I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the following years:

2005:  .489
2006:  .456
2007:  .636
2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in 2007 generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our entire footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an 8% increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion factor from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was not as much hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had to rely on increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in coal generation. If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.
http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather and how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off, even if you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other renewable projects are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it puts us outside of these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.
Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Hi Jill,

Thanks for sending this out. Other than this being disheartening, I have
a couple questions and a point of clarification.

1.      Are the coefficients you provided below for CO2 or CO2-e? From
my research on coefficients in the past, it appears that the numbers you
provided below are CO2 only, which is not consistent with the
inventories that many cities just completed with ICLEI. In principle we
should be using a CO2e coefficient.
2.      Are the coefficients you provided below for California-wide PG&E
electricity, or for Bay Area PG&E electricity? There's a pretty big
difference.

So, if I have my facts correct, I would caution folks about using these
numbers "as gospel" if they're not for CO2e. That said, on the bigger
picture level, whether it's these numbers or others, your overall
comment about a sizeable change from 2006 to 2007 is appreciated.

Fwiw, from working with PG&E and ICLEI over the last couple years I've
been using the following coefficients, which are mostly slightly
different than yours.

2005

CO2: 0.489155 (from PG&E)

CO2e: 0.492859 (from PG&E, and used by ICLEI for Community-wide GHG
inventory)

CO2e: 0.493835 (used by ICLEI for Government Operations GHG inventory)

2006

CO2: 0.459

CO2e: <I haven't been able to get this yet from PG&E)

Regards,

Steve

________________________________

From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com
[mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is
important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE
territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the
following years:

2005:  .489

2006:  .456

2007:  .636

2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in
2007 generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our
entire footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an
8% increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion
factor from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was
not as much hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had
to rely on increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in
coal generation. If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and
look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the
amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in
2008.

http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so
hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet
reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather
and how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off,
even if you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other
renewable projects are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it
puts us outside of these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.

Jill

Jill Boone

Climate Change & Sustainability Manager

Santa Clara County

408-299-5164

jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Good questions Steve. It is the CO2 conversion number, not all GHG, although these are pretty close, I believe.

I am attaching the reference key from PGE - this came from their GHG data person, John Bohman, and you can email them directly at ghgdatareque...@pge.com<mailto:ghgdatareque...@pge.com> if you want to follow up with questions. Please share what you find out!

Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: Attinger, Steve [mailto:Steve.Attin...@mountainview.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Boone, Jill; Climate List
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Hi Jill,

Thanks for sending this out. Other than this being disheartening, I have a couple questions and a point of clarification.

 1.  Are the coefficients you provided below for CO2 or CO2-e? From my research on coefficients in the past, it appears that the numbers you provided below are CO2 only, which is not consistent with the inventories that many cities just completed with ICLEI. In principle we should be using a CO2e coefficient.
 2.  Are the coefficients you provided below for California-wide PG&E electricity, or for Bay Area PG&E electricity? There's a pretty big difference.

So, if I have my facts correct, I would caution folks about using these numbers "as gospel" if they're not for CO2e. That said, on the bigger picture level, whether it's these numbers or others, your overall comment about a sizeable change from 2006 to 2007 is appreciated.

Fwiw, from working with PG&E and ICLEI over the last couple years I've been using the following coefficients, which are mostly slightly different than yours.

2005
CO2: 0.489155 (from PG&E)
CO2e: 0.492859 (from PG&E, and used by ICLEI for Community-wide GHG inventory)
CO2e: 0.493835 (used by ICLEI for Government Operations GHG inventory)

2006
CO2: 0.459
CO2e: <I haven't been able to get this yet from PG&E)

Regards,
Steve

________________________________
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the following years:

2005:  .489
2006:  .456
2007:  .636
2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in 2007 generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our entire footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an 8% increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion factor from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was not as much hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had to rely on increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in coal generation. If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.
http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather and how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off, even if you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other renewable projects are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it puts us outside of these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.
Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

GHG data REFERENCE KEY v6.doc 60K Download

Thanks Jill,

On a similar note, has anyone determined the appropriate values for vehicle
fuels as the low carbon fuel standard is phased in?

Best,

Sam

Sam Pierce, PE, LEED AP, MArch.

Principal

TEAA

707-542-3171 office

707-328-0522cell

707-324-8222 fax

1400 N. Dutton Ave. Unit #17

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

"Well done is better than well said." - Ben Franklin

  _____  

From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com
[mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] Re: PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Good questions Steve. It is the CO2 conversion number, not all GHG, although
these are pretty close, I believe.

I am attaching the reference key from PGE - this came from their GHG data
person, John Bohman, and you can email them directly at
ghgdatareque...@pge.com if you want to follow up with questions. Please
share what you find out!

