milk Industry Milk 2.05 kg CO2e per kg U.S. Dairy LCA Executive Summary
milk consumed http://www.usdairy.com/Sustainability/
GHGReduction/Science/Pages/
LifeCycleAssessment.aspx
Patagonia T-shirt 4.7 kg per T-shirt http://www.patagonia.com/us/
footprint/index.jsp
Tesco Pure 0.36 kg per 250 mL http://www.tesco.com/assets/
squeezed of juice greenerliving/content/documents/
orange juice pdfs/carbon_label_findings.pdf
Tesco Potatoes 0.16 kg per 0.25 kg http://www.tesco.com/assets/
serving greenerliving/content/documents/
pdfs/carbon_label_findings.pdf
Tesco 60W pearl 34 kg per 1000 hr use http://www.tesco.com/assets/
lightbulb greenerliving/content/documents/
pdfs/carbon_label_findings.pdf
Tesco 11 W CFL 6.5 kg per 1000 hr use
Dyson Airblade Hand dryer 3.4 kg per use Dyson Airblade pamphlet
References
Berners Lee, M. 2011. How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything.
Vancouver, BC, Canada: Greystone Books.
Hammond, G., and C. Jones. Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), v. 2.0. http://
www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/.
USEPA. 2011. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009. EPA 430-
R-11-005. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
Section III
Systems Approach to
Project Implementation
9
Introduction: The System Approach to
Carbon Footprint and Energy Reduction
The energy and carbon footprint analysis and reduction process presented
in this book is based on the systems approach of engineering. The systems
approach is a problem-solving process that focuses on a holistic view of an
organization by analyzing the connections and interactions between the
parts and processes that comprise the entire system. A common definition of
a system is a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements
forming a complex whole coordinated to achieve a stated purpose or goal. The
systems approach emphasizes that the best method to understand problems
is to understand the individual parts in relation to the whole. From a high-
level view, a system is comprised of inputs, processes, and outputs intended
to accomplish a given goal or goals. The definition and clear understanding
of this goal is critical to defining the system in terms of its processes, required
inputs, and desired outputs. For example, there will be very different sys-
tems for an organization that produces solar cells versus an organization
that provides food services. The significant benefit of the systems approach
to energy and carbon footprint analysis is that it addresses the problem
from a business standpoint, consistently focusing on the organization’s goals,
and confronting the problem at every stage of the supply chain. Traditional
approaches tend to address the issue of carbon and pollution emissions only at
the end of the process, when determining how to cost effectively remove or
mitigate the waste from the facility. Many organizations also manage pollu-
tion and energy usage as compartmentalized “problems” that are managed
separately from their core processes. The central issue with this traditional
approach is that by focusing on these individual outcomes, overall system
optimization cannot be achieved. The systems approach addresses issues at
all phases of the supply chain, from raw-material procurement to the design
of environmentally friendly processes that reduce emissions and pollution.
To that end, the complete life cycle of the product and process is analyzed
for potential environmental improvements, not just the waste left over or
emitted at the end of the day. Areas such as raw-material wastes, energy
usage, HVAC, and end-use disposal are examined and covered in this book.
Figure 9.1 provides an overview of the system as it relates to business pro-
cesses, and energy and carbon footprint minimization.
Defining the terms of a system will provide additional insights into the
interactions and relationships as they relate to carbon footprint analysis and
89
OUTPUTS
INPUTS SYSTEM • Desired
• Land • Value-Added Processes product or
• Capital • Non-Value-Added service
• Labor Processes • Waste or
by-products
FIGURE 9.1
The systems approach overview.
reduction. The starting point of any system is to clearly define its goal or
purpose. Once the goal is defined, the required inputs, outputs, and process
designs can be determined concurrently, focusing on the system goals. For
example, suppose an organization sets a goal to manufacture 30,000 televi-
sion sets per year at a rate of return of 14%. Now, the system can be defined
in terms of processes, inputs, and outputs. The inputs, also known as the
factors of production, are land, capital, and labor:
• Land or natural resources: naturally occurring goods such as water,

air, soil, and minerals used in the creation of products
• Labor: human effort used in production, which also includes techni-
cal and marketing expertise
• Capital: human-made goods (or means of production) that are used
in the production of other goods, including machinery, tools, and
buildings
From the television-manufacturing example, the inputs would include the

raw materials, such as the electronics, plastics, and metals. Considering these
raw materials, the processes would be designed concurrently. Attention
would be given to value-added and non-value-added activities. The process
design will answer the following questions:
• What is to be produced?
• How are the products to be produced?
• When are the products to be produced?
• How much of each product will be produced?
• For how long will the products be produced?
• Where are the products to be produced?
The answers to these questions are obtained from product, process, and
schedule design and are not independently and sequentially determined but
developed concurrently. A clear vision is critical, and the success of a firm
is dependent on having an efficient production system. The product design
Introduction: The System Approach to Carbon Footprint and Energy Reduction 91
phase defines which products will be produced and provides detailed draw-
ings of the part. A quality function deployment (QFD) is generally applied to
accomplish this. A QFD is an organized approach to identify customer needs
and translate the needs into product characteristics, process design, and the
tolerances required. The process design phase examines these issues:
• How the product is to be produced

• Make or buy decision
• Process selection
• Equipment selection
• Process time determination
The desired outputs of the design phase are:
• Processes
• Equipment
• Raw materials required
• Formal documents:
• Route sheet
• Assembly chart
• Operation process chart
• Precedence diagram
The schedule design phase examines these issues:
• How much to produce? (lot sizing)

• When to produce? (production scheduling)
• How long to produce? (market forecasts)
The determination of the outputs of a system seems very straightforward

at first examination, as it should be defined in the goal. In the television
example, it is 30,000 televisions per year. This is only a partial answer, as
there will also be unintended outputs, which include waste and by-products,
that must also be considered. Waste and emissions management becomes a
new unintended problem created by the system. In the previously discussed
example, this includes carbon emissions from employees’ vehicles and waste
from employees’ lunches. In terms of carbon emissions, managers and deci-
sion makers must take a reactive role to resolve these problems, ranging from
mitigation to elimination. A better approach is to handle these issues pro
actively when determining processes and inputs. From a systems approach,
this book will provide energy and carbon footprint analysis and minimiza-
tion techniques and strategies for all phases of the supply chain.
The systems approach is an integral concept to the successful implementa-
tion of energy and carbon footprint minimization and serves as the basis for
the solution methodologies. This holistic approach considers the entire sup-
ply chain and addresses emission rates and energy use issues at the earliest
phases possible. When promoting energy and carbon footprint minimiza-
tion to decision makers, it is critical to relate the benefits to the TBL. Creating
this win-win situation in a manager’s eyes will significantly enhance the
likelihood that the energy and carbon footprint minimization recommenda-
tions will be implemented.
10
The Six Sigma Systems Approach
for Deployment
10.1 Introduction
Six Sigma is a comprehensive and flexible system for achieving, sustain-
ing, and maximizing business success (Everett Decision Systems 2011). It is
uniquely driven by a close understanding of customer needs; disciplined
use of facts, data, and statistical analysis; and diligent attention to manag-
ing, improving, and reinventing business processes (The Six Sigma Way
2000). Six Sigma strives to improve quality, productivity, and bottom-line
financial performance. The Six Sigma approach provides a methodology to
achieve these successes and a system on which to base any improvement
initiative, including an energy and GHG minimization program. Six Sigma
relies heavily on data, facts, and the use of statistical tools to study whether
an improvement has been made. These statistical tools are a powerful way
to conduct experiments, compare data, and provide important information
about a process to find the causes of problems and draw conclusions. Six
Sigma methodologies are broken into six fundamentals as related to energy
and GHG minimization:
• Define products or services.

• Know the stakeholders and customers and their critical needs.
• Identify processes, methods, and systems to meet stakeholders’ criti-
cal needs.
• Establish a process of doing work consistently.
• Error-proof the process and eliminate energy and GHG.
• Measure and analyze performance.
To achieve these fundamental goals, Six Sigma uses the five-step DMAIC
methodology described as follows:
93
Define
• Define and clarify the project goal and timeline with the focus
placed on the clients.
• Establish the team.
Measure
• Define the current state and current processes, including the
development of a process flow map to baseline the system, iden-
tify any bottlenecks, and establish current financial and environ-
mental performance.
• Collect and display data including task time, resources required,
and process statistics.
Analyze
• Determine process capability and speed utilizing statistical tools
and charts.
• Determine sources of variation and subsequent time bottlenecks.
• Identify and quantify value-added and non-value-added activities.
Improve
• Generate ideas, including
• Methods to reduce, reuse, and recycle energy and GHG
• Cost-effective environmental options
• Process changes
• Conduct experiments and validate improved processes.
• Develop action plans and standard operating procedures.
Control
• Develop a control plan.
• Monitor performance.
• Mistake-proof processes.
From a macro view, Six Sigma incorporates three primary improvement

approaches for improvement: process improvement, process design/redesign,
and process management. Process improvement refers to a strategy of cor-
recting an issue while leaving the core structure of the process intact. Process
redesign/reengineering is a strategy to completely overhaul the process,
including the core structure. Process management refers to integrating Six
Sigma methods into everyday business including:
The Six Sigma Systems Approach for Deployment 95
• Processes are documented and managed “end to end,” and responsi-

bility has been assigned in such a way as to ensure cross-functional
management of critical processes.
• Customer requirements are clearly defined and regularly updated.
• Measures of outputs, process activities, and inputs are thorough and
meaningful.
• Managers and associates use the measures and process knowledge
to assess performance in “real time” and take action to address prob-
lems and opportunities.
• Process improvement and process design/redesign are used to con-
stantly raise the company’s levels of performance, competitiveness,
and profitability.
The remainder of this chapter discusses the general Six Sigma approach
as it relates to energy and GHG minimization from the systems perspective.
The DMAIC Six Sigma approach will be revisited in Chapter 12 as it specifi-
cally relates to energy and GHG minimization and energy and GHG audits.
10.2 Define Stage
The purpose of the define stage is to gather enough information to understand
the opportunity for improvement, characterize the process, understand the
organization’s barriers to solving the problem, and develop a plan to address
the problem. Common tools that are used throughout the define stage are:
• Listening to customers
• Kano model
• Affinity diagram
• Pareto analysis
• Surveys
• Gaining process knowledge
• Process mapping
• SIPOC analysis
• Work studies
• Sizing the problem
• Force field analysis
• Developing project charter
Customer Very
Satisfaction High Excitement
Features
Degree of Performance
Achievement Features
Low High
Basic
Features
Time
Very
Low
FIGURE 10.1
Kano model.
A Kano model is a tool developed to compare the relationship between

customer satisfaction and customer requirements (Gupta 2004). The require-
ments are broken into three different groups: assumed requirements, mar-
ketplace requirements, and love-to-have requirements. Most often, many of
the requirements of the customer are unspoken so identifying the love-to-
have requirements makes businesses world class. Figure 10.1 displays an
example of a Kano model.
The affinity diagram is a method used to obtain input from various stake-
holders, because whereas often suggestion boxes get overlooked or meetings
are taken over by a few unspoken individuals, this method allows everyone
to contribute. Using this method, a group can generate ideas quickly, and
once they have been generated they are grouped and themes of ideas are
developed for identifying action items for creating solutions from the ideas
(Gupta 2004). Figure 10.2 displays an example of an affinity diagram.
The Pareto analysis is a tool used to make decisions based on importance
instead of convenience. It is known as the 80:20 rule, which means that usu-
ally 80% of the problems come from 20% of the processes. The Pareto chart
is a bar chart showing attributes of the problem on the x-axis and frequency
of occurrence on the y-axis (Gupta 2004). Figure 10.3 displays an example of
a Pareto chart.
Process mapping is a way to identify the various activities of the process
and show their interrelationships (Gupta 2004). A well-defined map must
address the following:
• Process has a purpose.

• Process has beginning and end states.
• Process has needs or inputs.
• Process must have a clear target performance.
Data
Header
Ideas
1
2 3 4
Data Diagram Work Work Diagram
Header Header
Ideas Ideas
FIGURE 10.2
Affinity diagram.
10096
9096
8096 8096 Line
7096
Cumulative Percent
Percent of Sample
6096
5096
4096 “Significant Few” “Trivial Many”
3096
2096
1096
096
Dose held
New Order
Pt. Transferred
RN didn’t find
Ca. Carbonate
No order
PRN bag
Bulk meds.,
FTC
Data
sched.
RN change
entry/Pharm.
Reason
FIGURE 10.3
Pareto analysis.
• Process output varies due to uncontrolled sources of variation.

• Process must be evaluated based on its mean or typical performance,
as well as range between worse and better performance levels.
Figure 10.4 displays a diagram of an example process map.

The SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, and Customer) is used to
expand the process map to identify players in the operation (Gupta 2004).
The benefit of this tool is to identify all variables that affect the process’s
Issue
Issue Resolved Span Span Issue Resolved

by Self-Help by Call Center
Customer
Yes
No Solution Suitable
and Complete?
Documentation
Can I Handle?
Yes
Self-Help
Solution
No
“Close” Issue
How to Obtain
Support?
Call
Web Based ACD

Support
Yes
No Staff
Solution Suitable Documents
and Complete?
Only After Yes

Can I Handle?
Research
Callback
No
Research
Staff 2
Callback Only After

Research Yes
Can I Handle?
Research
No Further
Escalation
Loop(s)
FIGURE 10.4
Process mapping.
Process:
Purpose/Scope:
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

-Requirement 1 -Input 1 -Process name -Output 1 -Requirement 1
-Requirement 2 -Input 2 -Description -Output 2 -Requirement 2
-Requirement 3 -Input 3 -Output 3 -Requirement 3
High level process

steps
FIGURE 10.5
SIPOC diagram.
performance and then prioritize them. Figure 10.5 displays a diagram of a

SIPOC diagram.
A work study indicates how an employee spends his or her time perform-
ing different tasks. The analyst records a tally every minute in a specified
area and observes the employee for a specified time, usually over several
hours or an entire workday. After the allotted time, the analyst records each
task and displays the percentage of time the employee spends on each task.
The force field analysis is a method to identify resources that could be used
to achieve process goals. It typically focuses on goals that support or hinder
the process. The objective is to identify factors to accelerate change or resis-
tive resources that would slow process change. A force field analysis is also
referred to as a fishbone diagram because it resembles a fishbone. Figure 10.6
displays an example of a force field analysis.
A project charter compiles the problem definition, goals, objectives, and
action plans to achieve them. It is a road map that:
• Justifies the project efforts with financial impact

• Describes the problem and its scope to be addressed by the project
in the specified time frame
• Declares the goal, objectives, and measures of success
• Defines the roles of the team members
Consolidate strip
mill to single site
FOR AGAINST
Union opposition
Competitive pressure
Restructuring cost
Budgetary objectives
Political pressure
Ease of administration
Increased transportation cost
No cheaper alternative
Opportunity cost
Improved efficiency
FIGURE 10.6
Force field analysis.
• Establishes the timeline, milestones, and key deliverables

• Identifies required critical resources
10.3 Measure
The measure phase is to identify correct measures, establish a baseline, and
eliminate trivial variables (Gupta 2004). The following tools are important
to understand:
• Basic statistics
• Statistical thinking
• Cost of quality
• Measurement system analysis
• Critical parameters
• Critical to quality
The two primary types of statistical analysis are descriptive and inferen-
tial. Descriptive statistics typically summarizes historical data, and basic
descriptive statistical analysis analyzes the mean, median, mode, range,
variance, and standard deviation. Also, measuring the cost of quality is criti-
cal because high variations and inconsistencies can cause high cost and a
waste of energy and GHG valuable resources. Inferential statistics typically

analyzes a sample to infer characteristics and performance of the process. It
is generally concerned with the source of the data and seeks to make gener-
alizations beyond the data at hand. Inferential statistics can include regres-
sion analysis and hypothesis testing, among many others.
10.4 Analyze
The analysis phase is focused on identifying the root cause of a problem in a
process or system. Key analysis tools consist of multivariate analysis, cause-
and-effect diagrams, regression analysis, and failure modes and effects anal-
ysis (FMEA). The cause-and-effect diagram is used to identify the source
of the problem of the process. It shows each branch of the process and the
inputs related. From the diagram one is then able to notice the different con-
tributors to the problem or process.
The regression analysis helps to identify causes and determine the cor-
relations between and among variables. Many times relationships exist
and regression analysis can indicate the strength of these relationships.
Regression is a way to estimate variable y if there is x amount of vari-
able z. There are independent and dependent variables. Dependent vari-
ables are the responses, and the independent variables are the causes.
Relationships may not be exact, and regression methods are used to aid in
predicting relationships.
Multivariate analysis is a way to reduce the number of potential causes by
removing the trivial ones (Gupta 2004). Many data sets have patterns and
similarities that cannot be recognized without statistical analysis. Cluster
analysis, two-factor analysis of variance, and design of experiments are
some of the techniques that can be used.
FMEA is a technique that identifies the root causes of failure and aids in
reducing the critical failures of the process. Usually, when creating an FMEA,
each potential failure is ranked from 1 to 10 in relation to the damage the
failure could cause. Then solutions are thought of to prevent each failure,
putting priority on the highest-ranked failure.
10.5 Improve
The improvement phase identifies solutions and actions to remedy the root
cause of the energy and GHG or inefficiency of a process. The following tools
can be implemented to solve a problem:
• Systems thinking
• Testing of hypothesis
• Comparative experiments
• Design of experiments
Systems thinking involves making a decision based on data and facts.

Often decisions are based on thoughts, and studies are not done to find the
true causes of problems. Systems thinking is conducting tests and using tools
to find these problems, and then fixing the problems based on these facts.
A statistical hypothesis is an assertion or conjecture concerning one or
more populations. Hypothesis testing is an inferential technique that creates
a statement about an activity or process based on a predicted output. One
can either fail to reject a hypothesis or reject it. Fail to reject implies that the
data does not give sufficient evidence; on the other hand rejection implies the
sample evidence refutes the hypothesis. Rejecting the hypothesis means that
when the hypothesis is true there is a small probability of that sample occur-
ring again. There are always two hypotheses: the null and the alternative. The
test is against the null; if the test is rejected, then the alternative is accepted.
The design of experiments relates to comparative experiments. It is a non-
biased way of creating an experiment while getting the wanted answers to
the problem. The three goals of an experiment are:
1. The experimenter should clearly identify objectives before proceed-

ing with the experiment.
2. The experiment should be explained and documented in detail. The
treatments should be clearly defined and listed.
3. An outline of the analysis should be created and documented before
the experiment is initiated.
10.6 Control
The control phase is designed to maintain the benefits of the improved pro-
cess. Tools that are commonly used throughout this process are:
• Control charts
• Documentation
• Change management
• Communication
• Reward and recognition
• Check sheets
0.4
0.2
XBAR
–0.2
–0.4
Data Violation Center LCL/UCL
0.8
0.6
0.4
R
0.2
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FIGURE 10.7
Control chart.
Control charts are used to monitor processes and identify random (sys-
tem noise) or assignable (root cause) variation. Control charts record a
task over a given amount a time and are plotted against the specifica-
tion limits to observe if the process is in control. Figure 10.7 displays an
example of a control chart. Documentation is critical and all steps should
be recorded, including the new process steps, to provide standards and
guidelines to the employees. An example of documentation is ISO 9000.
Communication is essential throughout the process, especially in terms of
training employees regarding new processes. Rewarding and providing
recognition to all involved is also important, giving everyone a sense of
pride in the hard work put into the project. Check sheets can be used to
show where different problems could arise, and can keep track of differ-
ent steps throughout the process or times that different products arrive.
Check sheets are a good way to monitor a process and can be used for
various aspects of tasks.
10.7 Summary
Six Sigma provides an excellent collection of resources and tools to analyze
and improve systems and processes. Many of these concepts are incorporated
into the systems approach to reduce energy usage and GHG—specifically,
the use of a data-driven, goal-focused approach that utilizes a variety of sta-

tistical and process analysis tools.
References
Everett Decision Systems. 2011. Lean Six Sigma. https://www.everettdecisions.com/
Lean_Six_Sigma.html.
Gupta, P. 2004. The Six Sigma Performance Handbook: A Statistical Guide to Optimizing
Results. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
11
Deployment Alternatives
11.1 Introduction
The environmental, economic, and social benefits of energy and GHG analysis
and reduction are very well understood from the decades of research in the
field. Many organizations can significantly improve their performance and
reduce their environmental impact by focusing efforts to reduce energy and
GHG emissions and energy usage. This chapter discusses the next phase of
that process: implementation and execution. There are a variety of alternatives
to deploy energy and GHG minimization. These alternatives range from a mas-
sive organization-wide launch that covers multiple facilities to a smaller-scope
short-term project. The following is a list of deployment alternatives ranging
from large-scale organizational initiatives to smaller project-based launches:
• Corporate-wide launch
• Single-facility launch
• Department-based launch
• Specific waste stream analysis
• Product-based or Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
• Project-based launch
Each method has advantages and disadvantages, and the deployment

mechanism should be selected based on the available resources (financial,
employee, and technology), the project timeline, the project goals, and the
corporate culture of the organization. Table 11.1 summarizes key benefits
and drawbacks of each method.
For an organization just beginning the energy and GHG analysis and
minimization process, the project-based launch is most often recommended.
The primary reasons for this are that it requires fewer resources and has a
shorter timeline. The key idea is that early, quick results can lead to bigger
projects in the future based on the success of smaller projects. A project is
also easier to manage, for example examining the feasibility of installing a
cardboard baler in a facility. Other advantages include:
105
TABLE 11.1
Deployment Method Benefits and Drawbacks
Benefits Drawbacks
Corporate-wide 1. Biggest results 1. Highest cost
launch 2. Consistent processes across the 2. Longest implementation
entire organization time
3. Optimizes the entire business 3. Requires intensive planning
system 4. Requires intensive data
4. Economy of scale collection
Single-facility 1. Can be used as a pilot project for 1. High cost
launch other facilities 2. Requires intensive data
2. Analyzes entire facility for collection
complete optimization
Department- 1. Simplified implementation analysis 1. Can miss opportunities in
based launch 2. Promotes departmental team work other departments
Specific waste 1. Simplified implementation analysis 1. Can miss opportunities with
stream analysis other emission streams
Product-based 1. Analyzes more than just emissions 1. Data collection is intensive
or LCA from a facility
Project-based 1. Short timeline 1. Smallest impact
launch 2. Low cost
• Utilizes tools in a more focused and productive way

• Increases communication between management and practitioners
• Facilitates a detailed understanding of critical business processes
• Gives employees and management views of how energy and GHG
analysis tools can be of significant value to organizations
The central concept, regardless of which deployment method is chosen,

is to tie project results into bottom-line and environmental benefits. The
same concept is applied when prioritizing organizational needs or selecting
among potential projects. These benefits should be expressed in terms of key
process output variables such as:
• Metric tons of energy and GHG emissions per year

• Annual energy usage in kilowatt hours
• Annual energy costs
• Process cycle time
• Customer satisfaction
• Scrap or defect rate
Several key concepts to keep in mind during the deployment planning

phase include:
Deployment Alternatives 107
• Communicating the benefits of the project as a business strategy

across the organization
• Aligning with management in the deployment of GHG minimization
• Building a successful infrastructure for energy and GHG minimiza-
tion deployment
• Integration of energy and GHG minimization with lean manufactur-
ing, theory of constraints (TOC), and other improvement methods
• Selection and orchestration of successful energy and GHG minimi-
zation projects and project teams
• Utilizing the right metric to drive the right activity
• Planning and execution of projects
• Selection of the right statistical tools
Finally, the recommended overall approach to the deployment of energy

and GHG analysis and minimization is based on proven Six Sigma method-
ologies as discussed in Chapter 10.
This provides a brief introduction to the general approach for deploying
energy and GHG and energy analysis and minimization using Six Sigma.
A detailed overview of the energy and GHG audit process is discussed in
Chapter 13.
11.2 Choosing a Waste Minimization Provider or Partner

When an organization chooses to implement energy and GHG minimiza-
tion, an outside organization can be very useful and cost effective to help
with the implementation. This may appear to be an expensive proposition
when compared to an in-house implementation. However, the organization
has to consider the real cost and time required for effective program devel-
opment, trainer development, and so forth. In addition, it is important for
organizations to consider the value of time lost when instructional material
is not satisfactory, not effective, and/or is inefficiently presented.
A good energy and GHG minimization provider can help with determin-
ing the deployment strategy, conducting initial training, and providing proj-
ect coaching. The decision of which group is chosen can dramatically affect
the success of the program. However, choosing the best group to help an
organization implement energy and GHG minimization can be a challenge.
Often the sales pitch given by a consultant sounds good; however, the strat-
egy and/or training do not match the needs of the organization.
The following is a suggested list of questions to present to the energy and
GHG minimization providers being considered:
• What is your basic energy and GHG minimization strategy and flow?
• What do you suggest doing next if we would like to compare the
energy and GHG minimization program offered by your organiza-
tion with that offered by other organizations?
• What reference material do you utilize that follows the information
used in your program (so that people can get further information or
review a concept at a later date)?
• During energy and GHG minimization training, do you use multi-
media presentations such as PowerPoint?
• What is the basic format of your energy and GHG minimization
course for executive training?
• How do you address business and service processes?
• What topics do you cover in your workshops?
• How do you address the application of the techniques to real-world
situations?
• What software do you use?
• What have others said about your training/consulting in the applica-
tion of energy and GHG minimization? Can they be contacted?
• What is the experience level of your staff?
• What companies have you helped successfully implement energy
and GHG minimization?
Once the list of providers is narrowed down, consider requesting that they
describe their basic implementation strategy to prioritize projects within
organizations. It is also recommended to visit each prospect to see firsthand
a one-day training session. Send a decision maker to view this session. Some
providers or consultants might initially look good, and then appear less
desirable after their training approach and material are reviewed firsthand.
11.3 Essential Elements of the Deployment Plan

Applying energy and GHG minimization so that bottom-line benefits are
significant and lasting change results requires a well-thought-out and
detailed plan. Once an energy and GHG minimization partner or provider
is selected (if used), it should assist the organization with the development
of an effective implementation plan. Table 11.2 displays a sample implemen-
tation schedule for the kickoff of an energy and GHG minimization plan.
Although every plan is unique, it should consider the following essential ele-
ments, which are described in detail in subsequent chapters:
Deployment Alternatives 109
TABLE 11.2
Kick-Off Schedule for Energy and GHG Minimization
Task Timeline (days)
Choosing a provider 30
Executive training 3
Project champion training 5
Creating support infrastructure for first wave 21
Selecting energy and GHG project(s) 21
Energy and GHG minimization training: measurement 5
Executive/champion meeting: preanalysis phase 3
Energy and GHG minimization training: analysis phase 5
Executive/champion meeting: preimprovement phase 3
Energy and GHG minimization training: improvement phase 5
Executive/champion meeting: precontrol phase 3
Energy and GHG minimization training: control phase 5
Energy and GHG minimization training/infrastructure postmortem 14
Start second energy and GHG minimization training wave 14
TOTAL 137 days
• Create support infrastructure for the first wave. The support infra-
structure for energy and GHG minimization is the first and most
critical step to ensure a successful program launch. For energy and
GHG minimization to be successful there must be a commitment
from upper-level management and an infrastructure that supports
that commitment. The key factors for creating a successful infra-
structure are discussed in Chapter 12.
• Select key players. Deployment of energy and GHG minimization
is most effective with the assistance of trained practitioners in the
field. This can be accomplished by hiring a consultant. Internally,
the organization should select a project champion to serve as the
team leader of a diversified cross-functional team that has knowl-
edge in the various business areas of the organization, including
operations, engineering, human resources, maintenance, finance,
and accounting.
• Select key projects. Initial projects should focus on tangible waste
streams that have high visibility within the facility. This will help
to build confidence within the team and strengthen support within
the organization. Some good examples would be studying the use
of returnable containers or reducing cardboard usage. Early small
wins will lead to future big wins.
• Implement training and coaching. Prior to training registration,
team members should have been assigned to a defined project that
they will be working. This will help them to understand how to
specifically utilize tools as they apply to the process that they are
analyzing. It will also give them an opportunity to ask detailed
questions and receive coaching on their projects.
• Use project report-outs. Although difficult to schedule, ongoing top-
down and bottom-up communications are also essential elements of
a deployment plan. Communication plans are often the first thing
overlooked on a busy manager’s schedule but are essential to break
down the barriers between managers and practitioners.
• Do a postmortem. Successful deployment of energy and GHG man-
agement and minimization is best achieved in a series of waves
focusing on strategic change areas. Between waves there is time for
evaluating effectiveness, compiling lessons learned, and integrating
improvements into the infrastructure. Some examples of improve-
ment opportunities are:
• Were projects aligned with the strategic focus of the organization?
• Was communication adequate between practitioners and
management?
• Were the forecasted timelines met?
• Did the phase achieve the desired results?
The deployment phase planning process and implementation is a critical

step to energy and GHG minimization. This phase lays the foundation for
all other steps, provides the needed training, and establishes communication
channels. Poor planning in this phase can lead to entire program failure.
12
Creating a Successful Project Launch
12.1 Introduction
Implementation and execution of an energy and carbon emissions reduction
strategy may be the most critical stage to ensure that the project best meets
its goals. For every organization, the implementation of energy and GHG
minimization will be unique, but there are several common factors to suc-
cessful programs. The key drivers for a successful program are:
• Executive leadership
• Strategic goals
• Project selection
• Training and execution
• Resources
• Metrics
• Culture
• Communications
• Planning
• Results
The factors just listed have been identified as the most critical items to
ensure a successful energy and GHG reduction program. This chapter dis-
cusses these factors in greater detail and provides a lessons-learned section
that contains tips and strategies from organizations that have been success-
ful in launching energy and GHG minimization.
12.2 Executive Leadership
Top-management support is an absolutely critical element to successful
and lasting energy and GHG minimization implementation. Strong and
111
continuous commitment from executive management is the most influential

factor in a strong program and significant results. Energy and GHG minimi-
zation cannot be treated as a temporary or fleeting goal within an organiza-
tion. Top management must take a strong and vocal stand on supporting it
and devote the necessary resources to ensure success.
An enthusiastic leadership team can drive the success and buy-in from all
levels of the organization. For an energy and GHG minimization or envi-
ronmental program to be successful, top management must be the biggest
supporter and show enthusiasm and support through speeches, memos, and
how they reward behavior. It is critical that the executive leadership team
understands the benefits and methodologies of the program and how these
complement current business strategies. An understanding of these items is
important to allocation of resources and matching team members to projects
based on skill sets. The executive team also is usually responsible for creat-
ing the implementation plan.
12.3 Strategic Goals
The energy and GHG minimization targets and plans should be aligned
with the strategic goals for the organization. At this stage in the implementa-
tion process, QFD, or “House of Quality,” is a very useful tool to drill projects
down to a strategic focus that will have significant impacts on the organi-
zation’s environmental and economic performance. Figure 12.1 summarizes
the House of Quality process. The overall approach is an iterative process in
which a cross-functional team completes a series of “ houses” using the fol-
lowing guidelines:
1. “Primary what”: Insert a comprehensive list of the customer and

organizational expectations from the energy and GHG minimiza-
tion program in the first column of “House 1” with the importance
ratings from customer and organizational surveys inserted into
the adjacent column. Government regulations and employee needs
should also be considered.
2. “How”: A brainstorming session is held with a cross-functional team
in the second substep to determine the important “hows” relating to
the initial list of “whats.” These “hows” are from the primary row of
“House 1.” They are an organization’s high-level business processes
and address how requirements can be met.
3. “Relationship matrix”: Relationships of high, medium, low, and none
are assigned to how business processes affect customer require-
ments. Numerical weights such as 9, 3, 1, or 0 can be used to describe
Creating a Successful Project Launch 113
HOW
Correlation
Elements of Acquisition
Strategy WHYs
(HOWs)
Customer Importance
Customer Market
WHATs/WHYs)
HOUSE OF QUALITY
(Correlation of
Requirements
(Correlation of WHATs/HOWs)
Evaluation
Customer
(WHATs)
Rating
HOW Targets
MUCHs (Weighted Importance)
FIGURE 12.1
House of Quality.
these relationships. Calculations of cross-multiplication with the

importance rankings are then performed. The values in these col-
umns are then totaled.
4. “How much”: The output is a ranked list of initial “hows” that can
be used for strategic focus areas. These items are transferred to
“House 2,” becoming the next “whats” if more detail is needed.
5. The process continues until the ranked “hows” are specific enough
to assign strategic goals and measurements.
Upon successful completion of this process, there will be a list of key focus
areas, which can be assigned strategic goals and objective measures. This
process provides confidence that project resources are focused on meet-
ing critical needs of the business. The following are tips when creating the
House of Quality:
• The more specific the processes, the less time the process will require.
• Combine customer input with internal business strategies, employee
needs, and government regulations to obtain a comprehensive list of
customer needs.
• Consider first organizing all the “whats” into categories with similar
detail, and then perform the iterative process, inserting new “whats”
at the appropriate “house” level.
• The process may require a significant amount of time and resources
to complete, but will lead to projects that align with strategic goals.
• Sometimes it takes many repetitions of the process to achieve mean-
ingful results.
The House of Quality process is a valuable tool to ensure meaningful last-

ing energy and GHG minimization projects. It also aids in resource planning
and helping to prioritize projects considering resource constraints.
12.4 Resources
To ensure the most effective energy and GHG minimization program, the
right people must be assigned to the right tasks and duties to ensure positive
results that meet the desired goals. The project manager serves as the leader
but cannot do the work alone.
The primary goal is to align resources with the strategic priorities of the
organization. This includes assigning team members and their associated
tasks that align with these goals. Management should create a supportive
environment and realign resources as priorities change. Following is a sam-
ple list of the roles and responsibilities of a well-staffed energy and GHG
minimization team:
Champion (executive-level manager)
• Remove barriers to success.

• Develop inventive programs.
• Question methodology.
• Approve or reject project improvement recommendations.
• Implement change.
• Communicate vision.
• Determine project selection criteria.
• Allocate resources to ensure project success.
Technical expert (energy and GHG management expert)
• Complete training.
• Leverage project resources.
• Share energy and GHG minimization expertise.
• Function as a change agent to leverage new ideas and best practices.
• Improve overall project execution efficiency.
• Conduct and oversee training.
• Formulate business strategies with senior management.
• Aid in selecting projects that fit strategic business needs.
• Motivate others toward a common vision.
• Remove barriers to success.
• Participate in multiple projects.
• Aid in formulating effective presentations to upper management.
Project manager (facilitator and coordinator)
• Lead projects.
• Complete extensive energy and GHG minimization training.
• Lead the team in the effective utilization of methodologies.
• Select, teach, and use the most effective tools.
• Utilize interpersonal and meeting facilitation skills.
• Develop and manage a detailed project plan.
• Schedule and lead team meetings.
• Oversee data collection and analysis.
• Establish reliable measurement systems.
• Sustain team motivation and stability.
• Communicate the benefit of the project to all associated with the
process.
• Track and report milestones and tasks.
• Calculate environmental benefits and economic savings.
• Prepare and present executive-level presentations.
Team member
• Contribute process expertise.

• Communicate change with other coworkers not on the team.
• Collect data.
• Accept and complete all assigned action items.
• Implement improvements.
• Attend and participate in all meetings.
Sponsor/process owner (manager of process)
• Ensure that process improvements are implemented and sustained.

• Communicate process knowledge.
• Obtain necessary approval for any process changes.
• Select team members.
• Maintain team motivation and accountability.
An organization may choose more team member roles than those just
listed, but these represent a typical list. One key point is that an executive-
level manager must champion the project within the organization. This will
help to ensure that goals are met, the proper resources are allocated, and suc-
cess or failure is properly rewarded. This high-level attention will also keep
the entire organization focused on the goals. The process owners should be
selected from the managers within the department responsible for the busi-
ness activities. The technical expert may handle multiple projects and serves
as the content expert on the new tools and applications for the energy and
GHG minimization efforts.
Champions, sponsors, and the technical experts are the leaders of the
energy and GHG minimization and environmental change, and care should
be taken to select the best-suited team. Having dedicated team members is just
as important as having well-trained leaders. In regard to selecting the project
manager, the chosen individual should possess the following characteristics:
• Value collaboration.
• Value helping others build on positive relationships.
• Value being a supporter.
• Consistently monitor what is going on.
• Think before they speak.
• View themselves as instruments to help the team.
• Clearly define what is expected of the team.
• Help groups relate to conflict as normal and productive.

• Listen actively and effectively to the team.
Individuals selected as project managers need to be respected for their abil-

ity to lead change, effectively analyze a problem, facilitate a team, and suc-
cessfully manage a project.
12.5 Metrics
This section covers metrics as they relate to the overall implementation of an
energy and GHG reduction business strategy. Metrics that track the effec-
tiveness of the energy and GHG minimization infrastructure are a very
important component in the process to ensure that goals are being met and
that data-driven decisions are being made. The metrics that are created for
the energy and GHG minimization program should be developed to provide
valuable information on the success, variability, and efficiency of the process.
The metrics should gauge whether the energy and GHG reduction processes
are measuring the success of the programs. Several key items worth tracking
to gauge the infrastructure effectiveness are:
• Team member names and contact information

• Key process output variables
• Key process input variables
• Estimated completion date
• Actual completion date
• Tools utilized for the project
• Open action items
• Energy and GHG items analyzed
• Baseline measurements
• Financial calculations
• Actual project environment benefits and financial savings
• Lessons learned concerning project effectiveness
From this information, managers can gain insight into the effectiveness of
each energy and GHG reduction project and the overall success. Successful
projects can also be archived for use in later projects. In general, metrics need
to capture the right activity and be designed to give immediate feedback.
Successful metrics focus on the process rather than the product or individuals.
12.6 Culture
The culture of an organization can play a significant role in determining the
success of an environmental program or any change effort. Some key organi-
zational culture assessment questions to consider when launching an energy
and GHG reduction program are:
• How do the stakeholders value environmental protection?

• How has the company historically dealt with change initiatives?
• Does the company make consistent changes that don’t last?
• How effective are the project teams?
• Is the company frequently focusing on the same problem?
• What is required within the company culture to make continual
process improvement a lasting change?
• What will prevent your organization from achieving success with
an energy and GHG reduction program?
Ultimately, the issue of organizational culture boils down to the organiza-

tion’s ability to change in order to meet changes in the business environ-
ment—specifically, how quickly the organization adapts to change and how
well it embraces the continual improvement process. The key factors that
support a culture for change, including the modifications for an energy and
GHG minimization program, are:
• Creativity: Teams should be allowed to experiment and explore vari-

ous process options. A creative environment can lead to higher qual-
ity programs and stronger employee buy-in.
• Motivation: Employee support is critical to the success of an environ-
mental program. There are various methods to motivate employees
to support such programs, including financial and career advance-
ment incentives. Employee motivation should be taken into account
when planning for programs.
• Empowerment: Stronger programs can also result when team mem-
bers are given more authority over the programs.
12.7 Communications
Strong communication of the energy and GHG reduction programs is needed
to create a shared vision within the organization. The leadership team must
continually communicate the business need, strategy, goals, and outcomes of

the programs. A well-developed vision has the power to motivate employees
and create these shared values. Communicating this vision effectively is an
ongoing process and is integral to a well-thought-out energy and GHG reduc-
tion implementation plan. The four C’s of effective communication plans are:
• Concise: Common and clear language should be used to communi-

cate the vision and goals of the program.
• Consistent: The same message should be continually repeated. Frequent
changes in goals and programs will reduce employee buy-in.
• Complete: All members of the organization should receive the same
message. This may be challenging for shop floor workers.
• Creative: A novel communication approach will increase employee
retention of the message. This could include an employee involve-
ment program to create and spread program details.
12.8 Lessons Learned
The success of an energy and carbon reduction program can depend on a
solid infrastructure and top-management leadership. Leaders need to take
personal responsibility for driving energy and carbon reduction efforts,
including the participation in projects. Some topics that many organiza-
tions have mentioned that drive the energy and GHG minimization change
efforts are:
• To be successful, the environmental effort must be launched

organization-wide.
• Ensure the necessary resources are invested in the new initiative
and monitor the payback.
• Spread the word about the new initiative as quickly as possible.
• Senior management needs to lead the effort and take an active and
visible role.
• Provide monetary incentives for success.
• Reward aggressive team members.
• Monitor all aspects of success.
In terms of establishing energy and GHG minimization goals, it may be

beneficial to keep the acronym SMART in mind, to establish goals that are
Simple, Measurable, Agreed to, Reasonable, and Time based. Using this
approach tends to lead to greater buy-in from employees and team members.
For example, if an organization is exploring ways to reduce the amount of

energy and GHG they send to the landfill, they could brainstorm as a team
to establish this SMART goal:
• Simple: Reduce the energy and GHG that the organization sends to
the landfill by 5% versus the same period last year.
• Measurable: Gather and monitor detailed weekly records of the
amounts of energy and GHG recorded by the energy and GHG haul-
ing company.
• Agreed to: The entire team should agree to this goal and at a mini-
mum have an opportunity to provide input.
• Reasonable: A 5% reduction is very achievable by modifying pro-
cess without heavy investment. On the other hand, a 20% reduction
would not be reasonable, in most cases, for a one-year improvement
on a new project.
• Time based: The goal is tracking performance for one year based on
last year’s reported results.
It is also important to examine why projects fail. Oftentimes many projects

fail because a team is not properly empowered or supported. Following is
a list developed by John Kotter (1995) in his article “Leading Change: Why
Transformation Efforts Fail”:
• Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency

• Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition
• Lacking a vision
• Undercommunicating the vision to stakeholders
• Not removing obstacles to the new vision
• Not systematically planning for short-term wins
• Declaring victory too soon
• Not anchoring changes to the corporate culture
Sharing lessons learned within the organization can lead to stronger

future projects and results and at the same time reduce committing the same
mistakes twice. When communicating lessons learned, the sessions should
not be treated as a blame game session but as a true opportunity to improve
processes and increase project speed. Some methods to examine lessons
learned include benchmarking with competitors, holding regularly sched-
uled “best practice” review meetings, and collecting information on project
performance in a database.
12.9 Summary
Planning, top-management support, and proper resource allocation are the
three most critical elements to a successful energy and carbon reduction pro-
gram launch. Of these three, leadership support plays the most important
role because this team controls the planning and resource allocation process.
Establishing SMART goals is also critical to ensure that the program is meet-
ing targets, progress is being measured, and team members buy in to and
understand the program.
Reference
Kotter, J. 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business
Review (March–April), p. 62.
13
The General Approach to Greenhouse
Gas and Energy Analyses
13.1 Introduction to the Systems Approach Framework

Once the need has been established and resources have been allocated to
measure and minimize GHG emissions and energy usage, a carbon foot-
print analysis can be conducted. The carbon footprint analysis is one of the
most important steps of the GHG and energy minimization process because
the data generated provide the team and management with a much greater
understanding of the amounts of GHG emitted and energy used by the orga-
nization. These data can be invaluable in the design and implementation of
a reduction program. Before “rushing in” to conduct an assessment, proper
planning should be done to ensure that the scope, goal, and timeline of the
project fits into the strategic plan of the organization. This chapter provides
the systems approach framework to ensure that these goals are met using
the five-step Six Sigma DMAIC process discussed earlier in Chapter 10. This
process is summarized here as a reference:
• Define: Establish the project team, determine the goal, and allocate
the necessary resources.
• Measure: Conduct a GHG and energy assessment and review exist-
ing records.
• Analyze: Statistically analyze the data collected to identify trends.
• Improve: Modify the process to meet the organizational goals estab-
lished in the define stage.
• Control: Ensure that the improvement initiatives stay in place with
continuous improvement and feedback.
The remainder of this chapter will expand upon the systems approach,
break this framework into smaller pieces, and provide an execution model
and process flow to accomplish GHG and energy minimization. The systems
approach examines the organization as a whole, or as a sum of all business
processes, to achieve established goals. The concept is to utilize data and
123
process knowledge to develop comprehensive system-wide changes that will

drive environmental and economic performance versus routine incremen-
tal improvements. In addition, several examples will be provided to further
explore and explain each step of the framework. The GHG and energy mini-
mization process consists of 11 steps:
1. Establish the GHG and energy minimization team and charter.

2. Review existing records.
3. Create process flow charts and conduct throughput analyses.
4. Collect on-site data at the facility.
5. Analyze the data to determine annual emission and energy usage by
work unit or area and establish baseline data.
6. Identify major minimization opportunities.
7. Determine, evaluate, and select the minimization process, equip-
ment, and method improvement alternatives.
8. Develop the minimization deployment and execution plan.
9. Execute and implement the minimization plan and timeline.
10. Validate the program versus goals.
11. Monitor and continually improve performance.
Figure 13.1 separates this 11-step process as it relates to the Six Sigma approach.
By applying Six Sigma and the systems approach, GHG and energy mini-
mization alternatives can be developed and evaluated in a standardized
manner to reduce the organization’s environmental impact and improve
financial performance. With this approach, alternatives are fully described,
environmental impacts are quantified, a feasibility analysis is conducted,
a financial justification analysis is performed, and feedback is collected
from all stakeholders before making a final decision to implement. To aid
in describing the 11-step process, a case study is discussed as an example
to demonstrate each step. The case study involves a manufacturing facility
in the midwestern United States that is a leading producer of textiles and
apparel. The company has an international presence, and the facility studied
employs 600 people and was opened in 1987. Since the late 1990s the company
has taken a strong interest in its environmental impact and climate change.
13.2 Establish the Team and Define the Project (Step 1)

After top-management support has been established, the first step in the pro-
cess involves establishing the team and defining goals for energy and carbon
footprint reduction. The key outcomes and deliverables of this step are:
The General Approach to Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analyses 125
Define
1. Establish the greenhouse gas and energy minimization team and charter.
Measure
2. Review existing records.
3. Create process flow charts and conduct throughput analyses.
4. Collect data.
Analyze
5. Analyze the data to determine annual emissions and energy usage by work
unit or area and establish baseline data.
Improve
6. Identify major minimization opportunities.
7. Determine, evaluate, and select waste minimization process, equipment,
and method improvement alternatives.
8. Develop the deployment and execution plan.
9. Execute and implement the plan and timeline.
Control
10. Validate the program versus established goals.
11. Monitor and continually improve performance.
FIGURE 13.1
The 11-step Six Sigma approach to GHG and energy minimization.
• A letter of support from top management to all employees

• Team leader and member identification
• Initial training for the team
• Project goal identification including metrics
• Team charter
• Project timeline
• Project budget
November 19, 2011
Memo to all facility employees
Dear coworkers:
As president of the organization, I am pleased to state that we have made a strong,

unified commitment to collaboration and cooperation in decreasing our greenhouse
gas emissions and energy usage. This commitment has been demonstrated in funded
projects, such as our installation of solar panels and the hire of management and staff to
support related environmental areas.
In light of the recent successes and focus on environmental protection, we have placed
increased emphasis on unifying efforts throughout the organization. As a first step
to accomplish the goal, we are forming a team comprised of your peers to evaluate
our current performance and implement process changes to reduce our emissions and
reinforce our focus on protecting the environment. This project will allow us to move
forward with these key initiatives and any input that you have is highly welcomed and
appreciated. If you have any input, please contact your immediate supervisor to share
your thoughts.
In conclusion, we have provided strong support for greenhouse gas and energy reduc-
tion. We are very pleased with the success of our collaborative efforts at our headquar-
ters office and intend to implement a strong program at our facility. Our continued
commitment to the environment will sustain the efforts of this program so that we may
become a true environmental leader in our field.
Sincerely,
President and CEO
FIGURE 13.2
Sample letter.
13.2.1 Upper-M anagement Support

Upper-management support is one of the most important components for
any successful project. A letter, memo, or e-mail from the organization presi-
dent, CEO, or facility manager to all employees is a great way to set the tone
of the project and to create awareness among all employees. A clear message
must be sent that GHG and energy minimization is an important focus of the
company and that all employees are requested to take part and contribute. A
sample letter that may be used is shown in Figure 13.2.
13.2.2 The Project Team

Selecting the team to lead the GHG and energy minimization project should
not be taken lightly. Thought should be put into selecting a cross-functional
team that has process knowledge and good interpersonal skills. The team
leader should be in a management position at the facility. This will allow for
faster communication with management and a higher degree of authority
within the team and throughout the facility. Efforts should also be made
not to select an overburdened manager; the team leader must have adequate
time to devote to the project and lead all meetings.
The team itself should be comprised of five to six core members represent-
ing different areas in the facility, including both management and hourly
employees. For example, in a manufacturing plant, a janitorial worker,
engineer, maintenance technician, production supervisor/manager, line
employee, and accountant would be a good mix. The team members should
exhibit concern for the environment, possess strong interpersonal skills, and
be well respected among their peers. The team will serve as the internal
“cheerleaders” for the project to help build excitement, participation, and
awareness. In addition, a technical expert within the company or contracted
as a consultant is a very value-added addition to the team and highly recom-
mended. The team will perform the roles discussed previously in Chapter 5.
Temporary team members may be added to the project to assist in data col-
lection during the waste sort discussed later in the chapter. For the exam-
ple case study, the team was led by the engineering manager and included
a consultant hired on an “as-needed basis,” a line worker, an accountant, a
process engineer, the safety captain, and a production supervisor. This
cross-functional team collectively possessed a strong understanding of all
core and support operations within the facility.
13.2.3 Initial Training and Introductory Meeting

The team will require initial training before beginning the project. The goals
should be clearly outlined, including the metrics, timeline, and budget. The team
should also have the opportunity to give input to the team charter and help in
its development. The purposes of the training and introductory meeting are to:
• Introduce the team and exchange contact information/work schedules.

• Establish clear SMART goals (Simple, Measurable, Agreed to,
Reasonable, and Time based).
• Define initial team member roles.
• Finalize the budget.
• Finalize the timeline.
• Create the team charter.
The technical expert should take the lead role in this process to ensure
adequate training and a clear understanding of the project goal and the path
ahead. The training itself should focus details on the 14-step process.
13.2.4 Project Goals and Metrics

The goals of the project should be clearly expressed as soon as possible. This
will provide the team with much needed direction and serve as the gauge to
evaluate all team activities and accomplishments. The goals should provide
a specific direction for the project and not a vague generalized improvement
slogan such as “to become an environmental leader in the automobile engine
manufacturing field” or “to reduce the organization’s carbon footprint.” A
more specific SMART goal, such as the following, is appropriate:
• Reduce the amount of carbon emissions per year by 10% from the
baseline year of 2010.
• Decrease energy usage by 10% from the baseline year of 2010.
• Utilize environmental improvements as a strategic weapon to provide
a cost benefit of 10% versus the baseline year of 2010 for expenditures.
For the case study project, the goal was established to reduce energy emis-
sions by 10% over a 12-month period versus the same period the previous
year without increasing operating costs. Such a clear goal provides a specific
goal for the team and the constraints to achieve it. In this case, the metrics
were metric tons of carbon generated and dollars.
13.2.5 Team Charter
The team charter is a statement of the scope, objectives, and participants in a
project. It provides a preliminary description of roles and responsibilities, out-
lines the project objectives, identifies the main stakeholders, and defines the
authority of the project manager. It serves as a reference of authority for the
future of the project. The purpose of the team and project charter is to document:
• Reasons for undertaking the project

• Objectives and constraints of the project
• Directions concerning the solution
• Identities of the main stakeholders
The three main uses of the project charter are:
• To authorize the project: Using a comparable format, projects can be

ranked and authorized by return on investment.
• To serve as the primary sales document for the project: It provides
stakeholders with a one- to two-page summary to distribute, present,
and keep handy when fending off other projects that may attempt to
consume the allocated resources.
• To be a focus point throughout the project: The charter may be used

as an introductory document for new team members, to provide a
focal point during team meetings, and in control or review meetings
to ensure tight scope management.
For the case study, the team charter is shown in Figure 13.3.
13.2.6 Project Timeline
The project timeline is one of the key deliverables from the define stage. The
timeline tracks project performance versus established goals and serves
as the strategic implementation plan. The timeline should be viewed as a
control document to evaluate the progress of the team versus preestablished
milestones. Proper planning is needed to ensure the timeline is achievable
and will meet the goals of the project. Table 13.1, a sample timeline, contains
some general guidelines for the time required for each step of the GHG and
minimization process. Please note that the timeline assumes that the team
will be devoting approximately 30% of their time to the project and 70% of
their time to normal job duties. On average, a successful project requires
approximately three to four months to complete.
13.2.7 Project Budget
The final deliverable from the define stage of the process is the budget. The
budget identifies the financial resources available to the project for process
improvements and data collection assistance. The budget could include such
items as:
• Training and reference materials

• Outside training
• Data collection and measuring devices (energy and emission gauges)
• Data collection labor
• Equipment purchases
• Communication funds (newsletters, banners, posters)
• Travel funds to visit top-performing sites for benchmarking
• Meeting refreshments (if desired)
Several approaches exist when creating the budget. For example, project
start-up funds could be allocated by management and spent at the team’s
discretion. Management could allocate $1000 to $10,000 for the items listed
previously and empower the team to best utilize the funds. Many success-
ful companies have taken the approach that no additional dollars will be
Greenhouse Gas and Energy Minimization Team Charter

Purpose Statement and Team Objectives:
The mission of the team is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% versus 2010 gen-
eration without added expenses. The team is committed to working effectively together
by monitoring process effectiveness, following through on commitments, and helping
one another learn. The mission will be accomplished with the following objectives:
• To complete the 11 step assessment process for the company by 31 March
• To prepare first draft proposals, and present to CEO by 15 April
• To refine proposals, and present to regional management meeting on 25 April
• To present the final plan to the CEO by 15 May
Team Composition and Roles

The team will be made up of representatives from each functional area in the plant
including management and unionized employees. This range of skills and knowledge
will enable the team to understand the issues relating to individual countries, as well as
developing solutions to the problems outstanding. Jack Smith will take the role of team
leader. In that role, he is responsible for:
• Ensuring this Team Charter is abided by;
• Managing the day to day operations of the team and the team’s deliverables;
• Managing the budget;
• Providing support and assistance to individual team members; and
• Providing status reports to the CEO on a weekly basis.
Authority and Empowerment

Jack, as team leader, has the authority to direct and control the team’s work, and team
members are allocated full time to this project, for its duration.
Resources and Support Available

A budget of $4,000 is available to cover travel and initial supplies to launch the program.
The CEO will meet with Jack Smith at 4:30 pm every Monday afternoon for a progress
update and to provide support and coaching appropriately.
Operations
• The first team meeting will be on Monday, 28 February at 2:00 pm.
• The team will meet every Monday afternoon from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm for the
duration of the project.
• Each member is expected to present a short status report for the aspect of the
project they are working on.
• If a member is unable to attend, a notification must be sent to the team leader
and someone else designated to report on the status and communicate further
expectations.
• A summary of each meeting will be prepared by Jack Smith and emailed to all
members by the morning following the meeting.
FIGURE 13.3
Sample team charter.
TABLE 13.1
Project Timeline
GHG and Minimization Step Time (Weeks)
1. Establish the GHG and energy minimization team and charter. 2
2. Review existing records. 2
3. Create process flow charts and conduct throughput analyses. 2
4. Collect data. 2
5. Analyze the data to determine annual emissions by work unit or area. 2
6. Establish baseline data. 1
7. Identify minimization opportunities. 6
8. Develop process and method improvement alternatives to minimize 6
GHG and energy usage.
9. Determine vendors and service providers to assist in minimization efforts. 3
10. Compare and decide among alternatives. 1
11. Develop the deployment and execution plan. 2
12. Execute and implement the plan and timeline. 4
13. Validate the process versus goals. 1
14. Monitor and continually improve performance. 1
TOTAL 35
allocated to the project. All expenditures would be cost justified based on

return on investment and available funds in the budget. This approach is
generally preferred by management, because no additional funds are needed
and outcomes of the project at a minimum will break even for the organiza-
tion. As a first step in reviewing previous records, the team determines the
budget by calculating the previous year’s expenditures. For the case study
example, the team was given $3000 by executive management to cover tools
and program start-up costs.
13.3 Existing Records Review (Step 2)