Jill

Jill Boone

Climate Change & Sustainability Manager

Santa Clara County

408-299-5164

jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

From: Attinger, Steve [mailto:Steve.Attin...@mountainview.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Boone, Jill; Climate List
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Hi Jill,

Thanks for sending this out. Other than this being disheartening, I have a
couple questions and a point of clarification.

1.      Are the coefficients you provided below for CO2 or CO2-e? From my
research on coefficients in the past, it appears that the numbers you
provided below are CO2 only, which is not consistent with the inventories
that many cities just completed with ICLEI. In principle we should be using
a CO2e coefficient.
2.      Are the coefficients you provided below for California-wide PG&E
electricity, or for Bay Area PG&E electricity? There's a pretty big
difference.

So, if I have my facts correct, I would caution folks about using these
numbers "as gospel" if they're not for CO2e. That said, on the bigger
picture level, whether it's these numbers or others, your overall comment
about a sizeable change from 2006 to 2007 is appreciated.

Fwiw, from working with PG&E and ICLEI over the last couple years I've been
using the following coefficients, which are mostly slightly different than
yours.

2005

CO2: 0.489155 (from PG&E)

CO2e: 0.492859 (from PG&E, and used by ICLEI for Community-wide GHG
inventory)

CO2e: 0.493835 (used by ICLEI for Government Operations GHG inventory)

2006

CO2: 0.459

CO2e: <I haven't been able to get this yet from PG&E)

Regards,

Steve

  _____  

From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com
[mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is
important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE
territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the
following years:

2005:  .489

2006:  .456

2007:  .636

2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in 2007
generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our entire
footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an 8%
increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion factor
from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was not as much
hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had to rely on
increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in coal generation.
If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their
energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the amount of electricity
coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.

http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so
hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet
reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather and
how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off, even if
you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other renewable projects
are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it puts us outside of
these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.

Jill

Jill Boone

Climate Change & Sustainability Manager

Santa Clara County

408-299-5164

jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Steve - can you explain why there are different numbers for community-scale footprints and government operations?  Both are for 2005 CO2(e). I'm trying to make sense of why there would be two numbers....

Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] Re: PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Good questions Steve. It is the CO2 conversion number, not all GHG, although these are pretty close, I believe.

I am attaching the reference key from PGE - this came from their GHG data person, John Bohman, and you can email them directly at ghgdatareque...@pge.com<mailto:ghgdatareque...@pge.com> if you want to follow up with questions. Please share what you find out!

Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: Attinger, Steve [mailto:Steve.Attin...@mountainview.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Boone, Jill; Climate List
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Hi Jill,

Thanks for sending this out. Other than this being disheartening, I have a couple questions and a point of clarification.

 1.  Are the coefficients you provided below for CO2 or CO2-e? From my research on coefficients in the past, it appears that the numbers you provided below are CO2 only, which is not consistent with the inventories that many cities just completed with ICLEI. In principle we should be using a CO2e coefficient.
 2.  Are the coefficients you provided below for California-wide PG&E electricity, or for Bay Area PG&E electricity? There's a pretty big difference.

So, if I have my facts correct, I would caution folks about using these numbers "as gospel" if they're not for CO2e. That said, on the bigger picture level, whether it's these numbers or others, your overall comment about a sizeable change from 2006 to 2007 is appreciated.

Fwiw, from working with PG&E and ICLEI over the last couple years I've been using the following coefficients, which are mostly slightly different than yours.

2005
CO2: 0.489155 (from PG&E)
CO2e: 0.492859 (from PG&E, and used by ICLEI for Community-wide GHG inventory)
CO2e: 0.493835 (used by ICLEI for Government Operations GHG inventory)

2006
CO2: 0.459
CO2e: <I haven't been able to get this yet from PG&E)

Regards,
Steve

________________________________
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the following years:

2005:  .489
2006:  .456
2007:  .636
2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in 2007 generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our entire footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an 8% increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion factor from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was not as much hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had to rely on increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in coal generation. If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.
http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather and how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off, even if you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other renewable projects are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it puts us outside of these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.
Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Wow. Good question. Keep us filled in!

A couple of years ago I did a "simple footprint" document on how to do an inventory. I think we need something like this that is updated with all the new info. The whole idea of using the CO2(e) coefficient rather than CO2 and new values for low carbon fuel...  and the state protocol. How can we make this more simple?