Reviewing the existing organizational records for GHG and energy usage will
usually provide significant insight into the amounts, types, and patterns of
generation and usage. Very useful data and information can be gained to help
focus the efforts of the team and eliminate the need for the raw-data collection,
which can be time consuming and costly. Collecting high-quality records will
save a great deal of time, money, and effort versus raw-data collection via facil-
ity audits and facility walk-through. The types of records to collect include:
• Purchasing, inventory, maintenance, and operating logs

• Supply, equipment, and raw-material invoices
• Equipment service contracts

• Repair invoices
• Energy records and contracts (including one year of amounts and
fees collected)
• Contracts with facilities and records
• Major-equipment list
• Production schedule (representative of a year)
• Company brochure or product information
• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)
• Facility layout (hard copy plus CAD copy, if available)
• Process flow diagrams
The purpose of reviewing these records is to determine total amount of

emissions and energy usage annually and the total cost structure for these
areas. Oftentimes, the janitorial staff, maintenance, purchasing, and account-
ing staff will be most useful when gathering these records. In addition, cus-
tomer service at the service providers and utilities may keep more detailed
records than the information that appears on monthly invoices. The team
should be aware of several limitations of the existing records, such as:
• The records may not provide adequate data if the supplier or utility
does not collect this information.
• The records do not usually provide information about specific emis-
sions (raw-data collection is needed).
• They can be difficult to use if services for multiple businesses are
bundled on one billing statement or report.
Figures 13.4 through 13.11 may be used as the data collection worksheets

for the existing record review. Included in these worksheets are the recom-
mended documents to collect. The worksheets are separated into 12 sec-
tions. Figure 13.4 displays a checklist of the information needed to begin the
assessment process. Following is a summary:
• Section 1: Company Information—facility data related to contacts,

facility, size, and work shifts (displayed in Figure 13.5)
• Section 2: Forklift Data—the number of forklifts utilized and fuel
type (displayed in Figure 13.5)
• Section 3: Process Information—products, services, and manufac-
turing process data (displayed in Figure 13.6)
• Section 4: Energy Prices and Usage—annualized energy consump-
tion and cost by fuel type (displayed in Figure 13.6)
Greenhouse Gas and Energy Minimization

Records Review
In order for the Waste Assessment Team to begin the assessment, please compile the
following items and complete the attached questionnaire. If additional space is needed
than what is provided on the questionnaire, please attach sheets.
Please provide the following:

1. Major equipment list
2. Production schedule (representative of a year)
3. Company brochure or product information
4. MSDS sheets
5. Facility layout (hard copy plus CAD copy, if available)
6. Process flow diagrams
7. Receipts from each supplier and utility provider (representative of one year)
8. Please indicate which safety items the waste assessment team will need to enter your facility:
Safety glasses
Steel toe shoes
Hard hats
Hearing protection
Other _______________________________________________________________________
FIGURE 13.4
Existing records review worksheet—page 1.
• Section 5: Heating and Cooling—heating and cooling system equip-

ment and parameters (displayed in Figure 13.7)
• Section 6: Water Heating—water-heating equipment and parameters
(displayed in Figure 13.8)
• Section 7: Lighting—light and fixture type and usage data (displayed
in Figure 13.8)
• Section 8: Appliance and Computer Data—appliance type, age, and
usage (displayed in Figure 13.9)
• Section 9: Transportation Data—miles of business and commuting
travel by mode (displayed in Figure 13.9)
• Section 10: Purchasing—paper purchasing and recycling content
(displayed in Figure 13.10)
• Section 11: Waste Disposal and Recycling—solid waste and recy-
cling quantities and costs (displayed in Figure 13.10)
• Section 12: Corporate Considerations—environmental policies,
goals, and barriers (displayed in Figure 13.11)
Section 1: Company Information
Date: ________________________
1. Company Name: _________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________
Company Contact:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ______________________________ Fax: ______________________________
Purchasing department contact: ______________________________ phone:_______________
Janitorial services contact: ___________________________________ phone:_______________
Engineering department contact: _____________________________ phone:_______________
Environmental services contact: ______________________________ phone:_______________
2. Primary SIC Code: ____________________ Secondary SIC Code (s): ____________________
3. Number of Shifts: _____________________ Shift times: From: To:
Employees Per Shift: First: __________ First: ______________ – ______________
Second: __________ Second: ______________ – ______________
Third: __________ Third: ______________ – ______________
Total Employees: ______________________
Days per year the plant is in production? ________________________________________
4. What is the labor and benefit rate for hourly employees? (if necessary, break out
classification)
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Square Footage of Facility: ______________
What is the cost per square foot of production space or warehousing space? ______________
6. What was the number of products produced last year? (breakdown by product) ____________
_________________________________________________________________________________
What is the company’s Minimum Atractive Rate of Return (MARR) and tax rate? ________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7. What are the approximate annual sales for your company? ____________________________
9. What are your company’s primary goals for this assessment?

Minimization of Costs: Yes No
Minimization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Yes No
Other: ______________________________________ No
10. Has an energy or greenhouse assessment ever been conducted before? Yes No
Section 2: Forklift Data
1. Number of forklifts________
2. Forklift fuel type: gasoline/propane/electricity/natural gas
FIGURE 13.5
Section 3: Process Information
1. Briefly list your company’s products and/or services: ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
2. How would you rate current levels of production and the energy and emissions?
Average
Above Average
Below Average
3. Please explain any reasons for this variation in production or production trends: ________
_______________________________________________________________________________
4. Please indicate all areas which are present at this location:
Storage Reseearch and Development
Design Shipping/Receiving
Lab Work Manufacturing
Office Fabrication
Retail Inventory/Warehousing
Other__________________________________________
5. Please indicate all manufacturing processes currently at this location:

Anodizing Grinding Picking
Coating Heat Treating Polishing
Blending Kiln Firing Printing
Brazing Machining Rolling
Cleaning Milling Shearing
Degreasing Mining Slitting
Electroplating Molding Stamping
Etching Painting Welding
Extruding Paint Strip Other_______________
Section 4: Energy Prices and Usage
1. Electricity cost per kilowatt hour ________ and usage last year (kilowatt hours) ________
2. Piped Natural Gas cost per therm or 100 cubic feet ________ and usage last year ________
3. Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) cost per gallon ________ and usage last year ________
4. Fuel Oil cost per gallon ________ and usage last year ________
FIGURE 13.6
Section 5: Heating and Cooling
1. Foundation type: Slab/Unconditioned basement/Conditioned basement/Crawl space

2. Foundation insulation (depth in inches) _______________________
3. Building construction type: Wood frame/Brick/Concrete
4. Building wall insulation (depth in inches) ___________________________
5. Number of exterior doors __________________________
6. Number of exterior dock doors ______________________
7. Number of exterior windows and frame/glass type ___________________________
8. Window insulation and shading ________________________
9. Attic or ceiling type and insulation type/level _________________________
10. Heating duct location and insulation (depth in inches) __________________________
11. Boiler pipe insulation type/level (depth in inches) _________________________
12. Thermostat type (programmable) YES/NO
13. Thermostat temperature setting (Heating/Cooling) ___________/________________
14. Type of heating system ___________________
15. Heating system capacity _____________________
16. Heating system efficiency (AFUE/HSPF) _________________
17. Year heating system installed __________
18. Type of cooling system _____________
19. Cooling system capacity _________________
20. Cooling system efficiency (EER/SEE or year cooling system installed) ________________
21. Number of ceiling fans _________________
22. Number of portable fans _________
FIGURE 13.7
13.4 Process Mapping and Production Analysis (Step 3)

The goal of this step is to aid the team in fully understanding the business
processes and capabilities of the facility. An understanding of these processes
is crucial in developing alternatives to reduce GHG emissions and energy
usage. A process flow chart is a hierarchical method for displaying processes
that illustrates how a product or transaction is processed. It is a visual repre-
sentation of the work flow within either a process or an image of the entire
operation. Process mapping comprises a stream of activities that transforms
a well-defined input or set of inputs into a predefined set of outputs.
Section 6: Water Heating
1. Water heater fuel type: Electricity/Natural Gas/Fuel Oil/Propane

2. Year purchased ________________
3. Water heater location ________________
4. Energy factor ________________
5. Recovery efficiency ________________
6. Rated input ________________
7. Storage tank capacity (gallons) ________________
8. Temperature setting ________________
Section 7: Lighting
1. Number of light fixtures in office space ________________

2. Bulb type: Incandescent/halogen torchiere/compact fluorescent/LED/fluorescent tube
3. Number of bulbs in fixture ________________
4. Sum of wattages for all bulbs in fixture ________________
5. Usage (hours per day) ________________
6. Number of light fixtures in manufacturing space ________________
7. Bulb type: Incandescent/halogen torchiere/compact fluorescent/LED/fluorescent tube
8. Number of bulbs in fixture ________________
9. Sum of wattages for all bulbs in fixture ________________
10. Usage (hours per day) ________________
FIGURE 13.8
A well-developed process flow chart or map should allow people unfamil-

iar with the process to understand the interaction of causes during the work
flow, and contain additional information relating to the project (such as tons
of carbon emissions per year and annual cost of compliance).
To create a process map, it is important to determine the start and stop points
because you will create the process map between those points. The SIPOC tool
can help. Once the beginning and ending activity steps have been determined,
one can map the steps between the two. Key points to process mapping include:
• Keep it simple.
• Start at a high level first.
• Involve the people closest to the process.
• Walk through the process yourself.
Section 8: Appliances and Computers
List of appliance size, type, and year manufactured:

Appliance type Appliance size Year built
List of computers and office equipment and usage (hours per day):
Computer or equipment type Hours usage per day
Section 9: Transportation Data
1. Annual fleet fuel usage in gallons, including type of fuel used: ________________
2. Miles of business travel by airplane: ________________
3. Miles of business travel by train: ________________
4. Miles of business travel by bus: ________________
5. Miles of business travel by automobile: ________________
6. Miles of commuting travel by airplane: ________________
7. Miles of commuting travel by train: ________________
8. Miles of commuting travel by bus: ________________
9. Miles of commuting travel by automobile: ________________
FIGURE 13.9
• Think end to end.

• Work with a small group of three to seven people. A larger group
can make the activity unwieldy.
Following are the three general steps to create a process map:

Section 10: Purchasing
1. Annual paper use in sheets, reams, boxes, or pounds ________________

2. Annual amount spent on paper ________________
3. Percent of recycled content ________________
Section 11: Waste Disposal and Recycling
1. Annual quantity of solid waste disposal (tons) ________________

2. Annual quantity of materials recycled (tons) ________________
3. List of materials that are recycled ________________________________________________
4. Annual cost of solid waste disposal ________________
5. Annual cost of recycling ________________
6. Annual cost of composting ________________
FIGURE 13.10
1. Begin by stating your intention to create a process map for activities

completed between start-step A and stop-step B.
2. Document the activities that people do between steps A and B on
self-adhesive notes. Attach the notes to a wall, flip chart, or white-
board in the order in which they are normally completed. Begin
your documentation at a high level and then move into additional
process maps that provide greater detail.
3. Document the process maps. Schedule your next meeting to review
the information. Make sure that you verify and clarify the activities
and their owners. Also, look for any immediate opportunities to cre-
ate “quick wins.”
In order to identify areas for improvement, processes must be broken into

subprocesses. A subprocess operates at a more detailed level than a core pro-
cess and gets into who does what and why on a daily basis.
Core processes must be broken down into enough detail to understand,
monitor, manage, and analyze performance. As a general rule, processes
must be described at a third level, as shown earlier, before improvement
teams will be able to deal with them adequately. Figure 13.12 displays a data
collection form that can be used when creating the process map and flow
chart. The process charts displayed in Figure 13.13 were created during the
case study example.
The primary purpose of the production analysis is to determine annual pro-
duction rates (or capacities) and related cyclical patterns. These production
Section 12: Corporate Considerations
1. Does your company have a written environmental policy? Yes No

If yes, does this policy include energy or GHG minimization? Yes No
2. Is there a GHG minimization program in place? Yes No
Is there a quality management program in place? Yes No
Is there an employee involvement program to improve operations? Yes No
If yes, please explain your employee involvement program: _______________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. What are the priority areas where energy and GHG reduction efforts should be focused? _____
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Please list any Renewable Energy Credits purchased, composting, forest preservation ________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Please indicate any barriers to the energy reduction or GHG minimization:
Inadequate performance
Corporate policy
Engineering specifications
Price
Other _______________________________________________________________________
6. Please indicate any current procurement policies used by your company:
Recycled content products
Energy reduction
GHG reduction/monitoring
Environmental friendliness
Minimum packaging
Other _______________________________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
FIGURE 13.11
rates will relate directly to the amount of emissions and energy usage by
each cycle, whether the cycle is a week, month, or quarter. Figure 13.14 is a
capacity model worksheet that could be used to aid in this process. To calcu-
late the capacity, the following information will be needed:
• Annual forecast
• Cycle time
• Efficiency (versus cycle time)
• Time available
• Utilization (uptime of the machine)
Process flow chart form.

FIGURE 13.12
Raw Materials Waste Streams
Expander
Fiber Miscellaneous Fiber
Water Paste Mixing Defective Paste Mixture
Acid
Lead Oxide
Grids Defective Plates

Paste Pasting Corrugated Spools
Expanded Grids Plastic Sheeting
Plastic Sheeting
Flash Dry Defective Plates
Chemset Defective Plates
FIGURE 13.13
Process map example.
13.5 On-Site Data Collection (Step 4)

On-site data collection is often necessary to complete the emissions and
energy usage profile for the facility. Depending on the amount of data
available from previous records, on-site data collection needs vary. Some
organizations keep very detailed records by work unit for energy usage,
environmental concerns, and emissions. Via the data collected, the organi-
zation’s emission and energy profiles can be characterized, including the
annual amounts generated and the percentage that each component contrib-
utes to the whole. These data are invaluable when evaluating cost effective
methods or process changes to reduce these areas. The remainder of this
section discusses the process to conduct on-site data collection, including
the required preparation, tools required, and a step-by-step guide, and also
provides data collection forms.
13.5.1 Preparation for On-Site Data Collection

Before scheduling the data collection, some preparation work is required,
including a team meeting to discuss several items to ensure a smooth project.
COMPANY NAME
TITLE (CAPACITY MODEL)
LOCATION (CITY, STATE) PRODUCTION PARAMETERS
DAYS PER YEAR 233
DATE:
HOURS PER SHIFT 8
PRODUCTION
AREA TIME REQUIRED TIME AVAILABLE
PARTS HRS HRS
ANNUAL DAILY CYCLE PER REQD SHIFTS AVAIL
FORECAST FORECAST TIME CYCLE EFFICIENCY PER DAY PER DAY UTILIZATION PER DAY LOADING
ITEM
# OPERATION (units) (units) (minutes) (pcs/cycle) (percent) (hrs/day) (shifts/day) (percent) (hrs/day) (percent)
1.0 LATHE 100,000 429 1.10 2 90% 4.37 2 90% 14.40 30.36%
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
The General Approach to Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analyses
10.0
11.0
FIGURE 13.14
Production analysis example.
143
Specifically, the following items should be addressed and finalized prior to

the sort:
• Hold a team meeting.

• Create an assessment plan and assign roles and facility areas of
responsibility.
• Conduct training.
• Review the layout of the facility.
• Gather the needed tools and equipment.
• Assign data collection roles to temporary team members.
• Prepare the data collection forms.
• Hold a custodial staff meeting.
• Disseminate employee messaging regarding the assessment and
expectations.
The team meeting prior to the assessment should be held to establish

common goals and timelines. The primary outcomes from this meeting are
training and development of the assessment plan. The training should be
conducted by the technical expert and focus on the use of tools and data col-
lection forms. The assessment plan should assign team members to the vari-
ous areas of the facility to conduct data collection effectively and efficiently.
The equipment required for the waste sort includes:
• Gloves
• Yardsticks
• Energy meters with LCD display for 110 V and 220 V
• Emission meter
• Stop watch
• Thermal image camera
• Scales
• Clipboards (to hold the assessment forms)
Based on the size of the facility, it may be necessary to recruit additional

support to collect data during the assessment. If additional help is used, these
individuals should receive the same training as the core team. An approach
that seems to work well is to assign one temporary team member from each
work unit within the facility. For example, assign a supervisor or shop floor
worker from each production work area such as the metal stamping unit, the
paint shop, and the accounting offices (work units will differ by business type).
The advantages of assigning temporary team members within each work unit
include faster and more accurate data collection. The temporary team member,
as a member of the work unit in which data are being collected, will possess
specialized knowledge on the energy usage and emissions types and amounts.
The data collection form is the most important document of the assess-
ment. The data collected with the form will be used to extrapolate the annual
generation and energy usage for the facility, so care should be taken when
collecting the data to ensure accuracy. At a minimum, the required informa-
tion on the data collection form is:
• The date the data were collected

• The team members collecting the data (this is very useful if follow-up
or clarification is needed)
• Work unit and location
• Square footage of work area
• Number of employees assigned to the work area and shift days/times
• Equipment data (size, year built, energy consumption, usage per day)
• Computers and office equipment (type, energy consumption, and
usage per day)
• Temperature and humidity maximum and minimum values
• Lighting data (type, number, usage per day, and needs for work
processes)
• Data on exterior doors and windows
• Waste disposal data (amount and composition generated)
• Recycling data (materials and amounts)
• Renewable-energy sources or energy reduction initiatives (sky light-
ing, solar panels, programmable thermostats, etc.)
• Notes and comments that may be useful when analyzing the data
(including names and contact information for work units members
with specialized knowledge)
Figure 13.15 is a template of the data collection form.

A meeting should be held with the maintenance/custodial supervisor and
custodial team to clarify the scope and support required for the assessment.
On the day of the assessment, the custodial staff and employees should be
notified regarding the timing and data collection specifics. Notes and mes-
sages should be placed in the custodians’ work and break areas the day
before and the day of the assessment to ensure compliance. During the meet-
ing, the custodial team should be made aware of the goal of the project and
Greenhouse Gas and Energy Assessment

Data Collection Form
Unit Name Date of Study
Location Performed by
Days of Operation
Hours of Operation Work Unit Supervisor
Number of Employees Email
Square Footage of Work Area Phone Number
Number of Exterior Doors and Type

Number of Exterior Windows and Type
Temperature Max and Min Requirements
Waste Disposal Amount per Day
Recycled Materials
Amount of Materials Recycled per Day
Equipment and Computer Data

Name and Type Year Built Energy Consumption Usage per Day
Lighting Data
Name and Type Bulb Type Number Usage per Day
Renewable Energy Sources:
Exisiting Energy and Emission Reduction Items:
Notes:
FIGURE 13.15
Data collection form.
November 19th
Memo to All Employees:
On December 2nd the energy and greenhouse gas analysis and minimization team will
conduct an assessment at our facility between 2 PM and 5 PM. The purpose of this
assessment is to determine the amount and composition of our emissions and energy
usage profile to help us become more environmentally friendly. On the day of the
assessment, please accommodate the team and provide assistance as requested. Also,
if you have any ideas or suggestions to help us become more environmentally friendly,
please share them with the assessment team.
Thank you for your support.
President and CEO
FIGURE 13.16
Sample service talk.
the purpose of the assessment. Oftentimes, the custodial team has value-
added suggestions and comments that will improve the study, such as areas
to target and high-volume areas.
Finally, several days before the assessment, messaging in the form of
e-mails, service talks, and postings in common areas should be dissemi-
nated to all facility employees discussing the details of the assessment.
The messaging should include the date of the assessment, the purpose of
the assessment, and the process of the assessment. This will help ensure a
smooth assessment by informing employees to keep all trash available to
measure and prevent data collection delays resulting from the team contin-
ually being asked who they are and what they are doing. In addition, the
messaging could solicit suggestions for improvement and employee com-
ments. By sending the messaging earlier, it will give the employees time to
think about energy usage and emissions in their work units and provide
more value-added feedback. Figure 13.16 is a sample service talk that could
be used to inform all employees.
13.5.2 Assessment Guide
The assessment itself is straightforward; every work unit in the facility is
analyzed and a data collection form is completed. During the walkthrough
of the assessment, the team will gather raw data regarding their observa-
tions and sources of energy use and emissions. The team also examines the
company’s main production, the waste flow in the facility, and the number of
waste streams in the facility, and draws a process and material flow diagram.
Ideally, if a layout of the facility is available, it may be used to segment the
plant for the team members to collect data. In general, a team of two people
is recommended for each mini-team. This will allow one person to measure
and the other to record the data.
13.6 Data Analysis (Step 5)

The major outcome of the analysis phase is the annualized baseline data
related to GHG emissions and energy usage for the facility. These baseline
data should be separated by the emission type (CO2, carbon monoxide [CO],
CH4, etc.), work unit of generation, how the emission is currently handled,
energy consumption, and source of energy. Each component should be given
in terms of weight (metric tons per year) or energy consumption (kilowatt-
hours per year). The key questions that are answered from this analysis are:
• What are the emissions generated from the facility and how much?
• Which processes of operations do these emissions streams come from?
• Which emission streams are classified as hazardous and which are
not? What makes them hazardous?
• What are the input materials used that generate the emission streams
of a particular process or facility area?
• How much of a particular input material enters each emission stream?
• How efficient is the process?
• Are any unnecessary wastes generated by mixing otherwise recy-
clable hazardous materials with other process wastes?
• What types of housekeeping practices are used to limit the quantity
of wastes generated?
• What types of process controls are used to improve process efficiency?
• How much money is the company paying to treat emission streams?
• How much energy does each area of the facility consume and what
is the annual cost/energy source?
To answer these questions and to generate the baseline data, several data
sources are utilized. For example, the existing records that were collected,
the data that were gathered during the assessment, and team member
knowledge will be used. Additional data collection or verification may be
required during the analysis portion. The first step in the data analysis pro-
cess is to combine and summarize data into a single document. The most
efficient manner to accomplish this is with the use of a spreadsheet. The data
collected from the assessment and records review are input into a linked
spreadsheet to extrapolate annual emissions and energy consumption, and
to determine associated costs. The information entered into this spreadsheet
includes the data collected from each collection form during the assessment.
After the data are entered, the spreadsheet can be created to automatically
calculate annual emissions and energy usage based upon predetermined
density factors. Figure 13.17 displays a spreadsheet template that may be
used during the data entry process, and Figure 13.18 displays a completed
data entry form.
After all data have been entered into the spreadsheet, annual emissions
and energy usage can be tabulated. This leads to the next step, which
involves calculating the energy costs and emissions by each area. The data to
calculate this are taken from billing statements (collected during the existing
records review) and the extrapolated emissions streams. Table 13.2 displays
an example of a facility’s annualized emissions and energy usage by work
area for the case study.
In the next section, strategies for identifying minimization alternatives for
each area are discussed.
13.7 Identify Minimization Opportunities (Step 6)

After the baseline data have been calculated, the assessment team can begin
to investigate individual components in the emission stream that should be
targeted for reduction. A useful method to accomplish this task is to con-
duct a Pareto analysis. A Pareto analysis is a statistical technique in deci-
sion making that is used for the selection of a limited number of tasks that
produce the significant overall effect. Pareto analysis is a formal technique
useful where many possible courses of action are competing for your atten-
tion. In essence, the problem solver estimates the benefit delivered by each
action, then selects a number of the most effective actions that deliver a total
benefit reasonably close to the maximal possible one. The analysis uses the
Pareto principle—a large majority of effects, in this case waste generation,
are produced by a few key causes, in this case GHG emissions and energy
consumption. The Pareto principle is also known as the 80/20 rule—that
80% of the effects are caused by 20% of the causes. The idea is to identify the
20% of significant emissions sources that generate 80% of the total emissions,
and then target the 20% of significant causes for minimization. In Table 13.2,
it is demonstrated that operations consumes the most energy and emits the
highest amounts of greenhouse gases. Therefore, this area should serve as
the starting point for the assessment team when developing waste minimi-
zation strategies and alternatives.

Data Entry Form
Lighting Data Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Work Unit or Area Name
Original Wattage
Replacement Wattage
# of Units
Energy Price per Kilowatt Hour
Initial Cost per Unit to Upgrade
Average Hourly Usage (minutes)
Hours of Operation Daily
Days of Use per Week
Weeks in Use per Year
Equipment and Computer Data Area Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Equipment Type
Supply Voltage (V)
Supply Frequency (Hz)
Full Load Ampage (A)
# of Units
Average Hourly Usage (minutes)
Heating and Cooling Data Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Equipment Type
Energy Consumption
# of Units
Temperature Setting
Solid Waste and Recycling Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Daily Waste Generation (lbs)
Cost of Waste Disposal (per ton)
Daily Recycling (lbs)
Vehicles and Travel Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Transportation Mode (car, plane, bus)
Miles Driven per Year
Fuel Economy
Cost of Fuel per Gallon
FIGURE 13.17
Data entry form template.

Data Entry Form
Lighting Data Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Work Unit or Area Name Machine Shop
Original Wattage 400 Watts
Replacement Wattage 80 Watts
# of Units 155 Units
Energy Price per Kilowatt Hour $0.08
Initial Cost per Unit to Upgrade $38.34
Average Hourly Usage (minutes) 60 Minutes
Hours of Operation Daily 8.5 Hours
Days of Use per Week 5 Days
Weeks in Use per Year 50 Weeks
Equipment and Computer Data Area Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Equipment Type Lathe
Supply Voltage (V) 440 Volts
Supply Frequency (Hz) 60 Hz
Full Load Ampage (A) 4.3 Amps
# of Units 1 Units
Average Hourly Usage (minutes) 20 Minutes
Hours of Operation Daily 4 Hours
Heating and Cooling Data Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Equipment Type Electric Furnace
Energy Consumption 550 Watts
# of Units 1 Units
Temperature Setting 60 Degree F
Solid Waste and Recycling Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Daily Waste Generation (lbs) 42 lbs
Cost of Waste Disposal (per ton) $35
Daily Recycling (lbs) 3 lbs
Vehicles and Travel Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Transportation Mode (car, plane, bus) Car
Miles Driven per Year 300
Fuel Economy 21 Units
Cost of Fuel per Gallon $3.10
FIGURE 13.18
Completed data entry form.
TABLE 13.2
Annualized Emissions and Energy Usage by Area
Area Energy Usage (kW) Carbon Emissions (metric tons)
Machine shop 10,000 400
Administrative offices 500 20
Cafeteria 1,000 40
Research and development lab 750 30
Receiving 500 20
Quality control 250 10
Operations 15,000 600
TOTALS 28,000 1,120
13.8 Determine, Evaluate, and Select Alternatives (Step 7)

Once the major generators of GHGs and the consumers of energy have been
quantified, the team can begin to develop alternatives to minimize these
areas and move closer to the ultimate goal of the project. In this phase of the
project, the team identifies alternatives to minimize these areas and evalu-
ates the economic and operational feasibility while rating each alternative
on its ability to achieve the minimization goals. This section covers the pro-
cess of generating, screening, and selecting among competing alternatives.
In addition, a comprehensive list of common minimization alternatives is
also provided.
13.8.1 Generating Alternatives
The alternatives are based on the existing records review, the assessment
results, and the analysis phase discussed in the previous sections. Various
methods and tools are available to develop the initial list of alternatives.
The environment in which these alternatives are created should be one that
encourages creativity and free thinking by the team. Following is a sug-
gested list of methods to identify and create these alternatives:
• Discussions with trade associations

• Discussions with plant engineers and operators
• Internet and literature reviews
• Information available from federal, state, or local governments
• Discussions with equipment manufacturers or vendors
• Discussions with environmental or business consultants
• Brainstorming
• Benchmarking
Trade associations generally provide assistance and information about

environmental regulations and the various tools and techniques to address
these issues. The information is usually industry specific and at times is free
of charge. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the National
Association of Purchasing Management (NAPM), and the U.S. Green Building
Council (USGBC) are some very good examples of trade associations.
Discussions with plant employees are often a very low-cost and reliable
method to develop alternatives to minimize GHG emissions and energy
usage. Employees are very familiar with a facility’s processes and operations
and oftentimes offer additional suggestions and alternatives. In addition to
generating feasible options, these discussions also aid in fostering employee
buy-in for the program and increase support. Establishing focus groups,
town hall meetings, service talks, facility postings, or one-on-one interviews
are methods to gather feedback from employees.
Literature and Internet reviews are another low-cost method to generate
minimization alternatives. These include Internet searches, journal reviews,
technical magazine reviews, and government reports. These sources
describe similar emissions that other organizations have successfully mini-
mized, and the methods, tools, and equipment used. Oftentimes, a company
does not need to “reinvent the wheel” if another company successfully mini-
mized a similar emission and reported the results. Many articles also pro-
vide the contact information of the authors, and these resources can be used
to gather information. Some examples of popular environmental magazines
and journals are Resource, Conservation and Recycling, Resource Recycling, and
The Journal of Cleaner Production.
The government is also a great source of no-cost information and guide-
books. USEPA and local governments have developed programs that include
technical assistance and information on industry-specific minimization tools
and techniques. USEPA has published the Waste Minimization Opportunity
Manual, which is available at no cost.
Equipment manufacturers and vendors are another source of information
to generate alternatives. The downside to using this source is that they tend to
be biased toward their own products. Nonetheless, this source is a good
way to identify equipment-related options, and they can provide installa-
tion assistance.
Consultants are another method to generate alternatives. A consultant
with environmental experience and industry-specific knowledge can be a
very valuable asset to an organization’s minimization efforts. The downside
is the added cost to contract with a consultant, because the information will
rarely be given free of charge.
Team brainstorming sessions are yet another alternative. Brainstorming is

a group creativity technique designed to generate a large number of ideas
for the solution to a problem. Throughout the early stages of the project,
the team will have to answer several “what,” “why,” and “how” questions.
Brainstorming can accomplish this goal. The general brainstorming rules are
as follows:
• Collect as many ideas as possible from all participants with no criti-

cisms or judgments made while ideas are being generated.
• All ideas are welcome no matter how silly or far out they seem. Be
creative. The more ideas the better, because at this point you don’t
know what might work.
• Absolutely no discussion takes place during the brainstorming
activity. Talking about the ideas will take place after brainstorm-
ing is complete.
• Do not criticize or judge. Don’t even groan, frown, or laugh. All ideas
are equally valid at this point.
• Do build on others’ ideas.
• Do write all ideas on a flip chart or whiteboard so the whole group
can easily see them.
• Set a time limit (e.g., 30 minutes) for the brainstorming.
Benchmarking may also be used to generate ideas. Benchmarking is defined

as the concept of discovering what the best performance is that is being
achieved, whether within the team’s company, by a competitor, or by an
entirely different industry. Benchmarking is an improvement tool whereby
a company measures its performance or process against other companies’
best practices, determines how those companies achieved their performance
levels, and uses the information to improve the team’s company perfor-
mance. Data for benchmarking can be garnered from company visits, annual
reports, or Internet searches. Oftentimes, team members have colleagues in
other companies and industries that can provide these data. Data can also
be collected from regional committees. For example, in Northwest Ohio a
sustainability team was formed by a local nonprofit group to meet monthly
to discuss environmental challenges and successes. At the monthly meet-
ing, lunch is provided and new members are welcome at no cost. Also at
the meeting, each member provides a status update of his or her company’s
environmental efforts, process changes, and issues on which the company
could use assistance.
Each minimization alternative should be documented to facilitate the
screening and review process. A simple spreadsheet that records the name
of the alternative, a brief description, the author with contact information,
and sources (if any) is a very useful tool. Figure 13.19 is a sample worksheet
that may be used for screening alternatives.
Potential GHG and Energy Minimization Options
Alternative Description Author Contact Information (phone/email) Sources or Additional Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The General Approach to Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analyses
18
19
20
FIGURE 13.19
155
Alternative generation worksheet to list possible options.

13.8.2 Common Minimization Alternatives

This section provides a brief list of common GHG emission and energy mini-
mization alternatives that many companies have successfully implemented.
Source reduction can be accomplished through process modifications, tech-
nology changes, input material changes, or product changes. The following
list provides commonly applied waste reduction and reuse opportunities
that many companies have successfully implemented. Most of these are rela-
tively low cost and are considered “low hanging fruit” or simple to launch.
• Programmable thermostats: Install programmable thermostats in

various areas of the facility that require different heating/cooling
needs that vary by time and day.
• Motion sensors for lighting: Install motion sensors in restrooms and
other areas that are not highly utilized.
• High-efficiency lighting: Replace traditional lighting with high-
efficiency or compact lightbulbs.
• Equipment usage policies: Require employees to power down any
device while not in use, specifically computers, machinery, and
office equipment over nighttime periods.
• Packaging: Order merchandise in bulk, work with suppliers to mini-
mize packing materials, establish a reuse policy for cardboard boxes,
implement returnable containers, and reuse shredded newspaper as
packing material.
• Equipment: Use rechargeable batteries, reuse old tires for landscap-
ing or pavement, install reusable filters, donate old furniture, and
sell obsolete equipment and computers
• Carpooling policies: Establish carpooling policies for work-related
travel and the use of company-owned vehicles.
• Renewable energy: Consult with the energy provider to determine if
green or renewable-energy options are available versus coal burning.
• Furnace filters: Clean or replace furnace filters every three months.
• Inventory/purchasing: Set up an area in the facility where employ-
ees can exchange used items, purchase more-durable products, order
in bulk to reduce packaging supplies, and use a waste exchange
program.
• Recycling: Implement a recycling and waste reduction program;
also reuse items such as cardboard boxes or bags.
• Tele-conferencing: Develop policies to utilize more tele-conferencing
versus travel to various facilities unless absolutely necessary.
• Trees: Plant and maintain trees on facility grounds.
Purchasing options fall into a special category because they can encom-
pass prevention, reuse, and recycling alternatives, but are specifically related
to purchasing changes. These include buying supplies with reduced pack-
aging and careful inventory control to avoid overordering and possibly
having to throw away perishable items. In addition, the need for favoring
products made with recycled content also may be noted. The team may need
to have meetings with suppliers and vendors to discuss viable options that
would meet organizational criteria. After the team has identified opportuni-
ties to purchase recycled products and products that can aid the company
in reducing emissions, each item should be rated in terms of availability
and cost. Comparisons should also be made in terms of the life cycle of the
product, not on initial cost only. For example, a picnic table made of recycled
plastic costs more than a wood table, but the plastic table lasts up to four
times longer. The comparison process is discussed in greater detail in subsec-
tions 13.8.3 and 13.8.4.
Finally, there are several great and company-tested methods to encour-
age employee participation that may be included in the list of minimization
alternatives. The goal is to develop an ongoing effort to increase and sustain
employee participation. Communication is a critical ingredient involved in
all the methods, which include:
• Holding regular environmental meetings with representatives from

each department to discuss possible program changes on a regular
basis
• Holding monthly or quarterly company-wide luncheons to promote
and recognize environmental efforts of the organization, depart-
ments, and individuals
• Publicizing program changes and achievements in the company
newsletter
• Announcing special events in memos and pay check stuffers
• Rewarding employees for program involvement
13.8.3 Screening Alternatives
The process of creating minimization alternatives can generate hundreds of
options. It would be very time consuming for the team to conduct detailed
financial and operational feasibility evaluations on each option. A quick
screening process can help to quickly identify the options worthy of full eval-
uations and possible inclusion in the minimization program. Additionally,
noneffective options can be weeded out, saving the team time and money in
the evaluation process. An effective screening process should be based on
the original goals of the project and at a minimum should examine:
• Expected emissions reduction (metric tons per year)

• Expected energy reduction (kilowatt-hours)
• Expected start-up costs
• Impact to operating costs ($ per year)
• Impact to purchasing costs ($ per year)
• Impact on employee morale
• Ease of implementation
The team should keep in mind that the goal of the screening process is
to quickly identify options worthy of further analysis. A weighted scoring
system can be developed to consistently rank each alternative in an objective
manner. A QFD such as a House of Quality is an excellent tool to accomplish
this evaluation. A House of Quality is a graphic tool for defining the relation-
ship between an organization’s desires and the organization’s capabilities. It
utilizes a planning matrix to relate the organizational wants (for example,
GHG reduction and cost performance) to how the minimization program
will or can meet those wants (for example, process changes). It looks like a
house with a correlation matrix as its roof and organizational wants versus
waste minimization options as the house. The House of Quality can also
increase cross-functional integration within organizations using it, espe-
cially between marketing, engineering, and manufacturing.
The basic structure is a table with “whats” as the rows on the left and
“hows” as the columns. Rankings based on the “whys” and the correlations
can be used to calculate priorities for the “hows.” House of Quality analysis
can also be cascaded, with “hows” from one level becoming the “whats” of
a lower level; as this progresses the decisions get closer to the engineering/
manufacturing details.
Before proceeding with the screening process, the team should decide on
the evaluation criteria (the “whats”) and weighting system. A scale of 1–10
for weighting each criterion is recommended. These weightings should be
determined by the team, project manager, facility manager, or a combination
of all three. The evaluation criteria should be directly related to the overall
goals of the project, such as:
• Reduction in emission amounts

• Reduction in emissions toxicity
• Reduction in disposal costs
• Reduction in purchasing costs
• Revenue generation potential
• Low start-up costs
• Productivity improvements
• Quality improvement
• Ease of implementation
• Impact on employee morale
• Impact on organization image
• Impact on safety
• Other factors as determined by the team
Once these criteria have been created, the team should rank them on a
scale of 1 to 10 based on importance. For example, reductions in emissions
amounts could receive an importance rating of 10 (meaning it is highly
important) versus low start-up costs receiving an importance rating of 2
(meaning that start-up costs are of low importance and not a major factor
in the decision process). These criteria should then be placed into the col-
umn headers of the spreadsheet with importance weightings in parentheses.
Figure 13.20 provides an example of an alternative screening worksheet.
Once the criterion and importance ratings have been established, the team
should list each alternative in the rows under the Option column. In the row
for each alternative, the team should place a rating score corresponding to the
level at which the alternative meets the criterion with 0 being no impact and
10 being great impact. For example, if the team is considering the purchase
of solar panels, the reduction in energy usage could be significant, so the
Option Option Option Option Option

Category Weighting 1 2 3 4 5 SCORE
Reduction in GHG 10
emissions
Reduction in energy 9
usage
Reduction in pollution 9
prevention/disposal
costs
Reduction in 5
purchasing costs
Low start-up costs 4
Productivity 5
improvements
Quality improvements 7
Ease of implementation 5
Impact on employee 5
morale
Impact on safety 10
FIGURE 13.20
Alternative screening worksheet.
team could rate it an 8; but in the start-up cost criterion, the team could rate it
lower, such as a 1, due to the high implementation cost. Once each alternative
is rated, the ratings should be multiplied by the importance factor and each
row should be summed. This score will allow the team to objectively screen
each alternative. Once all of the alternatives are listed and scored, the team
can screen them based on their total score. Alternatives with higher total
scores pass the screening process and become eligible for further evaluation.
To determine the cut-off point, depending on time and money resources,
the team could set the threshold at a specific point value, accept the top 20%
or the top 10 for further analysis. When first starting a minimization pro-
gram it is recommended that the team select the top third of all alternatives
for further screening to compensate for estimation error.
13.8.4 Analyzing and Selecting Alternatives

After reducing the list of alternatives via the screening process, the remain-
ing alternatives should be further analyzed to determine the best fit for
the organization to minimize emissions and energy. Alternatives that are
selected from this process will then be implemented and included in the
organization’s minimization program. The analysis process focuses on iden-
tifying the benefits, costs, and drawbacks of each alternative. To accomplish
this, each alternative is evaluated based on:
• Impact on the program goal

• Technical feasibility
• Operational feasibility
• Economic feasibility
• Sustainability
• Organizational culture feasibility
The key outcome of this phase is to fully document, analyze, and arrive at
a final acceptance decision for each alternative. To accomplish this, process
flow charts are analyzed, the annualized amount of emissions generated is
determined, a complete feasibility analysis is completed (including technical,
operational, and organizational), a cost justification study is completed, feed-
back is collected and analyzed, and finally a decision is made regarding each
alternative. The resulting package provides a complete discussion and docu-
mentation of each alternative that will be used in the implementation phase
if the alternative is accepted. During this process the team must maintain a
clear understanding of the overriding goals of the minimization project—for
example, the relative importance of reducing costs versus minimizing envi-
ronmental impact. Some alternatives may require extensive analysis, includ-
ing gathering additional data from vendors or analyzing market trends. The
first consideration when evaluating alternatives is its impact on the goals of

the project established in the first phase of the project. These goals can range
from emissions amounts to the cost benefits associated with minimization.
The evaluation process itself consists of seven steps to rate each alternative.
The process is completed sequentially. The first step is the process descrip-
tion, and after each subsequent step, the alternative is accepted to move to
the next phase or rejected and the analysis is terminated. If the alternative
does not meet thresholds or feasibility tests, it is eliminated from further
review to save the team time and resources. The alternative should still be
kept on file in the event technology or organizational changes render the
option feasible. The seven steps are as follows:
1. Fully describe each alternative in terms of the equipment, raw mate-

rial, process, or purchasing additions or modifications.
2. Calculate the annualized reduction impact in terms of tons per year.
3. Compile and analyze the process flow charts that create the emis-
sion stream.
4. Conduct a feasibility analysis (technical, operational, and organizational).
5. Conduct a cost justification for each alternative (payback, IRR, NPW).
6. Gather feedback from all stakeholders.
7. Obtain approval and sign-off from the minimization team and
responsible executives.
Technical and operational feasibility is concerned with whether the proper

resources exist or are reasonably attainable to implement a specific alterna-
tive. This includes the square footage of the building, existing and avail-
able utilities, existing processing and material-handling equipment, quality
requirements, and skill level of employees. During this process, product
specifications and facility constraints should be taken into account. Typical
technical evaluation criteria include:
• Available space in the facility

• Safety
• Compatibility with current work processes and material handling
• Impact on product quality
• Required technologies and utilities (power, compressed air, data links)
• Knowledge and skills required to operate and maintain the alternative
• Additional labor requirements
• Impact on product marketing
• Implementation time
When evaluating technical feasibility, the facility engineers or consultants

should be contacted for input. In addition, it is also wise to discuss the tech-
nical aspects with workers directly impacted by the change, such as produc-
tion and maintenance. If an alternative calls for a change in raw materials,
the effect on the quality of the final project must be evaluated. If an alterna-
tive does not meet the technical requirements of the organization, it should
be removed from consideration. From a technical standpoint, the three areas
that require additional evaluation are:
1. Equipment modifications or purchases

2. Process changes
3. Material changes
If an alternative involves an equipment modification or purchase, an anal-

ysis of the equipment should be conducted. The team should investigate
whether the equipment is available commercially and contact the manufac-
turer. Performance of the machine should also be addressed, including cost,
utility requirements, capacity, throughput, cycle time, required preventative
maintenance, space requirements, and possible locations in the facility in
which the equipment could be installed. In addition, if production would
be affected during installation, this should be evaluated as well. The ven-
dor or manufacturer could provide more information regarding potential
shutdowns. Required modifications to work flow or production procedures
should be analyzed, as well as required training and safety concerns related
to the equipment purchase or modification. From an operational standpoint,
attention should be given to how the alternative will improve or reduce pro-
ductivity and affect labor force reductions or increases.
If a minimization alternative involves a process change or a material
change, the affected areas should be identified and feedback gathered from
the area managers, employees, maintenance, and engineers (if applicable).
With the process changes, training requirements should also be discussed.
Also, the impacts on production, material handling/storage, and quality
should be addressed. A material-testing program is highly recommended
for new items with which the engineering team may not be familiar to ana-
lyze quality and throughput impacts. A design of experiment (DOE) that
tests the changes versus the current material is an excellent method to gauge
impacts. A DOE is the design data-gathering tests where variation is present,
whether under the full control of the experimenter or not. Often the experi-
menter is interested in the effect of some process or intervention, such as
using a new raw material, on some outcome such as quality.
From an economic standpoint, traditional financial evaluation is the most
effective method to analyze alternatives. These measures include the payback
period (discounted payback period), IRR, and NPW for each alternative. If
the organization has a standard financial evaluation process, this should be
completed for each alternative. The accounting or finance department would

have this information. To perform these financial analyses, revenue and cost
data must be gathered and should be based on the expectations for the alter-
natives. This is more complicated than it sounds, especially if a project will
have an impact on the number of required labor hours, utility costs, and pro-
ductivity, not to mention initial investments. A comprehensive estimation
of the cost impacts (revenues and costs) per year over the life of the alterna-
tive is required to begin the analysis. The first step of the economic evalua-
tion process is to determine these costs. These costs include capital costs (or
initial investment), operating costs/savings, operating revenue, and salvage
values for each minimization alternative.
Capital costs are the costs incurred when purchasing assets that are used
in production and service. Normally they are non-reoccurring and used to
purchase large equipment such as a solar panels or LED lighting. Capital
costs include more than just the actual cost of the equipment; they also
include the costs to prepare the site for production. Following is a brief list of
typical capital costs, also known as the initial investment:
• Site development and preparation (including demolition and clear-

ing if needed)
• Equipment purchases including spare parts, taxes, freight, and
insurance
• Material costs (piping, electrical, telecommunications, structural)
• Building modification costs (utility lines, construction costs)
• Permitting costs, building inspection costs
• Contractor’s fees
• Start-up costs (vendor, contractor, in-house)
• Training costs
After the initial investment has been calculated, the reoccurring costs, sav-
ings, and revenues from the minimization alternative must be determined.
The concept is to reduce operating and raw-material costs based on the
implementation of the alternative under analysis. For example, if a company
considers the installation of solar panels, the annual operating costs of the
panels (such as labor, utilities, and maintenance) and the annual cost savings
from reduced operating costs should be considered. Reducing or avoiding
present and future operating costs associated with energy usage are criti-
cal elements of the greenhouse waste minimization process. Some common
reoccurring costs include:
• Input material cost savings: Options that reduce scrap or reduce

waste tend to decrease the demand for input materials.
• Changes in utility costs: Utility costs may increase or decrease
depending on the installation, modification, or removal of equipment.
• Changes in operating and maintenance labor/benefits: An alterna-

tive may increase or decrease labor requirements and the associated
benefits. This may be reflected in changes in overtime hours or in the
number of employees.
• Changes in operating and maintenance supplies: An alternative
may result in increased or decreased operating and maintenance
supply usage.
• Changes in overhead costs: Large projects may increase or decrease
these values.
• Changes in revenues for increased (or decreased production): An
alternative may result in an increase in the productivity of a unit.
This will result in changes in revenue.
• Increased revenue from by-products: An alternative may generate a
by-product that can be sold to a recycler or sold to another company
as material. This will increase a company’s revenue.
It is suggested that savings in these costs be taken into consideration first,

because they have a greater impact on the project economics and involve less
effort to estimate reliably. The remaining elements usually have a smaller
impact and should be included on an as-needed basis or to fine-tune the
analysis. A project’s profitability is measured by estimating the net cash
flows each operating year over the life of the project. A net cash flow is calcu-
lated by subtracting the cash outlays from the cash incomes starting in year
zero (the year the project is initiated). Figure 13.21 displays an example of a
cash flow diagram.
If a project does not have an initial investment, the project’s profitability
can be judged by whether an operating cost savings occurred or not. If such a
project reduces overall operating costs, it should be implemented. For projects
with significant initial investments or capital costs, a more detailed profitabil-
ity analysis is needed. The three standard measures of profitability are:
• Payback period
• IRR
• NPW
The payback period for a project is the amount of time it requires to recover
the initial cash outlay for the project. The formula for calculating the payback
period on a pretax basis in years is:
Capital Investment
Payback Period =
Annual operating cost savings

For example, suppose a manufacturer installs solar panels at total cost of

$65,000. If the panels are expected to save the company $20,000 per year,
Positive cash flows (in)
F1 F2 Fn
1 2 n period
F0
Negative cash flows (out)
FIGURE 13.21
Cash flow diagram example.
then the payback period is 3.25 years. Payback period is typically measured
in years. However, some alternatives may have payback periods in terms of
months. Many organizations use the payback period as a screening method
before conducting a full financial analysis. If the alternative does not meet a
predetermined threshold, the alternative is rejected. Payback periods in the
range of three to four years are usually considered acceptable for low-risk
investments. Again, this method is recommended for quick assessments of
profitability. If large capital expenditures are involved, it should be followed
by a more strenuous financial analysis such at the IRR or NPW.
The IRR and NPW are both discounted cash flow techniques for determin-
ing profitability and determining if a waste minimization alternative will
improve the financial position of the company. Many organizations use these
methods for ranking capital projects that are competing for funds, such as
the case with the various waste minimization alternatives. Capital funding
for a project can depend on the ability of the project to generate positive cash
flows beyond the payback period to realize an acceptable return on invest-
ment. Both the IRR and NPW recognize the time value of money by dis-
counting the projected future net cash flows to the present. For investments
with a low level of risk, an after-tax IRR of 12 to 15% is typically acceptable.
The formula for NPW is:
N
NPV = ∑ (1 C+ r )
t= 0
t
t
where
t = the time of the cash flow
N = the total time of the project
r = the discount rate (the rate of return that could be earned on an invest-
ment in the financial markets with similar risk)
Ct = the net cash flow (the amount of cash) at time t (for educational pur-
poses, C0 is commonly placed to the left of the sum to emphasize its
role as the initial investment)
The IRR is a capital budgeting metric used by firms to decide whether they
should make investments. It is an indicator of the efficiency of an invest-
ment, as opposed to NPW, which indicates value or magnitude. The IRR is
the annualized effective compounded return rate that can be earned on the
invested capital; that is, the yield on the investment.
A project is a good investment proposition if its IRR is greater than the rate
of return that could be earned by alternate investments (investing in other
projects, buying bonds, even putting the money in a bank account). Thus the
IRR should be compared to any alternate costs of capital including an appro-
priate risk premium.
Mathematically, the IRR is defined as any discount rate that results in an
NPW of zero of a series of cash flows. In general, if the IRR is greater than
the project’s cost of capital, or hurdle rate, the project will add value for the
company. The equation for IRR is:
N
NPV = ∑ (1 C+ r )t
t =0
t= 0
Most spreadsheet programs typically have the ability to automatically cal-

culate IRR and NPW from a series of cash flows. Following is an example
applying these financial evaluation concepts. Returning to the solar panel
example discussed previously, recall an initial cost of $65,000 and $20,000
in annual savings and assume a baler life span of 10 years and an organi-
zation MARR of 15%. The MARR is the minimum return on a project that
a manager is willing to accept before starting a project, given its risk and
the opportunity cost of forgoing other projects. Table 13.3 displays the cash
flows, IRR, and NPW result.
TABLE 13.3
Net Present Value Analysis
Year Cash Flow
0 $(65,000)
1 $20,000
2 $20,000
3 $20,000
4 $20,000
5 $20,000
6 $20,000
7 $20,000
8 $20,000
9 $20,000
10 $20,000
IRR 28.2%
NPW $30,761
As shown in the last two rows, the IRR is 28.2% and the NPW is nearly
$31,000 at a MARR of 15%. The fact that the IRR is greater than the 15%
MARR and the fact that the NPW is positive indicates that the project is a
good financial decision.
Minimization alternatives should also be evaluated based on sustainabil-
ity and the cultural fit within the organization. Sustainability is defined as
an organization’s investment in a system of living, projected to be viable on an
ongoing basis, that provides quality of life for all individuals of sentient spe-
cies and preserves natural ecosystems. Sustainability in its simplest form
describes a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a
certain level indefinitely. The term, in its environmental usage, refers to the
potential longevity of vital human ecological support systems, such as the
planet’s climatic system, systems of agriculture, industry, forestry, and fisher-
ies, and the systems on which they depend. In other words, the minimization
alternatives should be evaluated based on how well they meet this definition,
such that the alternative can be sustained without large amounts of effort
or additional resources and continue to protect the environment. Often, this
will be related to the culture of the organization. Criteria commonly used to
evaluate the sustainability of an alternative include:
• Dealing transparently and systemically with risk, uncertainty, and

irreversibility
• Ensuring appropriate valuation, appreciation, and restoration of
nature
• Integration of environmental, social, human, and economic goals in
policies and activities
• Equal opportunity and community participation/sustainable
community
• Conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity
• Ensuring intergenerational equity
• Recognizing the global integration of localities
• A commitment to best practice
• No net loss of human capital or natural capital
• The principle of continuous improvement
• The need for good governance
When an alternative involves working with a vendor or processor there are

several key questions to ask potential candidates to determine the best fit for
the organization. These include:
• What types of materials does the company accept and how must
they be prepared?
• What contract terms does the buyer require?
• Who provides the transportation?

• What is the schedule of collections?
• What are the maximum allowable contaminant levels, and what is
the procedure for dealing with rejected loads?
• Are there minimum quantity requirements?
• Where will recyclable material be weighed?
• Who will provide containers?
• Can “escape clauses” be included in the contract?
Be sure to check references.