One of the things I am working on is how to have data and calculations available within a time frame that makes sense. Having just finished the 2005 baseline and doing a quick analysis of changes from 2005 to 2008, I was surprised to see some of the changes. And that is when I discovered the PGE changes. I want to be able to track, shortly after the end of the fiscal year, how we are doing at reaching our reduction goals. We have some great infrastructure going in - that will allow me to track and get electricity and natural gas usage easily for all our facilities - and water. And we are also implementing something that will give more accurate and accessible data on fleet. So, I feel like our data collection will be set.

Anyone else thinking about these issues - how to track on an annual basis with ease and immediacy?

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: Sam Pierce [mailto:s2pie...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:24 PM
To: Boone, Jill; 'Climate List'
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] Re: PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Thanks Jill,
On a similar note, has anyone determined the appropriate values for vehicle fuels as the low carbon fuel standard is phased in?
Best,
Sam

Sam Pierce, PE, LEED AP, MArch.

Principal

TEAA

707-542-3171 office
707-328-0522cell
707-324-8222 fax
1400 N. Dutton Ave. Unit #17
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

"Well done is better than well said." - Ben Franklin

________________________________
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] Re: PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Good questions Steve. It is the CO2 conversion number, not all GHG, although these are pretty close, I believe.

I am attaching the reference key from PGE - this came from their GHG data person, John Bohman, and you can email them directly at ghgdatareque...@pge.com<mailto:ghgdatareque...@pge.com> if you want to follow up with questions. Please share what you find out!

Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: Attinger, Steve [mailto:Steve.Attin...@mountainview.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Boone, Jill; Climate List
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Hi Jill,

Thanks for sending this out. Other than this being disheartening, I have a couple questions and a point of clarification.

 1.  Are the coefficients you provided below for CO2 or CO2-e? From my research on coefficients in the past, it appears that the numbers you provided below are CO2 only, which is not consistent with the inventories that many cities just completed with ICLEI. In principle we should be using a CO2e coefficient.
 2.  Are the coefficients you provided below for California-wide PG&E electricity, or for Bay Area PG&E electricity? There's a pretty big difference.

So, if I have my facts correct, I would caution folks about using these numbers "as gospel" if they're not for CO2e. That said, on the bigger picture level, whether it's these numbers or others, your overall comment about a sizeable change from 2006 to 2007 is appreciated.

Fwiw, from working with PG&E and ICLEI over the last couple years I've been using the following coefficients, which are mostly slightly different than yours.

2005
CO2: 0.489155 (from PG&E)
CO2e: 0.492859 (from PG&E, and used by ICLEI for Community-wide GHG inventory)
CO2e: 0.493835 (used by ICLEI for Government Operations GHG inventory)

2006
CO2: 0.459
CO2e: <I haven't been able to get this yet from PG&E)

Regards,
Steve

________________________________
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the following years:

2005:  .489
2006:  .456
2007:  .636
2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in 2007 generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our entire footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an 8% increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion factor from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was not as much hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had to rely on increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in coal generation. If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.
http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather and how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off, even if you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other renewable projects are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it puts us outside of these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.
Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Jill:

I'm interested in understanding more about the "great infrastructure" you refer to, as well as the "something" that you are implementing that will give you data on your fleet.  It sounds like these are both for municipal operations only, and not community-wide???

Thanks.

Amy

Wow. Good question. Keep us filled in!

A couple of years ago I did a "simple footprint" document on how to do an inventory. I think we need something like this that is updated with all the new info. The whole idea of using the CO2(e) coefficient rather than CO2 and new values for low carbon fuel...  and the state protocol. How can we make this more simple?

One of the things I am working on is how to have data and calculations available within a time frame that makes sense. Having just finished the 2005 baseline and doing a quick analysis of changes from 2005 to 2008, I was surprised to see some of the changes. And that is when I discovered the PGE changes. I want to be able to track, shortly after the end of the fiscal year, how we are doing at reaching our reduction goals. We have some great infrastructure going in - that will allow me to track and get electricity and natural gas usage easily for all our facilities - and water. And we are also implementing something that will give more accurate and accessible data on fleet. So, I feel like our data collection will be set.

Anyone else thinking about these issues - how to track on an annual basis with ease and immediacy?

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: Sam Pierce [mailto:s2pie...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:24 PM
To: Boone, Jill; 'Climate List'
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] Re: PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Thanks Jill,
On a similar note, has anyone determined the appropriate values for vehicle fuels as the low carbon fuel standard is phased in?
Best,
Sam

Sam Pierce, PE, LEED AP, MArch.

Principal

TEAA

707-542-3171 office
707-328-0522cell
707-324-8222 fax
1400 N. Dutton Ave. Unit #17
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

"Well done is better than well said." - Ben Franklin

________________________________
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] Re: PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Good questions Steve. It is the CO2 conversion number, not all GHG, although these are pretty close, I believe.