In a similar vein, when working with equipment vendors there are several
key questions to ask:
• What is the total cost of the equipment including freight and

installation?
• What are the building requirements and specifications for the equip-
ment (compressed air, electricity, space, minimum door widths)?
• Is a service contract included in the purchase price or is there an
additional charge?
• Do you offer training to the employees, engineers, and maintenance
employees that will be working with the equipment. If so, is there
a charge?
• What is the process if the equipment malfunctions and the company
needs support? Is there a representative available 24 hours per day?
What is the charge for these visits?
• Do you offer an acceptance test process to ensure that the equip-
ment operates within the promised specifications (capacity and
cycle time)?
• What is the required installation time, and must production be
shut down?
The following worksheets may be used to evaluate each minimization

alternative. The first worksheet is a cover page that provides a general
description of the alternative. Based on the responses to the questions on the
cover sheet, one of four additional worksheets is attached:
• Coversheet (Figure 13.22)
• Worksheet A: Equipment Purchases or Modifications (Figures 13.23
and 13.24)
• Worksheet B: Raw Material Changes (Figures 13.25 and 13.26)
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet

Cover Sheet
The purpose of this worksheet is to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives that have passed the screening process
Company Name: __________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________
Alternative Description: ____________________________________
Alternative Tracking Number: ____
Alternative Description:
Alternative Tracking Number: date and two digit number

Work Unit of Departments Affected:
Source of Contact Person:

Contact Information:
Does the Alternative Involve (check the ONE that applies):

Equipment Purchases of Modifications > Please Attach Worksheet A
Raw Material Changes > Please Attach Worksheet B
Process Changes > Please Attach Worksheet C
Purchasing Changes > Please Attach Worksheet D
FIGURE 13.22
Feasibility analysis coversheet.
• Worksheet C: Process Changes (Figures 13.27 and 13.28)

• Worksheet D: Purchasing Changes (Figures 13.29 and 13.30)
The worksheets are designed to work together to completely describe and

evaluate each alternative. If the alternative is approved, the form provides
signature lines for the leadership team to indicate review and acceptance.
13.8.4.1 Case Study Discussion—Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives

To aid in illustrating the process of selecting and evaluating alternatives, a
continuing discussion of the case study is provided, including:
• A list of possible alternatives

• Feasibility analyses including cost, operational, and technical
• A list of accepted minimization strategies
• Implementation suggestions
• Corporate minimization strategy
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet A

Equipment Purchases or Modifications
The purpose of this worksheet is to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives that have passed the screening process.
All greyed boxes should be completed before completing the Approval Process in Step 6.
Company Name __________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________
PASS
Step 1: Estimate annual GHG emission reduction (metric tons per year) metric tons
Estimate the annual energy reduction (kWh per year) Kwh
Current annual disposal costs $
Step 2: Attach process flow charts related to Step 1

Step 3: Feasibility analysis
Technical
Does the material exist (vendor or manufacturer)? Yes No
Description of machine
Vendor name
Vendor contact information
Estimate machine and installation cost $

Implementaton time (days) days
Required utilities
Power Yes No
Compressed air Yes No
Data link Yes No
Other
Compatibility with current work processes and material
handling
Training concerns
Skill level required to operate equipment
Skill level required to maintain equipment
Space requirements
Space required for machine and staging ft2
Available space in the facility ft2
Proposed locations
Operational
Machine cycle time minutes
Machine capacity units
Labor impacts (additional work hours)
Supervisory needs
Maintenance needs
Productivity impacts
Safety concerns and impacts
Product quality impact
Addition labor requirements
Organizational
Impact on sales
Impact on marketing
Impact on employee morale
Impact on corporate image
Impact on supply chain
FIGURE 13.23
Feasibility analysis worksheet A—page 1 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet A (Page 2)

Equipment Purchases or Modifications
Step 4: Cost analysis
Machine costs
Machine cost $
Site development $
Material costs $
Building modification costs $
Permitting and inspection costs $
Contractor fees $
Start up costs $
Initial training costs $
Operating expenses
Utility cost impacts $
Input material changes $
Labor cost impacts $
Supervision cost impacts $
Maintenance cost impacts $
Operating and maintenance supply impacts $
Changes in overhead costs $
Operating savings and revenue

Reduced solid waste disposal costs $
Revenues from increased sale of recyclable material $
Revenues from the sale of by-products $
Life of machine or product (whichever is shorter) years
Total initial investment $

Annual operating savings $
Payback period $
Net Present Value (NPV) $
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Organization Minimum Attractive Rate of Return (MARR)
Companies to purchase recycled material

$ per ton $
Exchange options
Step 5: Feedback analysis

Feedback from operators
Feedback from management
Feedback from maintenance
Feedback from finance
Step 6: Approval
Waste Minimization Team Leader

name date
Manager, Maintenance
name date
Manager, Operations
name date
Manager, Finance
name date
CEO
name date
FIGURE 13.24
Feasibility analysis worksheet A—page 2 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet B

Raw Material or Modifications
The purpose of this worksheet is to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives that have passed the screening
process. All gray boxes should be completed before completing the Approval Process in Step 6.
Company Name: __________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________
PASS
Current annual disposal costs $

Technical
Does the material exist and is it available? Yes No
handling
Operational
Supervisory needs
Maintenance needs
Addition labor requirements
Organizational
Impact on sales
Impact on marketing
FIGURE 13.25
Feasibility analysis worksheet B—page 1 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet B (Sheet 2)

Raw Material or Modifications
New material costs
Previous material cost per load $
New material cost per load $
Material cost differential $
Annual loads purchased $
Annual material cost differential $
Operating expenses


Payback period $

$ per ton $
Exchange options

Step 6: Approval

name date
name date
Manager, Operations
name date
Manager, Finance
name date
CEO
name date
FIGURE 13.26
Feasibility analysis worksheet B—page 2 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet C

Process Changes
All gray boxes should be completed before completing the Approval Process in Step 6.
Company Name: __________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________
PASS
Current annual disposals costs $

Technical
handling
Operational
Supervisory needs
Maintenance needs
Additional labor requirements
Organizational
Impact on sales
Impact on marketing
FIGURE 13.27
Feasibility analysis worksheet C—page 1 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet C (Page 2)

Process Changes
New material costs
Operating expenses


Payback period $

$ per ton $
Exchange options

Step 6: Approval

name date
name date
Manager, Operations
name date
Manager, Finance
name date
CEO
name date
FIGURE 13.28
Feasibility analysis worksheet C—page 2 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet D

Purchasing Changes
All gray boxes should be completed before completing the Approval Process in Step 6.
Company Name: __________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________
PASS
Current annual disposals costs $

Technical
Does the material exist (vendor or manufacturer)? Yes No
handling
Operational
Additional labor requirements
Organizational
Impact on sales
Impact on marketing
FIGURE 13.29
Feasibility analysis worksheet D—page 1 of 2.
GHG and Energy Minimization Alternative Feasibility Analysis Worksheet D (Sheet 2)

Purchasing Changes
New material costs
Operating expenses

Revenues from the sale of by products $

Payback period $

$ per ton $
Exchange options

Step 6: Approval
Manager, Maintenance name date

Manager, Operations name date
Manager, Finance name date
CEO name date
name date
FIGURE 13.30
Feasibility analysis worksheet D—page 2 of 2.
As displayed earlier in Table 13.2, the facility generates 1120 MTs of

GHGs and consumes 28,000 kWh of energy, most of which is attributed to
operations and the machine shop. Several possible alternatives were identi-
fied to assist the company in minimizing these areas, including:
• Facility energy efficiency upgrades

• Transportation management plan
• Sustainable LEED-certified building techniques
• Lighting upgrades
• Motion sensors for lighting
• Window upgrades
• Improving natural lighting
• Wind turbine installation
• Solar panel installation
• Geothermal installation
From a feasibility standpoint, the assessment team evaluated each alterna-

tive in terms of its operational, technical, organizational, and economic fit
within the company; Table 13.4 summarizes the results. Each alternative’s
feasibility was rated in terms of high, medium, or low.
As a result of the feasibility analysis for the case study, 4 of the 10 alterna-
tives were selected for implementation. Those that were not selected were
not chosen primarily based on high implementation cost or low payback
periods. One alternative, LEED modifications, was not selected due to lim-
ited knowledge in the area.
In terms of a corporate minimization strategy, the following list of sugges-
tions was created by the assessment team:
• Educate employees: Inform employees about the overall benefit of a

corporate minimization strategy. Benefits include:
• Reducing waste and emissions
• Improving corporate image
• Increasing employee awareness that may carry over to personal
practices
• Develop written corporate source reduction policies.
• Monitor and understand waste generation rates and energy usage.
• Involve all levels of employees in the minimization program.
• Buy recycled products whenever possible and inform employees of
this practice.
• Keep records of your minimization measures and publicize successes.
• Reward employees by recognizing their efforts and success. Rewards
may or may not be financial. A thank-you is always appreciated.
TABLE 13.4
Feasibility Analysis Results
Operational Technical Organizational Economic Comments/
Alternative Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Decision
Facility energy High High High High Approved
upgrades
Transportation High Medium Medium High Approved
management
plan
LEED Medium Low Low Medium Disapproved—
techniques limited LEED
knowledge
Lighting High High High Low Approved
upgrades
Motion High High High High Approved
sensors
Window Medium Medium High Low Disapproved—
upgrades low payback
Improve Medium Medium Medium Low Disapproved—
natural low payback
lighting
Wind turbine High Low High Low Disapproved—
high cost
Solar panels High Low High Low Disapproved—
high cost
Geothermal Medium Low Low Low Disapproved—
high cost
13.9 Documentation and the Deployment Plan (Step 8)

The goal of this phase of the minimization process is to translate the list of
accepted alternatives into an achievable implementation plan and to docu-
ment the selected alternatives. The remainder of this section provides an
overview of the deployment plan, a discussion regarding obtaining funding,
and details regarding each of the 10 sections of the deployment plan. Finally,
a template for the deployment plan is provided.
13.9.1 Overview of the Deployment Plan

A deployment plan is a comprehensive document that details the what, when,
where, and how of each alternative. It serves as an implementation guide to
aid the organization in achieving its minimization goals. The deployment
plan describes the set of tasks necessary to implement a program such that
it can be effectively transitioned within the organization. The deployment
plan provides a detailed schedule of events, persons responsible, and event

dependencies required to ensure successful cutover to the new system.
Deployment can impose a great deal of change and stress on the employ-
ees. Therefore ensuring a smooth transition is a key factor in the implemen-
tation process. The deployment plan should minimize the impact of the
cutover on the organization’s staff, production system, and overall business
routine. The minimization team leader usually is responsible for creating
the deployment plan, and it is implemented by the entire organization, so
communication and feedback are critical in the development process. The
minimization deployment plan consists of 10 sections:
1. Cover page with official approvals

2. Overview
3. Assumptions, dependencies, and constraints
4. Operational readiness
5. Timeline for implementation
6. Training and documentation
7. Notification of deployment
8. Operations and maintenance plan
9. Contingency plan
10. Appendices
13.9.2 Obtaining Funding
Many waste reduction alternatives involve cost savings via cost reductions
and process efficiencies, not the generation of additional revenue. This can
pose a problem for the assessment team if they are competing for a limited
amount of capital funds to support the proposed alternatives. If the orga-
nization is more focused on the creation of future revenues, cost savings
projects may not get the same attention. To remedy this, an understanding
of the approval authority for capital projects within the organization can
be a big help in determining the best route to seeking funds. For exam-
ple, within larger organizations smaller projects within a $5000 to $10,000
range can generally be approved at a local manager level, whereas larger
projects (over $10,000) must be approved at a regional manager or vice-
president level.
Oftentimes, organizations evaluate projects via a committee. An under-
standing of who is on this committee and the process that they use to rate
projects can help to maximize the alternatives’ chances for success. Meeting
with the committee members and discussing the merits of the project in order
to gather their initial feedback can go a long way in improving the submis-
sion to the committee. Some key selling points to the committee may include:
• Past experience in the field by the minimization team

• What the market and the competition are doing
• How the implementation program fits into the company’s overall
business strategy
• Advantages of the proposal in relation to competing requests for
capital funding (i.e., environmental impacts)
Even when a project promises a high IRR, some organizations will have
difficulty raising funds internally for the initial investment. In this case, the
organization should examine options for external funding. The two options
generally considered are private sector funding and government-assisted
funding. Private sector funding includes bank loans. Government funding
may be available in some cases. It is usually worthwhile to contact the state’s
department of commerce or the federal Small Business Administration for
information regarding loans for pollution prevention or waste reduction
projects. Some states can provide technical and financial assistance as well.
For example, in Ohio, the Department of Natural Resources has historically
sponsored grants to private companies to reduce emissions and pollution.
Other potential government contacts include:
• USEPA
• U.S. Department of Natural Resources
• U.S. Green Building Council
• U.S. Department of Development
• State environmental protection agencies
13.9.3 Contents of the Documentation and Deployment Plan

This section provides an in-depth discussion of the contents of the deploy-
ment plan. One of the most important components of the plan is the cover
sheet, which contains the official signatures of the executive management
team, indicating full approval of the deployment plan.
13.9.3.1 Cover Sheet

In addition to the official approvals, the cover page should include the com-
pany name, the title of the program (such as Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Consumption Minimization Deployment Plan), the date the report was writ-
ten, and the author or department that created the report. If the organization
uses specialized tracking or identification numbers for projects, these should
be included too.
13.9.3.2 Overview
This section provides the purpose, business context, and project summary
in an executive summary format. It identifies the purpose of the deploy-
ment plan and its intended audience, describes the business processes that
will be modified as a result of the deployment, and provides a summary
of the plan. It also includes an overview of activities necessary to get the
program launched into the business environment such as installation, con-
figuration, and initial operational activities. In addition, details regarding
the location that the assessment was conducted, the dates that it was con-
ducted, the names of the individuals conducting the audit, and a map of
the facility are included.
13.9.3.3 Assessment Findings and Recommendations

This section provides a summary of the principal findings, recommenda-
tions, and observations. It discusses the data collected during the assessment
in terms of waste stream composition, volumes, and disposal costs. It also
provides a listing of the approved alternatives for implementation.
13.9.3.4 Assumptions, Dependencies, and Constraints

This section describes the assumptions about the current organizational
capabilities and the day-to-day operations of the program. In addition, it
describes the dependencies that can affect the deployment of the program,
such as working within the constraints of housekeeping or waste removal
contracts and the factors that limit the ability to deploy the program.
13.9.3.5 Operational Readiness

This section describes the preparation required for the site at which the pro-
gram and alternatives will operate. It defines any changes that must occur to
the operational site and specifies features and items that should be modified
to adapt to the program alternatives. It also describes the method for use in
assessing deployment readiness and identifies the configuration audits and
reviews to be held after the program is tested and accepted and before the
program or equipment is installed in the production environment.
13.9.3.6 Timeline for Implementation

This section describes the timetable for the implementation of each waste
minimization project or program. It serves as the control document to facili-
tate communication within (departments) and outside the organization
(suppliers and contractors). A Gantt chart is an excellent diagram to include
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Activity 1 (100% complete)
Activity 2 (33% complete)
Activity 3
Activity 4
FIGURE 13.31
Sample implementation timeline.
in this section, as it displays the order or precedence of events and the percent
completion to the established timeline. Figure 13.31 provides an example of
a timeline.
13.9.3.7 Training and Documentation

This section describes the plans for preparing and conducting training for the
purpose of training all stakeholders regarding program or process changes.
It also identifies and describes each document that will be produced for the
purpose of aiding in implementation, support, or use of the new programs.
The section should include the activities needed to create each document.
13.9.3.8 Notification of Deployment

This section describes the method of notifying all stakeholders of the suc-
cessful release of all minimization programs and identifies stakeholders and
groups requiring notification.
13.9.3.9 Operations and Maintenance Plans

This section describes the maintenance and operations activities for each
program or piece of equipment. For example, preventative maintenance sched-
ules should be included for each new piece of equipment.
13.9.3.10 Contingency Plan

This section describes the contingency plan to be executed if problems occur
during deployment activities. A contingency plan is devised for specific situ-
ations if or when things do not occur as expected or circumstances change.
Contingency plans include specific strategies and actions to deal with specific
variances to assumptions resulting in a particular problem, emergency,
or state of affairs. They also include a monitoring process and “triggers”
for initiating planned actions. They are very useful to help governments,
businesses, or individuals to recover from serious incidents in the minimum

time with minimum cost and disruption.
13.9.3.11 Appendices
This section contains all relevant appendices related to the project. The alter-
native evaluation sheets should be included in this section.
13.10 Implementation and Execution (Step 9)

A well-developed deployment plan based on viable options will yield poor
results if the plan is not executed properly. There is no such thing as over-
communication when it comes to rolling out a new project or program. The
three key components of a successful implementation and execution are fol-
lowing the deployment plan, communication, and recognizing the need to
adjust in certain circumstances.
To facilitate the communication process, at a minimum weekly progress
meetings should be held with all key stakeholders. These meetings should
focus on the status of each project versus the timeline and established goals.
An agenda and the project timeline should be prepared in advance and serve
to lead the discussion. The task leader (as determined in the deployment
plan) should take the lead role in discussing the status of each project or
program. Any obstacles or delays should be discussed so that the team can
determine solutions.
During the deployment process it is critical not to overwhelm employees
with process changes. Effort should be taken to ensure that all employees are
aware of upcoming changes, timelines, and the reasons behind the change.
This can be accomplished with service talks, postings, or newsletters in pay-
checks. All three options may be used to ensure that the message is heard
and that employees are not confused and buy in to the programs.
In general, less effort is required for operational and process changes.
These options can usually be implemented in a much quicker fashion than
equipment or material changes. A general outline of the scope of an imple-
mentation effort is as follows:
• Approve the project or program.

• Finalize the specifications and design for each alternative.
• Submit and gather bid requests and quotes (if necessary).
• Complete and submit a purchase order.
• Receive and install the equipment.
• Finalize operating and maintenance procedures.

• Train affected employees.
• Start the project or program.
• Complete regulatory inspections.
• Track implemented project cost savings and waste reductions.
13.11 Validate the Program versus Goals (Step 10)

Many companies require a validation process to ensure that projects and
programs have met the goals that were set at the onset of the project. This
includes validating that the project or program was installed at or below
cost, that it is operating within the expense and revenue limits, and that
it is achieving the waste reduction goals. Even if an organization does not
require a validation process, it can be a very valuable tool for future planning
processes to identify where estimation errors occurred and make an effort to
correct them. Alternatives that do not meet the established goals or expected
performance expectations may require rework or modifications. It is also
critical to store warranties and contracts from vendors prior to the instal-
lation of the equipment. Also, the experience gained in implementing an
option at one facility can be used to reduce the problems and costs of imple-
menting options at subsequent facilities. An alternative performance analy-
sis should be completed for each equipment, process, or material change. The
analysis provides a standardized method to compare project performance
against estimates in terms of:
• Project duration
• Implementation cost
• Operating expenses and revenue
• Emission reduction volume
• Cycle time and productivity
• Product or process quality
• Safety
It is useful to emphasize that the purpose of the validation process is not a

“gotcha game,” but a method to improve future project estimates and learn
from mistakes, if applicable. In terms of project duration, the alternatives
should be evaluated based on the time required to implement the alterna-
tive versus the original estimate. Explanations should be provided for large
deviations, such as “an additional two weeks required to obtain building
permits.” Actual implementation cost should be analyzed versus estimates,

in addition to operating expenses (including labor, materials, and utilities),
revenue generation, and cost savings from process changes or waste-hauling
costs. The waste reduction volume should be evaluated in a similar man-
ner. For example, if the purchase of solar panels was expected to reduce
energy usage by 80 kWh per year and the panels were reducing usage by
only 60 kWh per year, a root-cause analysis should be conducted to explore
and improve the deviation. Any cycle time or productivity deviations from
the original estimates should also be explored. These deviations could have
a very negative effect on the organization’s profitability and in most cases
are very closely watched by upper management. The same goes for prod-
uct quality. Finally, any safety concerns should be addressed immediately.
A walk-through by the team leader, safety captain, and area supervisor can
quickly identify and resolve these issues. Figure 13.32 displays a worksheet
that may assist in the validation process. The validation process should be
performed within four to eight weeks of implementation.
13.12 Monitor and Continually Improve Performance (Step 11)

After the minimization program has been implemented and validated, it
must be monitored on a periodic basis to ensure that it is still performing as
planned and to make any necessary adjustments. This includes monitoring
the waste reduction amounts, energy reduction amounts, and operational
and financial performance versus the goals. In addition, emphasis should be
placed on continuous improvement to enhance current emission and energy
reduction programs and to identify new opportunities. It may be beneficial
for the original assessment team to conduct periodic assessments, facility
walk-throughs, or employee interviews to accomplish these goals. When
evaluating the program it is important to:
• Keep track of program success and build on past successes.

• Identify new ideas for waste reduction.
• Identify areas needing improvement.
• Document compliance with state or local regulations.
• Determine the effect of new additions to the facility or program.
• Keep employees informed and motivated.
In addition, consider reviewing the organization’s waste removal receipts

and purchasing records on at least a quarterly basis to ensure that the mini-
mization program is working. New product or process changes should
GHG and Energy Minimization Validation Worksheet
Company Name: ___________________________________________

Location: __________________________________________________
Date: ________________________
Alternative Description: _____________________________________
Alternative Tracking Number: _ ______________________________
%
Estimated Actual Difference Comments
Project Duration
Space Requirements
Implementation Cost
Machine costs
Machine cost
Site development
Material costs
Building modification costs
Permitting and inspection costs
Contractor fees
Start up costs
Initial training costs
Operating expenses
Utility cost impacts
Input material changes
Labor cost impacts
Supervision cost impacts
Maintenance cost impacts
Operating and maintenance supply impacts
Changes in overhead costs
Reduced solid waste disposal costs
Revenues from increased sale of recycable
material
Revenues from the sale of by-products
GHG Reduction (metric tons/year)
Cycle Time
Product Quality
Safety
FIGURE 13.32
Waste minimization validation worksheet.
also be evaluated at the onset to ensure that the design minimizes envi-
ronmental impact. This is easily accomplished by adding “environmental
impact review” to the new product or process checklist or standard operat-
ing procedure.
The minimization program should be viewed as a continuing business
activity versus a one-time project. Generally, the first assessment and imple-
mented alternatives will target only the high-volume areas. Once these high-
volume areas have been reduced, the team should focus on smaller volume
streams. From a systems standpoint, the ultimate goal of the team is to mini-
mize all input materials into the facility and by-products generated by the
facility. The frequency with which the additional assessments are conducted
will depend on the budget of the company. In general, organizations that
conduct assessments one to four times per year have achieved paybacks. In
addition, if there are special circumstances that indicate the need for fur-
ther review, a waste assessment should be conducted. These special circum-
stances include:
• A change in raw-material or product requirements

• Higher waste management and pollution prevention costs
• New regulations
• New technology
• A major event with undesirable environmental consequences (such
as a major spill)
To be truly effective, an organizational culture of waste minimization must

be fostered within the organization. Executive management must ensure this
through repeated communications and acknowledgments of success stories
from individuals or business units. This will make minimization an integral
part of the organization’s operations.
14
Employee Training
14.1 Introduction
A well-trained workforce often makes the difference between a highly suc-
cessful project and one that fails to meet its goals. With little or no training,
new programs, regardless of how well they have been planned, will fail in
most cases. Training teaches the front-line employees and managers about
the organizational changes related to the new program. This is in contrast
to an educational program that teaches the “why” behind a process change.
Both are very necessary ingredients, but training programs are the main
element to creating a strong execution and launch of the project. The train-
ing should be given to the employees that actually perform the tasks related
to the GHG and energy consumption reduction processes, such as custo-
dial staff, engineers, and environmental specialists. The training should
focus on an understanding of the basic principles behind the minimization
efforts and the proper application and integration of these tools with other
and current techniques. A “just in time” training approach is usually most
effective so that employees will be applying the training very shortly after
learning the concepts. Therefore it should be completed shortly before the
new program is launched. The delivery method of the training program is
also critical; poor delivery of training material can turn even the best mate-
rial into a boring exercise that fails to impart useful instruction. The true test
of effective training is not an enthusiastic student evaluation, but rather the
student’s ability to perform new tasks effectively on the job.
14.2 Strategy
Just-in-time training is a common method that instructs employees on the
process changes a few weeks before implementation so that the training
will be fresh in the employees’ minds and their level of excitement with the
minimization project will be at its highest. On-the-job application is also
189
highly recommended at the shop floor level. For example, if solar panels are
installed, the maintenance employees should be given a detailed training
session on their operation, a standard operating procedure, a safety talk, and
a list of contacts in the event the panels malfunction or if they have improve-
ment ideas. One-on-one coaching should also be made available as needed.
During the training session, example problems and trainee exercises may
be beneficial to allow the trainees to work together to solve minimization
problems in their work units and identify new energy reduction opportu-
nities. A group discussion can also be a useful component of the training
exercise to gather feedback and employee perceptions. The trainees should
be made aware of the key metrics of the reduction program. Specifically, the
environmental and economic impacts in their work units should be pre-
sented and discussed. Many employees have a desire to “help” the environ-
ment, and by discussing the tons of GHG emissions that can be reduced
per year by applying the minimization programs and process changes, the
employees can gain a sense of contribution and motivation. By discussing
the financial benefits of GHG and energy consumption minimization to the
organization, the employees can be made aware that the programs will
enhance job security by improving the bottom line of the organization. The
tracking and monitoring methods of the reduction programs should also be
discussed. Trend charts that display GHG and energy reduction, along with
economic performance versus expectations, should be presented. The loca-
tion of these charts and how to read them should also be provided. Suitable
locations include common areas such as lunchrooms or informational boards
and should be in line with organizational policies.
In conjunction with the training session, the minimization and manage-
ment teams should carefully consider a certification or recognition process.
Most trainees will be more motivated if there is some type of reward process,
such as a simple thank-you from the unit supervisor, a catered lunch, door
prizes, or monetary prizes for meeting established goals. Employees may
gain a stronger sense of teamwork if a certification process is involved with
new equipment deployment. For example, if new solar panels are installed,
the work unit can be provided with a “certification checklist.” If all items on
the checklist are met, the process can be officially certified and the work unit
can be recognized and/or presented with an award as mentioned previously.
Common elements of the checklist may include:
• Adherence to safety standards

• Adherence to the standard operating procedure
• Housekeeping and cleanliness
• Achievement of reduction goals over a three-month time frame
• Achievement of cost reduction/revenue goals over a three-month
time frame
Employee Training 191
14.3 Agendas for Training

A typical training agenda includes a one-day workshop for the affected
employees to discuss the new process changes, equipment, goals of the pro-
gram, tracking methods, continuous improvement for the minimization pro-
gram, and the need for an energy and carbon reduction mindset to change
the organizational culture. Following is a list of “lessons learned” that may
be useful when developing agendas:
• Ensure integrity of the measurement and tracking system.

• There is no such thing as overcommunication.
• Ensure a feedback mechanism to strengthen the program and foster
employee buy-in.
• Ask employees their opinion of a suitable reward program for meet-
ing the program goals (some organizations prefer time off, bonus
checks, luncheons, or even a donation made in the organization’s
name to an environmental group or charity organization).
• Existing databases are inadequate for the job.
• Avoid diversions.
Table 14.1 displays a sample agenda that may be used as a template.

A separate two-day training session/workshop should be held for execu-
tives and managers to gain a better understanding of the program and the
facilitation process. The program should emphasize the manager’s role in
coaching employees and the execution and monitoring of the system.
TABLE14.1
Sample Training Agenda
Time Agenda Item
9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Registration and continental breakfast
9:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. Welcoming address by CEO
9:45 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. GHG and energy reduction program overview and goals
10:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Overview of program changes and new procedures
11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Catered lunch
12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Tracking reports and monitoring processes
1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Feedback and continuous improvement
1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Rewards program
2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Facility tour and on-the-job training for new processes
3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Question-and-answer session and closing remarks
Section IV
Case Studies
15
Higher Education Carbon Management
15.1 Organizations and Programs That Encourage and

Support Carbon Footprint Analysis and Management
As institutions begin to take sustainability seriously, various organizations
are also emerging to help promote sustainability planning and action. These
organizations can provide incentives to the institutions for progress in car-
bon management by providing them the tools for the analysis and by mak-
ing their progress transparent to the public.
For universities, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education (AASHE) is the organization that helps promote and coor-
dinate universities’ and colleges’ sustainability activities. As of the writing of
this book there were over 1000 campus members of AASHE. With broad par-
ticipation from the higher education community, AASHE has recently devel-
oped the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System™ (STARS)
for higher education. As of the writing of this book there were 261 higher
institutions that either had completed STARS or had committed to complet-
ing STARS.
STARS is a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and uni-
versities to gauge relative progress toward sustainability. It is a rating sys-
tem similar to the USGBC’s LEED rating systems. The point distribution for
STARS version 1.0 is divided into three categories, each worth 100 points
(Table 15.1). In category 2, 16.5 out of 100 points are dedicated to climate,
with points given specifically for whether a GHG inventory and a CAP are
in place or not. This heavy point assignment to climate change is one way to
promote carbon accounting and management in higher education. Results of
the STARS report from an institution are publicly available online. This vis-
ibility is an encouragement for institutions to do better.
Another incentive for higher education institutions to do a GHG inven-
tory and a CAP has been promoted by the American College and University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). ACUPCC is a high-visibility
effort to address global climate change and is one of the several programs led
by Second Nature, Inc. ACUPCC’s mission is “to accelerate progress towards
climate neutrality and sustainability by empowering the higher education
195
TABLE 15.1
STARS Version 1.0 Credit Checklist, a Product of the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
Credit Number Credit Title Possible Points
Category 1: Education & Research (ER)
Co-Curricular Education
ER Credit 1 Student Sustainability Educators Program 5
ER Credit 2 Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign 5
ER Credit 3 Sustainability in New Student Orientation* 2
ER Credit 4 Sustainability Materials and Publications 4
Tier Two Co-Curricular Education Tier Two Credits 2
Curriculum
ER Credit 5 Sustainability Course Identification 3
ER Credit 6 Sustainability-Focused Courses 10
ER Credit 7 Sustainability-Related Courses 10
ER Credit 8 Sustainability Courses by Department* 7
ER Credit 9 Sustainability Learning Outcomes* 10
ER Credit 10 Undergraduate Program in Sustainability* 4
ER Credit 11 Graduate Program in Sustainability* 4
ER Credit 12 Sustainability Immersive Experience* 2
ER Credit 13 Sustainability Literacy Assessment 2
ER Credit 14 Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses 3
Research
ER Credit 15 Sustainability Research Identification* 3
ER Credit 16 Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research* 10
ER Credit 17 Departments Involved in Sustainability Research* 6
ER Credit 18 Sustainability Research Incentives* 6
ER Credit 19 Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion* 2
Total 100
Category 2: Operations (OP)

Buildings
OP Credit 1 Building Operations and Maintenance 7
OP Credit 2 Building Design and Construction* 4
OP Credit 3 Indoor Air Quality 2
Climate
OP Credit 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2
OP Credit 5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction 14
Tier Two Climate Tier Two Credits 0.5
Dining Services
OP Credit 6 Food Purchasing* 6
Tier Two Dining Services Tier Two Credits 2.5
Higher Education Carbon Management 197
Energy
OP Credit 7 Building Energy Consumption 8
OP Credit 8 Renewable Energy 7
Tier Two Energy Tier Two Credits 1.5
Grounds
OP Credit 9 Integrated Pest Management* 2
Tier Two Grounds Tier Two Credits 1.25
Purchasing
OP Credit 10 Computer Purchasing 2
OP Credit 11 Cleaning Product Purchasing 2
OP Credit 12 Office Paper Purchasing 2
OP Credit 13 Vendor Code of Conduct 1
Tier Two Purchasing Tier Two Credits 0.5
Transportation
OP Credit 14 Campus Fleet 2
OP Credit 15 Student Commute Modal Split* 4
OP Credit 16 Employee Commute Modal Split 3
Tier Two Transportation Tier Two Credits 3
Waste
OP Credit 17 Waste Reduction 5
OP Credit 18 Waste Diversion 3
OP Credit 19 Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion* 1
OP Credit 20 Electronic Waste Recycling Program 1
OP Credit 21 Hazardous Waste Management 1
Tier Two Waste Tier Two Credits 1.5
Water
OP Credit 22 Water Consumption 7
OP Credit 23 Stormwater Management 2
Tier Two Water Tier Two Credits 1.25
Total 100
Category 3: Planning, Admin. & Engagement (PAE)

Coordination and Planning
PAE Credit 1 Sustainability Coordination 3
PAE Credit 2 Strategic Plan* 6
PAE Credit 3 Physical Campus Plan* 4
Continued
PAE Credit 4 Sustainability Plan 3
PAE Credit 5 Climate Plan 2
Diversity and Affordability

PAE Credit 6 Diversity and Equity Coordination 2
PAE Credit 7 Measuring Campus Diversity Culture 2
PAE Credit 8 Support Programs for Under-Represented Groups 2
PAE Credit 9 Support Programs for Future Faculty 4
PAE Credit 10 Affordability and Access Programs 3
Tier Two Diversity and Affordability Tier Two Credits 0.75
Human Resources
PAE Credit 11 Sustainable Compensation 8
PAE Credit 12 Employee Satisfaction Evaluation 2
PAE Credit 13 Staff Professional Development in Sustainability 2
PAE Credit 14 Sustainability in New Employee Orientation 2
PAE Credit 15 Employee Sustainability Educators Program 5
Tier Two Human Resources Tier Two Credits 0.75
Investment
PAE Credit 16 Committee Socially Responsible Investment* 2
PAE Credit 17 Shareholder Advocacy* 5
PAE Credit 18 Positive Sustainability Investments* 9
Tier Two Investment Tier Two Credits 0.75
Public Engagement
PAE Credit 19 Community Sustainability Partnerships 2
PAE Credit 20 Inter-Campus Collaboration on Sustainability 2
PAE Credit 21 Sustainability in Continuing Education* 7
PAE Credit 22 Community Service Participation 6
PAE Credit 23 Community Service Hours 6
PAE Credit 24 Sustainability Policy Advocacy 4
PAE Credit 25 Trademark Licensing * 4
Tier Two Public Engagement Tier Two Credits 0.75
Total 100
Category 4: Innovation (IN)
IN Credit 1 Innovation Credit 4 1
Note: Reprinted with permission from AASHE.
* Credit does not apply to all institutions.
sector to educate students, create solutions, and provide leadership-by-

example for the rest of society” (ACUPCC 2011). As of February 2011, 677
institutions had committed to climate neutrality by signing the commitment
text of ACUPCC. This commitment text is as follows:
We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universi-

ties, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of
global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social,
economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that
global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further
recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by
80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of
global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that
have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.
While we understand that there might be short-term challenges associ-
ated with this effort, we believe that there will be great short-, medium-,
and long-term economic, health, social and environmental benefits, includ-
ing achieving energy independence for the U.S. as quickly as possible.
We believe colleges and universities must exercise leadership in their
communities and throughout society by modeling ways to minimize
global warming emissions, and by providing the knowledge and the
educated graduates to achieve climate neutrality. Campuses that address
the climate challenge by reducing global warming emissions and by
integrating sustainability into their curriculum will better serve their
students and meet their social mandate to help create a thriving, ethical
and civil society. These colleges and universities will be providing stu-
dents with the knowledge and skills needed to address the critical, sys-
temic challenges faced by the world in this new century and enable them
to benefit from the economic opportunities that will arise as a result of
solutions they develop.
We further believe that colleges and universities that exert leadership
in addressing climate change will stabilize and reduce their long-term
energy costs, attract excellent students and faculty, attract new sources
of funding, and increase the support of alumni and local communities.
Accordingly, we commit our institutions to taking the following steps in
pursuit of climate neutrality.
1. Initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to achieve cli-
mate neutrality as soon as possible.
a. Within two months of signing this document, create insti-
tutional structures to guide the development and imple-
mentation of the plan.
b. Within one year of signing this document, complete a com-
prehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions (includ-
ing emissions from electricity, heating, commuting, and air
travel) and update the inventory every other year thereafter.
c. Within two years of signing this document, develop an insti-
tutional action plan for becoming climate neutral, which
will include:
i. A target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon

as possible.
ii. Interim targets for goals and actions that will lead to cli-
mate neutrality.
iii. Actions to make climate neutrality and sustainability a
part of the curriculum and other educational experience
for all students.
iv. Actions to expand research or other efforts necessary to
achieve climate neutrality.
v. Mechanisms for tracking progress on goals and actions.
2. Initiate two or more of the following tangible actions to reduce
greenhouse gases while the more comprehensive plan is
being developed.
a. Establish a policy that all new campus construction will
be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED
Silver standard or equivalent.
b. Adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy
requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products in
all areas for which such ratings exist.
c. Establish a policy of offsetting all greenhouse gas emis-
sions generated by air travel paid for by our institution.
d. Encourage use of and provide access to public transportation
for all faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution.
e. Within one year of signing this document, begin purchas-
ing or producing at least 15% of our institution’s electricity
consumption from renewable sources.
f. Establish a policy or a committee that supports climate and
sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where
our institution’s endowment is invested.
g. Participate in the Waste Minimization component of the
national RecycleMania competition, and adopt 3 or more
associated measures to reduce waste.
3. Make the action plan, inventory, and periodic progress reports
publicly available by providing them to the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
for posting and dissemination.
In recognition of the need to build support for this effort among college
and university administrations across America, we will encourage other
presidents to join this effort and become signatories to this commitment.
Signed,
The Signatories of the American College and
University Presidents Climate Commitment
Similar to STARS, ACUPCC signatories also report their progress and data
online. This visibility is an encouragement for institutions to do a carbon anal-
ysis and make a plan for reducing the emissions. Institutions that have made
the commitment but have not kept up with the commitment by reporting
their GHG inventories and CAPs are shown in red on the online reporting
system, which becomes a public shame issue for the institution.
15.2 Case Study of the University of Toledo

15.2.1 Background and Acknowledgments
The University of Toledo is one of 13 state universities in Ohio. It was estab-
lished in 1872 and became a member of the state university system in 1967.
The University of Toledo and the Medical University of Ohio merged in July
2006 to form the third-largest public university operating budget in the state.
The University of Toledo has roughly 20,000 full-time students, 1000 faculty,
and 3500 staff members. Its operating and energy budgets are approximately
$35 million and $15 million, respectively. It has building space of approxi-
mately 4.7 million square feet.
In 2009, the University of Toledo president, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, signed the
ACUPCC commitment. By this signing, the University of Toledo was required
to submit online a GHG inventory of its main campus. The University of
Toledo has been working toward developing a renewable-energy campus.
Various other grassroots sustainability activities have also been ongoing on
campus. These include development of new sustainability-related curricu-
lum, improvements to recycling on campus, and the initiation, installation,
and maintenance of an outdoor classroom garden where vegetables and
herbs are grown to be shared by students. Therefore, commitment to climate
neutrality was an important and relevant step for the University of Toledo.
Typically, for higher education institutions the GHG inventories and CAPs
are conducted by a committee including faculty and staff members and
possibly some administrators and students. Many universities also have
a sustainability coordinator position that can lead and facilitate the GHG
inventory process. At the University of Toledo, such structures did not exist.
Instead, a new collaboration between faculty, students, staff, and administra-
tion was initiated by assigning the development of the inventory as a class
project in the civil engineering department curriculum. In the spring 2010
semester, coauthor Defne Apul and her sustainability engineering class stu-
dents worked as a team to develop the first GHG inventory for the main cam-
pus of the University of Toledo (Table 15.2). In spring 2011, Defne Apul and
her spring 2011 sustainability engineering class students revised the inven-
tory and developed a CAP for the university. The University of Toledo case
study results presented in this book are the product of the work from these
classes. Some of the text in this chapter was taken from the spring 2011 stu-
dents’ project report on the CAP for the university. The authors are sharing
this work in this chapter as an example case study. The University of Toledo
TABLE 15.2
Sustainability Engineering Students Who Developed the
GHG Inventory and the CAP for the University of Toledo
Spring 2010 Sustainability Spring 2011 Sustainability
Engineering Students Engineering Students
Chad Pietkowski Justin Batt
Jon Lockie Kim Coburn
Rachel Beres Erin Davis
Ken Samoei Ashley Frey
Andrew Kulikowski Will Gharst
Cory Williams Ben Griffis
Greg Kemper Jonathan Lidgard
Mitch Thobe James Marshall
Brian Prenger Keith Morgan
Joe Luthman Michael Sheehan
Colin Serne Justin Snyder
Joe Wcislak Travis Wenning
Josh Quinlan
Neale Mahon
Kathleen Gallagher
has officially endorsed the GHG inventory from spring 2010 by submitting
the sustainability class report to the ACUPCC reporting system. However, at
the time of the writing of this book, the CAP proposed by the sustainability
engineering class of spring 2011 was not yet officially adopted or endorsed
by the university. Coauthor Defne Apul gratefully acknowledges the contri-
butions of the University of Toledo students and employees in the collection
and analyses of data presented in this chapter. The students who contrib-
uted to this work are listed in Table 15.2. Employees who contributed to this
study include Aaron Baker, Chuck Lehnert, Jamie Zeller, Michael Green,
Tom Garey, Jen Pastorek, Doug Collins, Howard Hillard, Harvey Vershum,
David Wahr, Dan Royer, Arlene Fell, Steve Wise, Matthew Hemming, and
Joyce McBride-Hamer. Juliana-Goodlaw Morris from the National Wildlife
Federation was also influential in getting this project started and providing
outside support regarding data analysis and interpretation.
15.2.2 Using Wiki Technology to Facilitate Communication

Developing GHG inventories and CAPs often involves multiple parties, espe-
cially since different employees may be in charge of collecting and managing
different types of data. To help facilitate the project, various online technolo-
gies can be used. At the University of Toledo, the team used wiki technology
where students posted their progress and hurdles online and all participants
FIGURE 15.1
Example of use of wiki technology to track and communicate project progress.
received an automatic e-mail notification of each posting (Figure 15.1). Use of

this wiki technology can be a convenient way for the team to keep up to date
with the progress and hurdles of the project. While in-person meetings and
e-mail exchanges are also necessary, wiki technology can add a beneficial
aspect by providing an online record of the progress and a silent communi-
cation system between project participants.
While any wiki provider may have worked, the team used Wikispaces as
the host for the wiki for the project. Wikispaces has an easy user interface
and requires only a very short training period with team members before
they can start using it. Students recorded their efforts and achievements in
collecting the data on the wiki developed for the project. Our experience with
this project suggests that wiki technology works well for facilitating the proj-
ect progress. However, it would have been more beneficial to provide more
details on the wiki. For example, some key data files can be posted online.
When the final report is written, electronic files may be kept by multiple peo-
ple. If files are deposited to the wiki system, it will be easier to track the data.
15.2.3 Project Process
At the University of Toledo, the GHG inventory and the CAP were developed
as two separate projects (Figure 15.2). Ideally, one team should be formed that
can work together to develop both the inventory and the CAP. However, this
may not be possible due to various logistical reasons. A common problem
University of Toledo’s GHG University of Toledo’s Climate

Inventory Process Steps Action Plan Process Steps
Identify staff members that have Form Climate Action Plan Team
access to and manage data necessary (CAPT) with members from faculty,
for the GHG inventory students, and staff
Initial meeting with staff members Initial meeting of CPAT to discuss

discussing project goals and project goals and members’ roles
summarizing data needs and obligations
GHG team members work with staff CAPT members work together to
members individually to request data verify and finalize GHG inventory
Multiple exchanges between the GHG CAPT members set reduction target
team members and staff in sharing goals
data, confirming correctness of data
type, and evaluating data quality
Input data into calculations to CAPT members develop a reduction

estimate emissions plan
Analyze emission results
Communicate GHG inventory findings Communicate GHG inventory and

climate action plan
FIGURE 15.2
Process chart for the GHG inventory and CAP projects at the University of Toledo.
may be the lack of necessary organizational structure and support for the
project, as well as lack of incentives for employees to stay involved.
At the University of Toledo, in the GHG inventory part of the project the
team spent a majority of the time identifying staff members and work-
ing with them to collect the data. These staff members are typically from
different departments due to the large variety of data required for the inven-
tory. The team had an initial meeting with the staff members to explain the
goal of the GHG inventory and involve them in the process. After this ini-
tial meeting, team members worked with the staff individually to collect
the data. Often, data collection from one person is not a single-step process.
Multiple, iterative meetings and e-mail exchanges are necessary to explain,
clarify, and confirm what exactly is needed for the inventory. Once the data
are collected, their quality also needs to be checked several times. For exam-
ple, due to communication issues, the team found out both during the GHG
inventory project and during the CAP project that the data collected needed
multiple revisions and corrections.
After raw data were collected, this information was entered into a calcula-
tion scheme to estimate the emissions. In this project, the Campus Carbon
Calculator was used to facilitate calculations and organize data and results.
The Campus Carbon Calculator is an Excel spreadsheet model developed
initially at the University of New Hampshire and currently maintained by
Clean Air Cool Planet (Clean Air Cool Planet 2011). The Campus Carbon
Calculator is based on standard methodologies codified by the GHG
Protocol Initiative and the Climate Registry. Most ACUPCC signatories use
the Campus Carbon Calculator for their GHG inventories.
A screen shot of the Campus Carbon Calculator Spreadsheet map is shown
in Figure 15.3. The model is implemented in six steps:
Step 1: Enter your data.

Step 2: View your results.
Step 3: Set projection parameters for future energy demand.
Step 4: See results for projections of future energy demand.
Step 5: Enter data on reduction projects.
Step 6: View project reductions and cost savings.
Of these, steps 1 and 2 are necessary just to complete the inventory. Other
steps are useful for a climate action plan. The spreadsheet map provides an
overview of the entire model. Each box that is not blue represents a sepa-
rate worksheet within the model. The emission factors for the calculations
are further detailed in the emissions factors module (Figure 15.4). From
these spreadsheet maps, it can be seen that the Campus Carbon Calculator
is a fairly complex model with about 50 worksheets. Yet it is well organized
and has one single spreadsheet for inputs. The GHG inventory team at the
University of Toledo primarily worked with this input worksheet in doing
the calculations.
Once emissions were estimated using the Campus Carbon Calculator, the
project team evaluated the results. This step may seem like an easy process;
however, understanding the results can also be time consuming. The reason
for high emissions from a certain category need to be explained, and the
FIGURE 15.3
A screen shot of the spreadsheet model for the Campus Carbon Calculator. Reprinted with
permission from Clean Air Cool Planet.
model may need to be checked multiple times to verify the correctness of

the emissions.
After the emissions were evaluated, the team shared the results in a public
presentation. Communicating results is an important step of a GHG inven-
tory, since it promotes buy-in from different stakeholders. Communicating
results in a report and in a presentation also makes the team more critical
of their work. In this project, much valuable information and insight was
gained as the team worked on the report and the presentation. These valu-
able insights would likely be missed if the final results were communicated
only briefly, perhaps by just an internal presentation.
The CAP project process was similar to that of the GHG inventory. A
Climate Action Plan Team (CAPT) was formed and the project began with
an initial meeting of the CAPT where project goals, relevant data, and each
person’s involvement and responsibilities were discussed. CAPT member-
ship included university staff, sustainability engineering class students,
and the instructor. The student members of the CAPT worked closely with
the university staff to finalize the inventory data, set target goals, and
develop a plan for achieving these goals. Final results were again commu-
nicated in a public presentation and a final report. These documents can be
downloaded from the University of Toledo civil engineering department’s
FIGURE 15.4
A screen shot of the emissions module of the Campus Carbon Calculator. Reprinted with per-
mission from Clean Air Cool Planet.
sustainability website (http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/civil/newweb/sustain-

ability/Sustainability%20Curriculum.htm).
15.2.4 Project Boundaries and Raw Data

The organizational boundary for this project was the main campus of the
University of Toledo. This boundary was selected because the university had
signed the ACUPCC commitment for the main campus only. The university
owns and operates two other big campuses: the Health Sciences campus and
Scott Park campus. These campuses were not included in the inventory or
the CAP.
The inventory was conducted for all three scopes: Scope 1, Scope 2, and
Scope 3 emissions.
For a university, Scope 1 direct emissions include emissions from on-
campus stationary sources, direct transportation sources, refrigeration and
other chemicals, and agriculture. A visual schematic of these emission
sources is shown in Figure 15.5. The collected data are shown in Tables 15.3,
15.4, and 15.5. The university did not have any quantifiable data on refrigera-
tion and other chemicals, so this category was assumed to be negligible and
not included in the calculations. Transportation data were collected from the
transportation department and purchasing department. Direct transpor-
tation for the university included the purchase and use of three types of
fuels: gasoline, diesel, and B20 biodiesel. The university owns and operates
161 vehicles. Agricultural sources for the university included only the use
of fertilizers for landscaping purposes. Based on the records of the grounds
department, the university uses 20,000 lb of fertilizer annually. Fertilizers
emit N2O, which is a potent GHG. On-campus stationary sources include any
type of fossil fuel burned on campus. The University of Toledo burns only
natural gas for heating and steam production using a central plant and indi-
vidual buildings. The total annual amount of natural gas used on the main
campus is estimated to be about 400,000 MMBtu.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions that are neither owned nor oper-
ated by the university but whose products are directly linked to on-campus
energy consumption. For a university, this often includes purchased energy
in the form of purchased electricity, steam, or chilled water. The University
of Toledo makes its own steam using natural gas and makes the chilled
water using electricity. So, only purchased electricity was accounted for in
the GHG inventory for the University of Toledo.
While accounting for Scope 3 emissions is considered optional based on
the GHG protocol, Scope 3 emissions were included in this project because
the University of Toledo has a large commuter base and the emissions
from commuting were expected to be high, requiring some level of policy
action toward their reduction. A visual of Scope 3 emissions included in
the University of Toledo inventory is shown in Figure 15.6. Relevant Scope 3
emissions for a university include indirect emissions related to solid waste,
commuting, directly financed outsourced transportation (faculty and staff
business trips, sports travel), study abroad air travel, and other emissions
from directly financed purchases such as paper and food production. The
Campus Carbon Calculator has calculations for all of these categories except
for food production; therefore food consumption was not included in the
University of Toledo inventory. However, Clean Air Cool Planet recently
released a tool specifically for accounting for emissions from food services:
Charting Emissions from Food Services (CHEFS) will likely be used by insti-
tutions in tandem with the Campus Carbon Calculator.
(a) Fertilizers
(b) Natural gas burned at old and new steam plants and buildings
Heat Source Steam Old Steam Plant

Heat Source Natural Gas New Steam Plant
(c) Transportation emissions from the university’s buses, police, and other vehicles
FIGURE 15.5
The University of Toledo Scope 1 emission sources. Fertilizer and transportation images cour-
tesy of the University of Toledo.
Commuter data were estimated by the office of institutional research from

the number and address zip codes of commuters. Commuters include full-
and part-time students (counted separately for enrollment in spring, fall, and
summer semesters) and the number of faculty and staff at the university.
The distance between the commuter’s address and the university main cam-
pus was estimated using the displacement longitude and latitude coordi-
nate equation [(6371 km * cos-1(cos(Long1-Long2)cos(Lat1)cos(Lat2) + sin(Lat1)
TABLE 15.3
Summary of Scope 1 Raw Data
Data Collected 2007 2008 2009 2010
Natural Gas (MMBtu) 382,883 388,933 423,528 398,898
Gasoline Fleet (gal) 75,000 82,000 80,400 47,400
B20 Fleet (gal) 52,600 43,000 45,500 12,500
Synthetic Fertilizer (lbs) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
TABLE 15.4
Fuel Usage of the University
of Toledo Vehicles
Source Quantity (gallons)
Gasoline 47,400
Diesel 20,600
B20 Biodiesel 12,500
Total 80,500
TABLE 15.5
University of Toledo Fleet
Vehicle Types
Type of Vehicle Quantity
Auto 36
Light-Duty Truck/SUV 57
Medium-Duty Truck 6
Van 51
Bus 11
Total 161
sin(Lat2)] that was calculated for the distance between the zip code of the
commuter and the zip code of the university. Then the total number of miles
driven in a year was calculated by estimated number of trips per semester
multiplied by distance for each trip. The team estimated that faculty/staff
and students annually drive 8.4 million and 19.5 million miles, respectively.
The total miles driven were imported into the Campus Carbon Calculator to
estimate the emissions from commuting.
Annual wastewater generated on campus as obtained from utility bills
was approximately 780,000 gallons. The amount of annual solid waste gener-
ated was estimated to be 3300 short tons. This number was estimated based
on the number of trash containers on campus, their volumes, and their col-
lection schedules. These containers were probably not full at all times, likely
resulting in an overestimate. The amount of paper used on the main campus
as obtained from purchasing records was 856,000 lbs per year.
FIGURE 15.6
A visual summary of emission sources included in Scope 3 inventory at the University
of Toledo.
For sports travel, the schedules of each team were located online, and an
Excel spreadsheet was made of the locations and destinations of each sport’s
travel during 2010. Someone (coach or player) was contacted from each team
to determine what the team normally traveled in (airplane, coach bus, or
van) to each event. The mileage was found from Toledo to the destination
city; that number was then multiplied by how many trips were made to that
location, and then finally multiplied by two for the return trip. If a location
was over 500 miles, the team was assumed to have flown to the destination;
and if a location was under 500 miles, the team was assumed to have taken a
coach bus. These calculations suggested that the University of Toledo sports
team travel approximately 120,000 miles annually.
The study abroad data were obtained from the Office of Academic
Engagement. Data were obtained for the number of students who traveled to
different countries each year. The distances were calculated by finding the
round-trip distance from the international airport closest to the University of
Toledo (Detroit Airport) to an international airport in the capital of the coun-
try that the study abroad student would be visiting. The amount of travel
study abroad students would have done from the capital city of the coun-
try to the final city of destination was not included. It was estimated that
TABLE 15.6
GHG Emissions from Different Scopes
Scope MTe CO2
Scope 1 21,906
Scope 2 44,709
Scope 3 14,830
Total of all scopes 81,446
approximately 700 University of Toledo study-abroad students travel 1 mil-

lion miles annually.
15.2.5 Emissions Summary
Table 15.6 displays the University of Toledo’s FY10 total emissions of 81,445
MTe CO2. Dividing by the enrollment numbers, a typical student at the
University of Toledo emits approximately 5 MTe C02 over the course of
each year.
Figure 15.7 shows the sources of emissions within each scope. With 55% of
total emissions, electricity is the largest source of emissions at the University
of Toledo. Emissions from natural gas (26%) and commuting (14%) are also
fairly large. Other sources contribute only 5% of total emissions.
15.2.6 Emissions Projections
Since it is fairly difficult to predict the far future, it is recommended to
develop a relatively detailed short-term goal and strategy for GHG emission
UT Fleet 0.9% Fertilizer 0.1%
Scope 1
Natural Gas
25.9%
Paper 1%
Electricity
55% Scope 2
Wastewater 0.001%
Solid Waste 2.4%
Sports Travel 0.1%

Commuting
Study Abroad 0.8% 14%
Scope 3
FIGURE 15.7
Breakdown of 2010 emissions.
120,000
Business as Usual
100,000
eCO2 (Metric Tons)
Projection Goal
80,000
60,000
20% Reduction
40,000
20,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Years
FIGURE 15.8
Short-term GHG emission goals and projections for the University of Toledo.
reductions. In addition, a long-term goal should be set, realizing that it will

be difficult to develop detailed strategies for achieving long-term goals due
to uncertainties in future conditions including possible development and
availability of new technologies or changes in existing social, political, and
economic structures.
In this study, the sustainability engineering class recommended a long-
term goal of 80% reduction in 25 years from the baseline year of 2007. For the
short term, the sustainability engineering class recommended a 20% reduc-
tion goal from a baseline of 2007 (Figure 15.8). Two primary factors were
used in determining this goal. First, the relevant Ohio guidelines were con-
sidered. The energy efficiency and conservation guidelines set forth in Ohio
House Bill 251 require a 20% reduction in carbon emissions by 2014 from
2004. Year 2004 could not be used as a baseline in this study because data
for 2004 and 2005 were not reliable. In 2006, the University of Toledo merged
with the Medical College of Ohio, making pre-2007 data unrepresentative
of the current structure of the University of Toledo. The other factor that
was considered in setting the 20% goal was the feasibility of implement-
ing this goal. Strategies for reaching this goal were identified, and emission
reductions from each strategy were estimated. This exercise (hypothetically)
proved the feasibility of achieving the short-term goal.
15.2.7 Scope 1 Reduction Strategies

Five strategies were proposed for reducing Scope 1 emissions (Table 15.7).
The strategies for natural gas were obtained from an energy audit that the
university had conducted using an outside consultant. These strategies were
estimated to reduce emissions from natural gas use by 6.3%. To reduce emis-
sions from the university fleet, aging vehicles were recommended to be
TABLE 15.7
Strategies for Achieving Scope 1 Reductions
2010 Proposed Anticipated
MTe CO2 MTe CO2
Emission Source CO2 Strategy Reduction Reduction
Natural Gas 21,101 Add steam jackets and insulation 3.8% 800
to exposed steam lines
Natural Gas 21,101 Upgrade a percentage of outdated 2.0% 422
equipment every few years and
upgrade control system
Natural Gas 21,101 Install solar vacuum tube heat 0.5% 106
conductors
UT Fleet 730 Purchase: 3 Chevy Volts, 12 Ford 4.4% 32
electric vans, and 2 smart cars.
These will replace 5 cars and 12
vans/light-duty trucks.
Fertilizer 67 Set up composting facility and 60% 40
reduce use of synthetic fertilizers
replaced with those that would result in lower GHG emissions. Purchase
of electric vehicles was recommended. While there are no direct emis-
sions from electric vehicles, Ohio’s electricity comes primarily from coal.
Therefore an increase in indirect emissions due to increased electricity
would be expected but was not accounted for in this study. Fertilizers con-
tribute only a small fraction to the overall emissions. Reduction in fertilizer
use and starting an on-campus composting facility were proposed as ways
to reduce emissions from fertilizers.

An outside consultant had already completed an energy audit for all build-
ings on campus. This audit included eight electricity conservation measures
on lighting, HVAC (mechanical) controls, retro-commissioning, steam, heat
recovery, building envelope, and kitchen opportunities. It was estimated that
these measures could reduce the emissions from electricity use by 34%.

Strategies for reducing Scope 3 emissions are primarily behavioral solu-
tions due to the nature of Scope 3 emissions. It was estimated that Scope
3 emissions could be reduced by 7% by implementing different strategies
(Table 15.8). Most of these strategies are no-cost solutions.
The largest contributor to Scope 3 emissions was commuting. One way to
reduce commuting emissions is to encourage students and departments to
schedule classes closer. The University of Toledo is a commuter university,
TABLE 15.8
Short-Term Strategies for Reducing Scope 3 Emissions
2010 Proposed % Anticipated
MTe CO2 MTe CO2
Emission Source CO2 Strategy Reduction Reduction
Commuting 11,291 Scheduling classes together, 6% 677
increasing distance learning,
shortening class meeting
frequency, incentivizing
carpooling and biking
University travel 721 Travel strategies 10.30% 74
Solid waste 1,926 Waste strategies 5% 96
Paper 891 Paper strategies 25% 223
Total 14,829 Scope 3 strategies 7.20% 1,070
and many students go home between classes, resulting in increased com-

muting trips and associated emissions. Another similar strategy is to
increase the number of distance learning courses, minimizing the need for
student to commute to campus for the class. Another way to reduce com-
muting emissions is to incentivize carpooling and biking. While all of these
strategies appear to be viable, it would not be possible to evaluate the out-
come of their implementation. The success of the first strategy cannot be eas-
ily determined since a fixed number of commuting trips is used to estimate
commuting emissions in the inventory. The success of the second and third
strategies cannot be easily determined since zip codes of students are used
in commuting emission calculations without considering any effects of stu-
dent registrations in distance learning classes or their interest in carpooling
or biking.
Sports travel accounts for 0.1% of the total emissions for the University of
Toledo. This emission source is difficult to reduce because of the high demand
of travel for Division 1 sports teams. The miles traveled each year by varsity
sports teams varies based on each team’s schedule. Coaching decisions and
budgets determine when teams fly or drive to their destinations. One way to
encourage sports travel emission reductions is to encourage teams to drive
to destinations instead of flying whenever possible since driving produces
significantly less emissions than flying.
The university sent 674 students abroad in 2010. The emissions produced
from study abroad travel was 0.8% of the total emissions. The University of
Toledo encourages students to take advantage of study abroad programs,
and the benefits of this travel are expected to outweigh the effects of the
emissions created. Therefore no specific reduction strategy can be employed
to reduce these emissions.
The emissions from wastewater generated on campus were estimated to
be only 0.001% of the overall emission profile. Although reductions in this
area would not significantly affect the overall Scope 3 emissions, several
strategies would still reduce the carbon footprint of the university. For exam-
ple, water conservation can be promoted by education and by installation of
low-flush toilets and urinals, aerators in faucets and sinks, automatic shutoff
sensors, and instant water heaters. There would be energy implications from
manufacturing of these new fixtures. A life cycle assessment evaluating the
trade-offs was beyond the scope of this study.
The emissions from solid waste were 2.4% of overall emissions. The strat-
egy for reducing these emissions is to promote recycling. The university
already participates in the national RecycleMania Tournament, which is a
12-week competition that tracks the amount of recycled materials each week
and ranks each university by various categories. In addition, the number
of recycle bins could be increased throughout the campus to promote recy-
cling. Providing incentives, such as donating to a charity for every pound of
recycled material, will further increase the amount of material recycled at
the University of Toledo.
Another strategy to reduce solid waste would be to design and con-
struct a food waste composting system to turn food waste into usable
organic compost for gardens and flowerbeds on campus. A senior design
group in the College of Engineering has proposed an aerobic system that
would emit CO2 instead of the more harmful gas CH4. However, further
research is necessary to estimate actual emission reductions for this strat-
egy. The food composting system would divert this waste from landfills
to a composting system, reducing solid waste and transportation emis-
sions created.
The emissions from paper use were 1% of overall emissions. The increase
in computer technology over the past 20 years has made the goal of reducing
paper usage easier. Reduction strategies for this category include reducing the
amount of paper purchased each year and encouraging the university com-
munity to print less. Effective use of digital technologies for teaching would
aid in reducing the amount of paper printed related to courses.
15.2.10 Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets are a purchasable commodity that when bought are credited
as a negative carbon emission that decrease the buyer’s footprint. One offset
credit represents one metric ton of CO2e. Since it is nearly impossible for a
university to eliminate all GHG emissions, purchasing carbon offsets will be
a necessary part of the university’s goal to reach carbon neutrality. The strat-
egies discussed in Sections 15.2.7, 15.2.8, and 15.2.9 should be considered first
in order to reduce the overall emissions. Once all direct actions are taken, the
university could purchase carbon offsets to account for the remaining emis-
sions needed to reach the 20% short-term reduction goal.
The university’s Scott Park Campus of Energy and Innovation currently
has 1.2 MW of solar and 80 KW of wind power installed. These alternative
energy systems are estimated to produce 2% of the main campus, electricity
demand. This on-site alternative energy production is not included in this

CAP, but will be very important going forward when the CAP expands to
incorporate all University of Toledo campuses. This development also is a
good example of what the university can do to offset its emissions.
15.2.11 Education
Research has shown that education and behavioral change can lead to a
5 to 30% reduction in emissions (Markowitz and Doppelt 2009). Therefore
educational initiatives are essential to meet the carbon neutrality goal, espe-
cially that of an educational institution. The University of Toledo has already
developed a basis for sustainability education in recent years. Further prog-
ress on this is recommended and necessary to reduce GHG emissions by
behavioral change.
References
ACUPCC. 2011. Mission and History. http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.
org/about/mission-history (accessed August 11, 2011).
Clean Air Cool Planet. 2011. Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator, v. 6.6.
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.php.
Markowitz, E. M., and B. Doppelt. 2009. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through Behavioral Change: An Assessment of Past Research on Energy Use,
Transportation and Water Consumption. http://www.theresourceinnovation-
group.org/storage/behavioral_change.pdf (accessed August 11, 2011).
16
Energy Analysis and Minimization
in Manufacturing
16.1 Introduction
A study was performed to determine alternatives that would reduce energy
and save money for a compressor manufacturer in Northwest Ohio in 2011.
This project was performed by the Waste Analyses and Minimization
Research Project, which is a unique partnership between the Lucas County
Solid Waste Management District, the University of Toledo’s College of
Engineering, and local business and industry. As a program of the county
and the university, the first and foremost goal of the project is to provide
a valuable service to the community. The expertise of the university’s fac-
ulty, staff, and students is used to identify cost savings for local businesses
through energy reduction, waste minimization, and process efficiency solu-
tions. All assessments are performed by University of Toledo graduate and
undergraduate students majoring in engineering. The assessments are over-
seen by a faculty member. Typically, the assessment consists of:
• An analysis of the company’s process and overall energy/solid waste

generation
• Recommendations designed to help maximize process efficiency
and reduce energy/solid waste disposal costs
• Detailed reference list of vendors that complement the
recommendations
All waste and energy assessments are provided on a confidential basis and
are free of charge to businesses residing within Lucas County.
The compressor manufacturer employs about 70,000 employees and sells
products to customers in more than 150 countries. They are a global technol-
ogy leader in electrical components and systems for power quality, distribu-
tion, and control. Their other products include
219
• Hydraulics components, systems, and services for industrial and

mobile equipment
• Aerospace fuel, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems for commercial
and military use
• Truck and automotive drivetrain and powertrain systems for perfor-
mance, fuel economy, and safety
16.2 Methodology
The objectives of this project were to define the energy consumption at the
organization and to identify economically feasible options for energy reduc-
tion. During our site visit in March 2011, an energy assessment was conducted
and energy consumption data were obtained from the facility manager. The
energy assessment consisted of a comprehensive examination of current light-
ing fixtures and appliances in the entryway, conference rooms, and the office,
manufacturing, and kitchenette areas. Energy minimization options for the
major areas of energy consumption were researched with an emphasis placed
on energy reduction and economic feasibility. The remainder of this report
contains the data summary in addition to options and recommendations that
were determined to be most beneficial to the company and to the environment.
16.3 Data Analysis
16.3.1 Offices
The office area lighting consisted of standard fluorescent lighting, which is
one of the top contributors of energy usage. The other factors were personal
computers (mostly laptops) and the printers throughout the office areas. The
focus was put on the lighting, as it is the major energy consumer that can
be reduced. Further energy savings can be found through the employees’
computers. Table 16.1 displays the office lighting summary by lighting type.
TABLE 16.1
Office Light Summary by Type
Bulb Type Number of Bulbs Total Wattage
A: 4′ Fluorescent Lights, 40 W 74 2.96 kW
C: U-shaped fluorescent light, 40 W 551 22.04 kW
F: 4′ fluorescent lights, 32 W 6 0.192 kW
Energy Analysis and Minimization in Manufacturing 221
TABLE 16.2
Office Light Analysis
Energy Consumption (kWh)
Time Per Per Per Cost
Period Unit A Area A Unit C Area C Unit F Unit F (Area)
Hourly 0.04 3.01 0.04 22.04 0.03 0.19 $2.40
Daily 0.40 29.36 0.48 264.48 0.38 2.30 $28.13
Weekly 1.98 146.80 2.40 1,322.40 1.92 11.52 $140.66
Monthly 8.27 611.67 10.00 5,510.00 8.00 48.00 $586.11
Annually 99.19 7,340.00 120.00 66,120.00 96.00 576.00 $7,033.42
Letters were used as notation for observation purposes. The same letters are
applied in the following table. The usage was estimated for each fixture, and
Table 16.2 displays the energy consumption and total cost of the lighting.
Costs were estimated at $0.095/kWh.
16.3.2 Entryway
Throughout the entryway was a mix of standard fluorescent lighting and
recessed lighting. There were also two televisions, which were normally
powered on showing a slideshow about the company. All three objects’
energy usage can be reduced either with different fixtures or reduced pow-
ered hours. Table 16.3 summarizes the lighting fixtures by type in this area.
The usage was estimated for each fixture, and Table 16.4 shows the
energy consumption and total cost of the lighting. Costs were estimated at
$0.095/kWh.
The televisions that were in use were a 37” LG LCD TV and a 42” Tyco
Electronics TV. Both consume decent amounts of power, and are shown in
Table 16.5. It was assumed that both TVs are on for 60 hours per week.
It should be noted that this table does not reflect the cost of the televisions’
standby power, or the power consumed while the TVs are plugged in but
turned off. The specifications found this to consume <1 W of power.
TABLE 16.3
Entryway Light Summary by Type
Lighting Number of Bulbs Total Wattage
A: 4′ fluorescent lights, 40 W 14 0.56 kW
B: Incandescent lights, 135 W 4 0.536 kW
TABLE 16.4
Entryway Light Analysis
Cost
Time Period Per Unit A Area A Per Unit B Area B (Area)
Hourly 0.04 0.56 0.13 0.54 $0.104
Daily 0.48 6.72 1.61 6.43 $1.25
Weekly 2.40 33.60 8.04 32.16 $6.25
Monthly 10.00 140.00 33.50 134.00 $26.03
Annually 120.00 1,680.00 402.00 1,608.00 $312.36
TABLE 16.5
Television Light Analysis
Time Period 37” LG 42” Tyco Cost
Hourly 0.18 0.18 $0.034
Daily 2.16 2.16 $0.410
Weekly 10.80 10.80 $2.05
Monthly 35.00 45.00 $7.60
Annually 420.00 540.00 $91.20
16.3.3 Kitchenette
The kitchenette contained many high-energy appliances, including a dish-
washer, coffeemaker, two microwaves, a refrigerator, and two vending
machines. Each of these appliances consumes a large amount of energy.
Stand-by power is also consumed when the appliance isn’t running, such
as coffee machines and microwaves. These values were found by taking an
average of appliances’ stand-by power from this website: http://standby.lbl.
gov/summary-chart.html. Costs were estimated at $0.095/kWh. Table 16.6
displays the results of the kitchenette analysis.
16.3.4 Manufacturing
Standard fluorescent lighting was utilized throughout the manufacturing
area, which is one of the top contributors of reducible energy usage. The
other factors were the weathering machines for products, which weren’t fac-
tored into the assessment. Table 16.7 displays the light summary by type for
the manufacturing area.
The usage was estimated for each fixture, and Table 16.8 displays the
$0.095/kWh.
TABLE 16.6
Kitchenette Energy Use Summary
Estimated Energy
Stand-by
Consumption (kWh)
Powered-on Wattage
Appliance Wattage (est.) Daily Monthly Annually Cost
Dishwasher 1200 N/A 2.41 20.3 244 $23.18
Ice maker 840 N/A 20.2 611.5 7,338.2 $697.13
Samsung microwave 1200 3 2.47 52.0 624.0 $59.28
Sharp microwave 1100 3 2.27 47.8 574.0 $54.53
Refrigerator 1800* N/A 1.5 45.8 550 $52.25
Vending machine 200 N/A 4.8 145.6 1,747.2 $165.98
Vending 400 N/A 9.6 291.2 3,494.4 $331.97
machine—cold
Coffee machine 1800 ~250 12.2 301.7 3620 $343.90
Total — — 55.45 1,515.9 18,191.8 $1,728.22
TABLE 16.7
Manufacturing Light Summary by Type
D: U-shaped fluorescent light, 40 W 224 8.96 kW
E: 8′ fluorescent lights, 60 W 214 12.84 kW
F: 4′ fluorescent lights, 32 W 26 0.832 kW
16.3.5 Other Areas
This section includes the areas such as restrooms, hallways, and conference
rooms. The lighting summary by type is displayed in Table 16.9.
$0.095/kWh.
16.4 Cost Savings Opportunities/Recommendations

16.4.1 Offices
While the lights utilized in the office areas were above average in terms
of efficiency, the emergence of LED lighting provides additional room
for improvement, especially for the long term. Companies are manufac-
turing LED tube lighting that can be retrofitted into existing fixtures.
TABLE 16.8
Manufacturing Light Analysis
Per Per Per Cost
Time Period Unit D Area D Unit E Area E Unit F Unit F (Area)
Hourly 0.04 8.96 0.06 12.84 0.03 0.83 $2.15
Daily 0.96 215.04 1.44 308.16 0.77 19.97 $51.60
Weekly 4.80 1,075.20 7.20 1,540.80 3.84 99.84 $258.00
Monthly 20.00 4,480.00 30.00 6,420.00 16.00 416.00 $1,075.02
Annually 240.00 53,760.00 360.00 77,040.00 192.00 4,992.00 $12,900.24
TABLE 16.9
Other Area Lighting Summary by Type
B: Incandescent lights, 135 W 39 5.265 kW
D: U-shaped Fluorescent Light, 40 W 24 0.960 kW
F: 4′ Fluorescent Lights, 32 W 24 0.768 kW
TABLE 16.10
Other Area Analysis
Per Per Per Cost
Time Period Unit B Area B Unit D Area D Unit F Unit F (Area)
Hourly 0.06 2.39 0.04 1.04 0.04 0.90 $0.410
Daily 0.73 28.62 0.52 12.48 0.45 10.75 $4.93
Weekly 3.67 143.10 2.60 62.40 2.24 53.76 $24.63
Monthly 15.29 596.25 10.83 260.00 9.33 224.00 $102.62
Annually 183.46 7,155.00 130.00 3,120.00 112.00 2,688.00 $1,231.49
All of the four-foot fluorescent lights can be replaced by LED lighting.

energy consumption and total cost of the lighting. Costs were estimated
at $0.095/kWh.
It should be noted that these costs factor into the purchase price. There
may be additional savings with installation cost reduction, and disposal
costs, since LED lights don’t need to be recycled like fluorescent lights.
TABLE 16.11
Office Light Replacement Summary
Time Period Per Unit Area Cost
Hourly 0.017 10.7 $1.02
Daily 0.200 126.11 $11.98
Weekly 0.998 629.6 $59.81
Monthly 4.16 2,623.2 $249.20
Annually 49.9 31,478.9 $2,990.50
16.4.2 Entryway
The entryway does not have sizeable potential, as it is already fairly effi-
cient. The televisions are LCD and use very little energy, as long as they are
powered off during the night. Unplugging the TVs would result in further
savings, as there would be no standby power being used. Table 16.12 displays
the cost of replacing the four-foot lights with LED lighting and the incandes-
cent lights with typical compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
$0.095/kWh.
TABLE 16.12
Entryway Light Replacement Analysis
LEDLight.com: 4′ LED T12/T8, 17 W 14 0.238 kW
135Watt-Equivalent CFL, 32 W 4 0.128 kW
TABLE 16.13
Entryway Cost Savings Analysis
Cost
Time Period Per LED Area LED Per CFL Area CFL (Area)
Hourly 0.02 0.24 0.03 0.13 $0.035
Daily 0.20 2.86 0.38 1.54 $0.42
Weekly 1.02 14.28 1.92 7.68 $2.09
Monthly 4.25 59.50 8.00 32.00 $8.69
Annually 51.00 714.00 96.00 384.00 $104.31
TABLE 16.14
Kitchenette Cost Savings Analysis
Estimated Energy
Stand-by
Consumption (kWh)
Powered-on Wattage
Appliance Wattage (est.) Daily Monthly Annually Cost
Dishwasher 1200 N/A 2.41 20.3 244 $23.18
Ice maker 840 N/A 20.2 611.5 7,338.2 $697.13
Sharp microwave 1100 3 2.2 45.8 550 $52.25
Refrigerator 1800* N/A 1.5 45.8 550 $52.25
Vending machine 200 N/A 4.8 145.6 1,747.2 $165.98
Vending machine— 200 N/A 4.8 145.6 1,747.2 $165.98
cold + sensor
Coffee machine 1800 ~250 12.2 301.7 3,620 $343.90
Total — — 48.11 1316.3 15,796.6 $1,500.67
16.4.3 Kitchenette
There are a handful of changes to improve the energy usage in the kitchenette.
One such item is to install a motion sensor that activates the vending machines.
The machines both emit lights and one provides cool air. The sensor can be
installed and the vending machine will “stand by” and run on lower power
until the switch is activated. The following is a link that describes this to a
greater extent: http://www.mge.com/business/saving/madison/pa_50.html.
Additionally, the lights located in the front display of the vending machine
may be able to be changed with more energy-efficient ones. If the machine
feels excessively warm to the touch, it may be worth looking into LED light-
ing. The reason is twofold: the direct energy savings in terms of wattage, but
also there would be no excess heat needed to be offset by the cooling mecha-
nism. Table 16.14 displays the cost savings analysis for the kitchenette area.
16.4.4 Manufacturing
Taking a similar approach to the offices, the lights can be replaced with com-
patible LEDs. Table 16.15 displays the replacement opportunities in this area.
$0.095/kWh.
TABLE 16.15
Manufacturing Light Replacement Analysis
Creative Lightings Solutions: 8′ LED, 36W 224 8.064 kW
LEDLight.com: 4′ LED T12/T8, 17W 214 3.638 kW
TABLE 16.16
Manufacturing Cost Savings Analysis
Cost
Time Period Per Unit D Area D Per Unit E Area E (Area)
Hourly 0.04 8.06 0.02 3.64 $1.112
Daily 0.86 193.54 0.41 87.31 $26.68
Weekly 4.32 967.68 2.04 436.56 $133.40
Monthly 18.00 4,032.00 8.50 1,819.00 $555.85
Annually 216.00 48,384.00 102.00 21,828.00 $6,670.14
TABLE 16.17
Other Area Light Replacement Analysis
LEDLight.com: 4′ LED T12/T8, 17W 54 0.918 kWh
135 Watt-Equivalent CFL, 32 W 39 1.248 kWh
TABLE 16.18
Other Area Cost Savings Analysis
Cost
Time Period Per LED Area LED Per CFL Area CFL (Area)
Hourly 0.017 0.918 0.032 1.248 $0.206
Daily 0.204 11.016 0.173 6.78 $1.69
Weekly 1.02 55.08 0.869 33.92 $8.46
Monthly 4.25 229.5 3.62 141.33 $35.22
Annually 51.0 2,754 43.48 1696 $422.75
16.4.5 Other Areas
This section includes the areas such as restrooms, hallways, and conference
rooms. Table 16.17 provides replacement opportunities in this area.
$0.095/kWh.
16.5 Recommendations and Summary

Implementing all of the recommendations for the offices, the entryway, the
manufacturing area, and the kitchenette will yield significant reductions in
TABLE 16.19
Combined Summary of Cost Savings
Offices Entryway Kitchenette Manufacturing Other
Power 75,124 kWh 4260 kWh 18,191 kWh 140,832 kWh 15,081 kWh
consumption
(current)
Power 32,648 kWh 2058 kWh 15,796 kWh 74,748 kWh 6,568 kWh
consumption
(after
replacement)
Cost to operate $7,136.78 $404.70 $1,728.22 $13,379.04 $1,432.74
(current)
Cost to operate $3,104.50 $195.51 $1,500.67 $7,101.06 $624.01
(after
replacement)
Annual energy $4,032.28 $209.19 $227.55 $6,277.98 $808.73
cost savings
Replacement $35,487.44 $811.36 $200.00 $37,795.36 $3,270.96
cost (hard
costs only)
Total annual –($31,455) –($602.17) $27.55 –($31,517) –($2,462)
cost savings
energy. In terms of cost savings per year, excluding the initial upgrade costs,
routine maintenance costs, and costs of implementation, the organization
may save approximately $11,400 per year. A summary of these cost savings
is displayed in Table 16.19. A graph illustrating the reduced yearly power
consumption by area is displayed in Figure 16.1.
Because LEDs are a relatively new technology, they are in turn a more
expensive option. Costs are likely to reduce over time, as the demand
increases. The price for LEDs is estimated in quantities of purchases of 100 or
more. The up-front cost is greater than the benefit in the first year; therefore
the savings can be misrepresented. Figure 16.2 displays the payback periods
within departments.
The kitchenette offers the quickest payback period, but one of the smallest
future savings. The manufacturing area has the most potential, as it has a
shorter payback period than the offices, but the most savings out of any area.
This could be the effect of the lights being turned on for 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.
Current Energy Usage vs. Proposed

Energy Usage
160,000
140,000
120,000
Energy (kWh)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000 Current Energy Usage
20,000 New Energy Usage

0
g
tte
ay
e
ce
rin
th
w
ne
ffi
y
tu
O
he
O
tr
ac
En
tc
uf
Ki
an
M
Building Location
FIGURE 16.1
Energy reductions by area.
Payback Periods per Area in order of

Greatest (left) to Smallest (right)
Savings Potential
10
9
Payback Period (Years)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Payback Period
1
0
g
tte
ay
e
ce
rin
th
w
ne
ffi
y
tu
O
O
he
tr
ac
En
tc
uf
Ki
an
M
Building Location
FIGURE 16.2
Payback period by area.
17
Energy Analysis and Minimization
in Health Care
17.1 Introduction and Background

The organization that was the focus of this case study was a 300-bed hospital
located in Lucas County, Ohio. The current facility was constructed in 1975.
There are approximately 1500 employees working in various fields at this
hospital. As this is facility is a full hospital, it is staffed 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. There are eight floors, with the top seven floors being mainly
for patient rooms and the first floor housing operating rooms, emergency
rooms, dining areas, offices, and a gift store. The hospital has peak energy
consumption during regular business hours.
17.2 Methodology
The focus of this project was limited mainly to the lighting of the hospital.
To conduct this data analysis, the team enlisted the help of several members
of the hospital staff. In addition, several local green and renewable-energy
companies aided in the data collection.
During the on-site data collection, the research team looked primarily at
the lighting in four main areas of the hospital: the patients’ rooms, the hall-
ways and other areas of the hospital, the parking garage, and the exterior
areas of the hospital campus. In addition to the quantity of lighting types,
the research team collected data about how long each light was left on, how
many watts each lightbulb consumed, and what the life span of each light-
bulb was.
In order to complete the data analysis and the report, more data are needed
than what can be gathered in the facility during the on-site energy assess-
ment. Depending on areas being assessed, there are a number of other pieces
of information that need to be collected. One very important part of the data
231
analysis is a cost-benefit analysis of the improvements that were suggested

(Carpenter 2006). Because of this, it is essential for the researcher to obtain
financial information. This includes the price that the client is paying per
kilowatt-hour or whether the client is paying for the total energy consump-
tion or paying based on their peak energy consumption. The research team
also studied the impacts of seasonal effects on the energy consumption. This
is most commonly done by collecting one (or more) complete year’s worth
of electric or gas bills. Gas and electric bills contain much of the informa-
tion that is necessary, including the cost per kilowatt-hour and the peak
daily usage.
17.3 Lighting Results
As the hospital was in operation 24 hours a day, much of the lighting was
left on throughout the day. Notable exceptions included the patient rooms
and certain areas such as labs, parking lots, and the gift shop. Because of
the prevalence of 24-hour lighting, the payback period for installing high-
efficiency lighting fixtures would be much lower than facilities that leave the
lights off during the nights and weekends. A summary of all of the bulbs
commonly used in the hospital can be found in Table 17.1. Specifics about
each type of bulb can be found in the following paragraphs.
Much of the energy consumed by the lighting came from T8 and T12
linear fluorescent tubes set into either a three-bulb or a four-bulb fixture.
The choice to use these types of bulbs came mainly from the ease of chang-
ing out the bulbs as well as the low cost associated with purchasing new
bulbs. These fixtures were found in the hallways on the floors that contained
patient rooms and within the patient rooms themselves. A total of 1471 of
these bulbs were counted during the energy assessment.
Another type of bulb that was commonly used by the hospital was the
60 W or 100 W incandescent bulb, which was used primarily in common
areas, such as at the nurses’ stations and in the waiting rooms and cafete-
ria. These were set into individual fixtures and were chosen for primarily
the same reasons as the T8 and T12 bulbs used in the hallways and patient
rooms: low maintenance costs and ease of replacement. These bulbs were
used less frequently than other types of bulbs, and the overall energy usage
was negligible when compared with the overall energy usage of the hospital.
Because of this, these bulbs were not counted during the energy assessment.
A third category of bulbs that was used commonly in the hospital was the
high-pressure sodium bulb. The hospital used high-pressure sodium bulbs
in much of their outdoor lighting. The hospital had three different models of
these high-pressure sodium bulbs to be used in three different areas of the
hospital campus.
TABLE 17.1
Overview and Summary of Current Hospital Lighting
Hours Hours Kilowatt- Cost
per per Hours Initial Life Life Cost per per
Location Type Model Watts Quantity Day Year per Year Cost (Hours) (Years) Year Unit
Roof/side of High-pressure GE LU250 250 22 24 8760 48,180 $12.45 24,000 2.73972603 $2890.80 $131.40
parking sodium
garage
Inside garage High-pressure GE LU100 100 132 24 8760 115,632 $11.72 24,000 2.73972603 $6,937.92 $52.56
sodium
Parking lot High-pressure GE LU400 400 55 14 5110 112,420 $12.01 24,000 4.69667319 $6,745.20 $122.64
sodium
Parking garage High-pressure F40T12 40 24 14 5110 4,906 $2.51 20,000 3.91389432 $294.34 $12.26
stairways sodium
1st floor Fluorescent F32T8 32 216 18 6570 45,412 $1.83 2,5000 3.80517504 $2,724.71 $12.61
Energy Analysis and Minimization in Health Care
2nd floor Fluorescent F40T12 40 1136 14 5110 232,198 $2.51 20,000 3.91389432 $13,931.90 $12.26
3rd floor Fluorescent F32T8 32 669 14 5110 109,395 $1.83 25,000 4.89236791 $6,563.69 $9.81
4th floor Fluorescent F32T8 32 669 14 5110 109,395 $1.83 25,000 4.89236791 $6,563.69 $9.81
Exit signs 6.5 215 24 8760 12,242 $4.99 43,800 5 $734.53 $3.42
1,105,722 $66,343.33
233
The first application of high-pressure sodium bulbs was in the parking lots
outside of the hospital. These bulbs were GE LU400 and were 400 W bulbs.
There were a total of 55 parking lot lightbulbs on the grounds of the hospital.
These light fixtures were set on a timer and were on for a total of 14 hours per
day, every day of the year.
Similarly, the hospital used high-pressure sodium bulbs for the lighting
on top of and on the outside of the parking structure. These bulbs were in
clusters of four or two bulbs, depending on the location of the lighting fix-
ture. The bulbs were GE LU250 and consumed 250 W of electricity. There
were a total of 22 of these bulbs and they were left on 24 hours a day, every
day of the year.
The third and final application of the high-pressure sodium bulbs was
within the parking garage itself. These bulbs were GE LU100 and consumed
100 W of electricity. A total of 132 bulbs could be found within the parking
garage. Like the lighting on the outside of the parking garage, these lights
were left on 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
17.4 Lighting Recommendations
17.4.1 Lighting Sensors on the Exterior of the Parking Structure
Upon studying the lighting in the parking structure, the research team
determined that installing three light sensors on the exterior of the struc-
ture would reduce the energy consumption of the GE LU250 high-pressure
sodium light bulbs located there. The current situation was that these lights
were left on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It was found that these bulbs
could be set to a light sensor to reduce the unnecessary electrical consump-
tion during the daytime. The appropriate light sensors were found to cost
$57 per unit and would take several hours to install each one (Energy Star
2011). There were some concerns with this recommendation, as turning these
bulbs on and off each night could reduce the life of the bulbs. The economic
analysis in the next section shows that the reduced cost of electricity offsets
the shorter life of the bulbs.
17.4.2 LED Tube Retrofits for the F40T12 Bulbs

The F40T12 bulbs were used primarily in the second-floor hallways and
patient rooms. An LED retrofit was found that would save the hospital a
considerable amount of electricity but a marginal amount of money. At the
current energy prices, this retrofit will break even over the life of the bulbs.
There are a number of factors that could push the overall costs in favor of
the LED option. If energy prices rise at all over the next five years, the LED
Energy Analysis and Minimization in Health Care 235
bulbs will see a substantial savings over the current fluorescent bulbs. In
addition, the hospital may be eligible for government rebates for purchasing
extremely low-wattage lighting that contains no mercury.
17.4.3 LED Retrofits for Exit Signs

The data analysis of the exit signs of the hospital revealed that replacing the
exit signs with low-wattage LED lights would see a substantial savings over
the life of the bulbs. The research team did not take a total inventory of all
of the exit signs within the facility, so the quantity of exit signs is merely a
rough estimate of the total number.
17.5 Economic Analysis of Lighting Recommendations

In order to compare the total costs of the existing system versus the total
costs of any proposed improvements, present worth calculations were
made. The generalized equation for calculating the present worth is
shown here:
C0 C1 C2 Cn
PW = + + + +
(1 + r )0 (1 + r )1 (1 + r )2 ( 1 + r )n
where:
n = the number of periods of time the study is being performed on
C0 = initial cost of the equipment and any costs associated with installing
the equipment
Cn = the cost associated with the period of time
r = the discount rate (the rate of return on an investment in financial
markets with similar risk)
When the research team was conducting the on-site data collection, it
was determined that the hospital had arranged a contract with the utility
company that provided the electricity at a cost of $0.06 per kWh. This is
much lower than the commercial average for Ohio of $0.1016 per kWh, but
higher than the industrial average for Ohio of $0.0581 per kWh. The rate of
$0.06 per kWh was used for all the economic calculations in this research.
Table 17.2 displays the recommendations and analysis for LU250 lights.
The NPW calculation for this type of lighting used a life span of 18 years.
Eighteen years was used because it is the lowest common denominator for
the life spans of the three options: 3 years for the present situation (rounded
up from 2.74), 4.5 years for the light sensors (rounded up from 4.31), and
6 years for the LED spotlights (rounded up from 5.71). The NPW calculation
clearly shows that option 1 would be the most financially beneficial option
TABLE 17.2
Analysis and Comparison for the LU250 Lights
Option 1: Option 2:
Light Sensors (3) LED Spotlights
GE
Model LU250 SMS500 111111U SP
Qty 22 22 22
Watts 250 250 18
Hours per day 24 14 24
Hours per year 8,760 5,110 8,760
kWh per year 48,180 28,105 3,469
Initial cost per unit $12.45 $12.45 $577.00
Initial cost $273.90 $444.90 $12,694.00
Labor cost $330.00 $480.00 $660.00
Life (hours) 24,000 22,000 50,000
Life (years) 2.74 4.31 5.71
Energy cost $0.06 $0.06 $0.06
Annual cost $2,890.80 $1,686.30 $208.14
NPW $27,831.45 $17,847.68 $28,006.81
MARR 0.08 0.08 0.08
for the hospital, as the NPW of the costs is much lower than either the exist-
ing situation or installing LED spotlights. Table 17.3 displays the recommen-
dations and analysis for the LU100 lights.
The results of the NPW calculations for this lighting fixture type yielded
results that show that the existing solution is the most financially sound
decision. The NPW calculations used 6 years, as the existing bulbs lasted for
2.74 years (rounded up to 3) and the LED spotlights lasted for 5.71 (rounded
up to 6). Table 17.4 displays the recommendations and comparison for the
LU400 lights.
While the research team was investigating the lighting that was found
in the parking lot of the hospital, no clear alternatives were discovered to
replace the existing situation. The lights were already on a light sensor and
turned off when the sun was not out. The lights were also far too bright to be
replaced with the LED lights that exist in the market today. At some point in
the near future, LED technology may exist to replace the parking lot lights at
this facility; however, as of the preparing of this study, no financially sound
technology exists. Table 17.5 displays the analysis and comparison for the
F40T12 lights.
The NPW analysis showed that either option would be approximately
equal financially over the course of 20 years. The research team recom-
mended that the LED lights be installed to lower the risk from price fluc-
tuations. If, for example, the price per kWh rises from $0.06 to $0.065, the
existing situation’s NPW would be $164,000 and the LED retrofits would
have an NPW of $162,000. Having the LED lights would reduce the effects of
TABLE 17.3
Analysis and Comparison for the LU100 Lights
Option 1:
LED Spotlights
Model GE LU100 111I SP
Qty 132 132
Watts 100 9
Hours per day 24 24
Hours per year 8,760 8,760
kWh per year 115,632 10,407
Initial cost per unit $11.72 $495.00
Initial cost $1,547.04 $65,340.00
Labor costs $1,980.00 $1,980.00
Life (hours) 24,000 50,000
Life (years) 2.74 5.71
Energy cost $0.06 $0.06
Annual cost $6,937.92 $624.41
NPW $38,192.69 $70,206.59
MARR 0.08 0.08
TABLE 17.4
Analysis and Comparison
for the LU400 Lights
Model GE LU400
Qty 55
Watts 250
Hours per day 14
Hours per year 5,110
kWh per year 70,263
Initial cost per unit $12.01
Initial cost $660.55
Labor cost $825.00
Life (hours) 24,000
Life (years) 4.70
Annual cost $4,215.75
NPW $29,779.60
MARR 0.08
sudden changes in energy prices. Table 17.6 displays the analysis and com-
parison for the F32T8 lights.
The results of this NPW calculation showed that the existing condition is
the one that is most financially sound. Both types of LED lights had too high
of an initial cost to offset the lower costs of energy. As mentioned earlier,
TABLE 17.5
Analysis and Comparison for the F40T12 Lights
Option 1:
LED Tube Retrofits
Model F40T12 LED-4FRX
Qty 1,136 1,136
Watts 40 15
Hours per day 14 14
kWh per year 23,2198 87,074
Initial cost per unit $2.51 $62.96
Initial cost $2,851.36 $71,522.56
Labor cost $2,840.00 $2,840.00
Life (hours) 20,000 50,000
Annual cost $13,931.90 $5,224.46
NPW $152,828.29 $157,549.95
MARR 0.08 0.08
TABLE 17.6
Analysis and Comparison for the F32T8 Lights
Option 1: Option 2:
LED Tube Retrofits LED Fixture Retrofit
Model F32T8 LED-4FRX V-LUXA
Qty 3,561 3,561 1,187
Watts 32 15 43
Hours per day 14 14 14
Hours per year 5,110 5,110 5,110
kW-h per year 582,295 272,951 260,820
Initial cost per unit $1.83 $62.96 $245.00
Initial cost $6,516.63 $224,200.56 $290,815.00
Labor cost $8,902.50 $8,902.50 $2,967.50
Life (hours) 24,000 50,000 50,000
Life (years) 4.70 9.78 9.78
Energy cost $0.06 $0.06 $0.06
Annual cost $34,937.68 $16,377.04 $15,649.17
NPW $259,570.50 $342,994.32 $398,789.71
MARR 0.08 0.08 0.08
TABLE 17.7
Options for Exit Signs
Option 1:
LED Retrofit
Model Existing Signs RFLED
Qty 215 215
Watts 6.5 1
Hours per day 24 24
kWh per year 12,242 1,883
Initial cost $4.50 $10.00
Initial cost $967.50 $2,150.00
Labor cost $537.50 $537.50
Life (hours) 43,800 43,800
Annual cost $734.53 $113.00
NPW $4,437.75 $3,138.69
MARR 0.08 0.08
until LED technology improves and costs are lowered, the hospital should
choose to retain the lighting they currently have installed. Table 17.7 displays
the comparison and analysis for the exit sign lights.
This analysis of the exit signs was conducted differently than other analy-
ses (Lory 2011). Due to the vast number of exit signs at the hospital facility
and the limited resources of the research lab, the research team chose to
estimate the number of exit signs in the facility instead of taking inventory
of every sign.
The NPW calculations determined that the LED retrofits for the exit signs
were the best financial solution. It is worth noting that there were several
models of exit signs at the hospital with different wattages. Most of the signs
were 6.5 W or 5.6 W. After performing additional calculations, it was found
that the recommendations hold true for all wattages greater than 3.6 W
(TheLEDLight 2011).
17.6 Environmental Impact
The research team also chose to complete an analysis of the environmental
impact of the proposed changes at the hospital. The team focused on two
main areas when completing this assessment. These two areas were pounds
of CO2 emissions and the milligrams of mercury that were saved from being
released into the environment.
In order to calculate the pounds of CO2 that were being released and the
amount that value was reduced by, the research team used data that were
available on the U.S. Department of Energy’s website. The team found a
2000 CO2 emissions report that was instrumental in the data analysis. It was
first determined what percentage of electricity was generated by each type
of energy generation source within the East North Central Division of the
United States. The results can be seen in Table 17.8.
The category “Other” in this table refers to hydroelectric power, nuclear
power, and other renewable-energy sources. The next step that the research
team took was to determine the amount in pounds of CO2 that were emit-
ted for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by each source. This was
also found in the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2000 report (U.S. Energy
Information Administration 2011). The results can be found in Table 17.9.
From the data found in the Tables 17.8 and 17.9, the research team calculated
a weighted average of the carbon emissions of the four types of energy gen-
eration. These calculations yielded a value of 1.834 pounds of CO2 released
into the atmosphere for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated in the
East North Central Division of the United States.
Additionally, the research team wanted to calculate the amount of mer-
cury that was saved from being released into the environment due to the
recommendations. According to a USEPA study, an average of 0.016 mg of
mercury is generated by power plants for each kilowatt-hour of energy pro-
duced. Knowing these two values, the research team was then able to calcu-
late the environmental impact of the recommendations made in this report
(ZeroMercury.org. 2011). The results can be found in Table 17.10.
Based on the previous table, it is clear that replacing the F40T12 bulbs will
have the greatest environmental impact due to reduced energy generation.
Additionally, the existing F40T12 bulbs contain an average of 7.2 mg of mer-
cury in them that need to be disposed of properly. Replacing those bulbs
TABLE 17.8
Percentage of Electricity Generated
by Types of Power
Coal Petroleum Gas Other
72.0% 0.7% 4.4% 22.9%
TABLE 17.9
Pounds of CO2 Emitted for Each
Kilowatt-Hour
Coal Petroleum Gas Other
2.061 2.759 1.63 1.131
TABLE 17.10
Environmental Savings
Kilowatt-Hours CO2 Emissions Mercury
Saved Reduction Reduction
Recommendation 1: LU250 20,075 36,817.55 321.20
Recommendation 2: F40T12 145,124 266,157.42 2,321.98
Recommendation 3: Exit Signs 10,359 18,997.86 165.74
Total 175,557.70 321,972.82 2,808.92
with LEDs, which contain no mercury, can yield a further reduction in mer-
cury of 2045 mg annually.
17.7 Other Areas for Energy Reduction

While the focus of the recommendations was improving the lighting within
the hospital, there were several areas of the hospital that could be improved
to reduce the total electricity usage. These areas include the HVAC system,
the insulation of the building, the possibility of alternative energy, the elec-
tronic equipment, and the water-heating equipment. While there are a num-
ber of specific items that a researcher could focus on within these areas, there
are two general rules that can be used for most systems.
The first guideline is to replace any outdated or obsolete equipment. As
equipment ages, it becomes less and less efficient. These inefficiencies can
create substantial wastes of energy and subsequently cost more for the hos-
pital. Examples of this type of inefficiency include ductwork that is not insu-
lated properly, window frames that do not create a solid seal, or electronic
equipment that does not meet current Energy Star ratings.
The second guideline for energy-saving recommendations is to change
practices that are creating waste. There are numerous opportunities within
hospitals to turn off systems when they are not in use. Examples of this
include having computers or printers enter hibernate mode when they are
not being used or turning down the temperature of water heaters during the
summer when warmer water is in lower demand.
While it is beyond the scope of this research to investigate these inefficien-
cies within the hospital, there are a number of tools that can be used to guide
researchers who are looking to perform that level of investigation. One resource
is a tool that is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The Industrial Technologies Program offers
a collection of free software that can aid in conducting energy assessments
and performing the data analysis. While this tool is designed for industrial
customers, the software can be easily adapted for health care facilities.
References
Carpenter, D. 2006. In Search of Efficiency. Health Facilities Management.
http://www.hfmmagazine.com/hfmmagazine_app/jsp/articledisplay.
jsp?dcrpath=HFMMAGAZINE/PubsNewsArticleGen/data/2 006June/
0606HFM_FEA_EnergySurvey&domain=HFMMAGAZINE.
Energy Star. 2011. Healthcare: An Overview of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency
Opportunities. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/challenge/learn_more/
Healthcare.pdf.
Lory, C. 2011. Purchasing for Pollution Prevention—Environmentally Preferable LED
Exit Signs: Saving Money and Protecting the Environment through Energy
Efficiency. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/26/25928.pdf.
TheLEDLight. 2011. 111U SP 10° Spotlight, http://www.theledlight.com/
spotlight_111U.html.
TheLEDLight. 111111U SP 10° Spotlight, http://www.theledlight.com/spotlight_111111U.
html.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Average Retail Price of Electricity to
Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State. http://www.eia.doe.gov/
electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. Electric Power Industry CO2 Emissions
and Generation Share by Fuel Type. http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/page/
co2_report/co2report.html#electric.
ZeroMercury.org. 2011. Data on Mercury Content of High-Pressure Sodium (HPS)
Lamps Available from Major US Manufacturers. Green Purchasing Institute.
http://www.zeromercury.org/EU_developments/AnnexIVMercury_inHPS_
LampsEU_Recs.pdf.
18
Energy Analysis in Minimization in
Construction and Manufacturing
18.1 Background
The organization studied is a privately owned company that was founded
in 1855 in California and provides manufacturing and support for the con-
struction field. The company presently has four manufacturing centers and
three service centers within the United States.
The company manufactures a complete range of products for the construc-
tion field. They provide their products to industrial and commercial compa-
nies from a range of industries.
18.2 Methodology
The objectives of this project were to define the energy consumption of the
company, and to identify economically feasible options for energy reduction.
During our site visits from August through December of 2009, an energy
assessment was conducted and energy consumption data was obtained. The
energy assessment consisted of a comprehensive examination of current
lighting fixtures and appliances in the manufacturing, warehouse, and office
areas. Energy minimization options for the major areas of energy consump-
tion were researched, with an emphasis placed on energy reduction and eco-
nomic feasibility. The remainder of this report contains the data summary in
addition to options and recommendations that were determined to be most
beneficial to the company and to the environment.
243
18.3 Data Analysis
18.3.1 Machine Shop
Throughout the machine shop the major energy consumer identified was the
high bay lighting fixtures. Existing lighting is provided by 155 400 W high-
intensity discharge lights running on 277 V. The current energy consump-
tion by these lights is displayed in Table 18.1.
18.3.2 Warehouse
Similarly, throughout the warehouse the major energy consumer identified
was the high bay lighting fixtures. Existing lighting is provided by sixty-
six 400 W high-pressure sodium lights running on 277 V. These lights are
producing an orange glow throughout the warehouse. The current energy
consumption by these lights is displayed in Table 18.2.
18.3.3 Office
In the office area there were various forms of power consumption, mostly
from office equipment but once again lighting was identified as the major
TABLE 18.1
Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Area
Energy Consumption
Cost
Time Period Per Unit Area (Area)
Hourly 0.4 kWh 62 kWh $4.96
Daily 3.4 kWh 527 kWh $42.16
Weekly 17 kWh 2,635 kWh $210.80
Monthly 68 kWh 10,540 kWh $843.20
Yearly 850 kWh 131,750 kWh $10,540.00
TABLE 18.2
Energy Consumption in the Warehouse
Energy Consumption
Cost
Hourly 0.4 kWh 26.4 kWh $2.11
Daily 3.4 kWh 224.4 kWh $17.95
Weekly 17 kWh 1,122 kWh $89.76
Monthly 68 kWh 4,488 kWh $359.04
Yearly 850 kWh 56,100 kWh $4,488.00
Energy Analysis in Minimization in Construction and Manufacturing 245
TABLE 18.3
Energy Consumption in the Office Area
Current Usage
Energy Consumption
Cost
Hourly 0.11 kWh 13.13 kWh $1.05
Daily 1.17 kWh 144.43 kWh $11.55
Weekly 5 kWh 722.15 kWh $57.77
Monthly 23 kWh 2,888.60 kWh $231.09
Yearly 291 kWh 36,107.50 kWh $2,888.60
energy consumer that can be reduced. The existing lighting in the office
areas are T-8 and T-12 lighting. The costs to operate these lights are illus-
trated in Table 18.3.
18.4 Cost-Saving Opportunities
18.4.1 The Machine Shop
The existing lighting units currently being operated within the machine shop
are consuming a great deal of energy, which can be reduced by switching the
bulbs to a different type of bulb with a higher efficiency. The present bulb in
use is an incandescent light operating at 400 W. Consumption can be reduced
by replacing these lights with CFL. By switching to this type of lighting, the
lights will then be using 20% of the previous power consumption. With only
using 20% of the power, the new bulbs will effectively have a return invest-
ment of approximately 142% and a payback period of approximately eight
and one-half months. The costs after replacement are illustrated in Table 18.4.
TABLE 18.4
Light Replacement Analysis in the Machine Shop
Machine Shop Lighting (w/replacement)
Energy Consumption
Cost
Daily 0.68 kWh 105.4 kWh $8.43
Weekly 3.4 kWh 527 kWh $42.16
Monthly 13.6 kWh 2,108 kWh $168.64
Yearly 170 kWh 26,350 kWh $2,108.00
TABLE 18.5
Light Replacement Analysis in the Warehouse
Warehouse Lighting (w/replacement)
Energy Consumption
Cost
Daily 0.68 kWh 44.88 kWh $3.59
Weekly 3.4 kWh 224.4 kWh $17.95
Monthly 13.6 kWh 897.6 kWh $71.81
Yearly 170 kWh 11,220 kWh $897.60
18.4.2 Warehouse
The existing lighting units currently being operated within the warehouse
are consuming a great deal of energy which can be reduced by switching
from high pressure sodium bulbs once again to once again CFL. By switch-
ing to this type of lighting, the warehouse will experience similar cost sav-
ings to that of the machine shop; however, the warehouse will also have the
added benefit of receiving a lighting temperature from the replacement bulbs
that resembles natural light, unlike the coloration of the current lighting. The
cost to operate these lights after replacement is illustrated in Table 18.5.
18.4.3 Office Area
Throughout the office area, the recommendation is to switch the lights over
to a different type of fluorescent bulb. The current bulbs being used are T8
and T12 lighting. After research, it was determined that T5 bulbs will have
higher efficiency and also bring in a higher light temperature similar to
the warehouse replacement. The T12 bulbs are currently consuming more
energy; therefore, when replacement occurs they should be replaced prior to
replacing the T8 bulbs. The cost to operate these lights after replacement is
illustrated in Table 18.6.
18.4.4 Other Areas
When it comes to replacing appliances, this can be a very expensive energy
reduction. It is very difficult to calculate the reduction due to not all appli-
ances using the same amount of energy. When replacing appliances, find-
ing the most energy-efficient model that meets the facility’s requirements is
essential in energy reduction. The miscellaneous exit signs located through-
out the facility are not energy efficient; however, the energy used is very
Energy Analysis in Minimization in Construction and Manufacturing 247
TABLE 18.6
Light Replacement Analysis in the Office Area
Usage after Replacement
Energy Consumption
Cost
Hourly 0.08 kWh 10.14 kWh $0.81
Daily 0.92 kWh 111.50 kWh $8.92
Weekly 4.62 kWh 557.48 kWh $44.60
Monthly 18.48 kWh 2,229.92 kWh $178.39
Yearly 231 kWh 27,874 kWh $2,229.92
minimal. It should be noted that when adding or replacing these signs, a

newer, more energy-efficient model like the LED models available today
should be considered.
18.5 Recommendations and Summary

Implementing the recommendations for the machine shop, the warehouse,
and the office areas will yield a significant reduction in energy. In terms
of annual cost savings, excluding the initial upgrade costs, routine mainte-
nance costs, and costs of implementation, Bunting Bearings is looking at a
cost savings of approximately $12,700 per year. A breakdown of these energy
and cost savings is displayed in Table 18.7. A graph illustrating the reduced
yearly power consumption is shown in Figure 18.1.
TABLE 18.7
Cost and Energy Savings Summary
Machine Shop Warehouse Office
Power consumption (current) 131,750 kWh 56,100 kWh 36,107.5 kWh
Power consumption (after replacement) 26,350 kWh 11,220 kWh 27,874.00 kWh
Cost to operate (current) $10,540.00 $4,488.00 $2,888.60
Cost to operate (after replacement) $2,108.00 $897.60 $2,229.92
Yearly energy cost savings $8,432.00 $3,590.40 $658.68
Replacement cost (hard costs only) $5,942.70 $2,530.44 $742.35
Total cost savings (one year) $2,489.30 $1,059.96 –($ 83.67)
140,000 Kwh
120,000 Kwh
100,000 Kwh
80,000 Kwh
60,000 Kwh
40,000 Kwh
20,000 Kwh
0 Kwh
Machine Shop Warehouse Office
Usage After Replacement Current Usage
FIGURE 18.1
Reduced power consumption comparison.
Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering
CARBON FOOTPRINT
ANALYSIS
Concepts, Methods,
“… the first comprehensive engineering and technically based treatment of all the
associated issues in one book … will have a wide appeal not only among students and
teachers, but also among technocrats, industrialists, researchers, and government policy
makers … written by authors who are technically competent in the field and they combine
theory and practice in presenting a case for carbon footprint reduction.”
—Adedeji B. Badiru, Air Force Institute of Technology, Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
“Carbon emissions represent a major environmental impact of any institution … This

book provides practical guidance for the calculation of an institution’s carbon footprint,
and will be of use to a wide audience.”
—Jeffrey D. Corbin, Union College, Schenectady, New York, USA
The negative impacts of carbon emissions from human activities continue to dramatically
reshape the environmental, political, and social landscape. These impacts coupled with
cap and trade schemes iterate the importance and need to properly measure and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation,
and Case Studies provides up-to-date technical information and practical guidance on
measuring and reducing energy and GHG emissions. Presenting a comprehensive framework
for carbon management, this book:
• Provides definitions, concepts, benefits, and background information regarding carbon
footprint analyses
• Discusses the GHG accounting methods
• Outlines the general systems framework for conducting an audit
• Features four case studies in higher education, service, and manufacturing organizations
The book includes detailed discussions of the concepts and explains how the different
concepts fit together. It supplies the necessary background as well as systematic tools and
procedures for organizations to measure and reduce their carbon footprints and begin to
adapt to a carbon-constrained world.
K12696
6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW

Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487
711 Third Avenue
an informa business New York, NY 10017
2 Park Square, Milton Park
Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, UK

Carbon Footprint Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Footprint Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARBON

Matthew John Franchetti

Matthew John Franchetti

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

© 2013 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-5784-7 (eBook - PDF)

and the CRC Press Web site at

Section I Why Carbon Footprint Analysis

1 Definitions of Carbon Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts........3

2 Benefits of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction and

3 Environmental Laws and Regulations...................................................... 33

Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods

4 Standards for Carbon Footprint Analysis................................................ 39

6 Metrics and Performance Measurement for Carbon Footprint

7 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators Available on the Internet.... 75

7.8 The U.S. Department of Energy—Home Energy Saver.................. 79

8 Carbon Footprints of Some Entities.......................................................... 81

Section III Systems Approach to Project Implementation

9 Introduction: The System Approach to Carbon Footprint and

10 The Six Sigma Systems Approach for Deployment............................... 93

11 Deployment Alternatives........................................................................... 105

12 Creating a Successful Project Launch..................................................... 111

13 The General Approach to Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analyses.... 123

13.2.1 Upper-­Management Support.............................................. 126

14 Employee Training...................................................................................... 189

Section IV Case Studies

16 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Manufacturing...................... 219

17 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Health Care............................ 231

17.5 Economic Analysis of Lighting Recommendations...................... 235

18 Energy Analysis in Minimization in Construction and

The negative impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human

• Section I provides definitions, concepts, benefits, and background

Some sections of the book have detailed discussions on the concepts,

Matt Franchetti and Defne Apul

Matthew Franchetti would like to thank the Lucas County Board of

Dr. Matthew Franchetti is an assistant professor of Mechanical, Industrial,

Dr. Defne Apul is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at the

Why Carbon Footprint

Climate change is often linked to and discussed in the context of energy

20 companies and has achieved demonstrated environmental and economic

• Identify important sources of emissions and prioritize areas of emis-

1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis

should also be included in a carbon footprint analysis to determine the “net”

• Researching the company’s process and overall energy and GHG

1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change

Report (FAR), Second Assessment Report (SAR), Third Assessment Report

1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon

(e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) or end-­point level (e.g.,

result in “shifting of burdens.” In other words, for a given product, ser-

1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints

expressed in terms of the quantity of water, carbon, energy, or nitrogen, the

these problems. Although ecological footprint is not a direct measure of bio-

• Increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or

Davidson et al. (2007) made an interesting observation in placing pollution

1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line

either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on

In practical terms, TBL accounting means expanding the traditional report-

“sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process

1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust,

The Natural Step process also supports the importance of economic,

GHG: greenhouse gas

Section I Why Carbon Footprint Analysis

Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods

Section III Systems Approach to Project Implementation

13.2.1 Upper-Management Support.............................................. 126

Section IV Case Studies

1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis

1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change

1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon

(e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) or end-point level (e.g.,

1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints

1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line

the snailborne disease schistosomiasis occurs (World Health Organization

2.4 Corporate Image Benefits

2.5 Personal and Social Benefits

3.2 The U.S. Clean Air Act

3.3 The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

3.4 Energy Policy Act of 2005

3.5 American Clean Energy and Security Act

3.6 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule

4.4 Iterative Carbon Management Steps

5.2 GHG Protocol Overview

Sector-specific spreadsheet models include:

USEPA industry–government partnership that works with companies to

5.3 The GHG Protocol’s Overarching Principles

5.6 Organizational Boundary Setting

5.7 Operational Boundary Setting

5.8 Temporal Boundary Setting

6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Measurement

6.2.2 Measures Indexed to Output

6.2.3 Measures Indexed to Input

• Raw-material data and employee numbers are easily available.

6.2.4 Measures Indexed to Throughput

6.2.5 Measures Indexed to Activity

6.3 Business and Financial Measurement