I am attaching the reference key from PGE - this came from their GHG data person, John Bohman, and you can email them directly at ghgdatareque...@pge.com<mailto:ghgdatareque...@pge.com> if you want to follow up with questions. Please share what you find out!

Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org
From: Attinger, Steve [mailto:Steve.Attin...@mountainview.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Boone, Jill; Climate List
Subject: RE: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

Hi Jill,

Thanks for sending this out. Other than this being disheartening, I have a couple questions and a point of clarification.

 1.  Are the coefficients you provided below for CO2 or CO2-e? From my research on coefficients in the past, it appears that the numbers you provided below are CO2 only, which is not consistent with the inventories that many cities just completed with ICLEI. In principle we should be using a CO2e coefficient.
 2.  Are the coefficients you provided below for California-wide PG&E electricity, or for Bay Area PG&E electricity? There's a pretty big difference.

So, if I have my facts correct, I would caution folks about using these numbers "as gospel" if they're not for CO2e. That said, on the bigger picture level, whether it's these numbers or others, your overall comment about a sizeable change from 2006 to 2007 is appreciated.

Fwiw, from working with PG&E and ICLEI over the last couple years I've been using the following coefficients, which are mostly slightly different than yours.

2005
CO2: 0.489155 (from PG&E)
CO2e: 0.492859 (from PG&E, and used by ICLEI for Community-wide GHG inventory)
CO2e: 0.493835 (used by ICLEI for Government Operations GHG inventory)

2006
CO2: 0.459
CO2e: <I haven't been able to get this yet from PG&E)

Regards,
Steve

________________________________
From: climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatesharing4gov@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Boone, Jill
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Climate List
Subject: [ClimateSharing4Gov] PGE mix for 2007 and 2008

I may have posted this earlier. If so, forgive the duplication!

If you are enmeshed in creating a plan based on a 2005 baseline, it is important for you to know the following information (if you are in PGE territory).

The PGE factor for converting electricity (kWh) to pounds of GHG for the following years:

2005:  .489
2006:  .456
2007:  .636
2008:  not yet available.

From 2005 to 2007 is a 30% increase!!! This means that a kWh used in 2007 generates 30% more GHG than a kWh used in 2005.

This affected our overall footprint. Using 2007 factors for 2008, our entire footprint went from having a 1% decrease from 2005 to 2008 to an 8% increase!

The explanation from PGE regarding the increase in their conversion factor from 2006 to 2007 is that 2007 was a hot, dry year and there was not as much hydro-electricity generated as normal. Therefore, they had to rely on increased natural gas generation and a slight increase in coal generation. If you read their Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty as the amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.
http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/

The amount of clean energy has also gone up between 2007 and 2008, so hopefully that will balance out the additional coal.

Still, the point I am making is that if you are sincerely trying to meet reduction targets, electricity is a big wild card. Changes in weather and how PGE has to purchase electricity can throw your numbers way off, even if you are becoming more efficient. Truly, solar and other renewable projects are key steps to take to reach real reductions as it puts us outside of these fluctuations.

Just my two cents for the day.
Jill

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Jill,
We've modified our calculator to provide information required by the 2008
LGOP (by Scope and gas) rather than CO2e.  I understand this level of
reporting will be required as we move forward.  I would imagine most folks
will be implementing a similar data framework for both community and
municipal.  Your thoughts?

Sam Pierce, PE, LEED AP, MArch.
Principal
TEAA

707-542-3171 office
707-328-0522cell
707-324-8222 fax
1400 N. Dutton Ave. Unit #17
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

"Well done is better than well said." - Ben Franklin

My thoughts are that the LGOP are not mandated, so I am not sure how you mean that this level of reporting will be required. Do you think that we will be required to report? Perhaps on your waste water plant but in general - govt operations or community reporting?

I am of the thought that these protocols have become so complex that we have left many jurisdictions behind in the implementation. A system which requires a city to hire a consultant is not a system that works well enough to get all cities on board. I'd rather see it be more simple and have folks take action.

Case in point - when I was consulting, I did the inventory and plans for the City of San Mateo and they are now leading their county with their actions...  and the inventory would not cut the mustard by today's standards.

There is a difference between (1) getting information to make informed policy decisions; doing what we can do to make a difference; understanding our impacts and (2) regulatory compliance and making sure there is no double-counting; robust inventories that are fully accurate and capture all GHG; comparing city to city.

I am all for (1)!!! I want to know enough to take action and I want to know it quickly enough that we are not 4 years down the road before we can make a correction...

Jill Boone
Climate Change & Sustainability Manager
Santa Clara County

408-299-5164
jill.bo...@ceo.sccgov.org

Jill,
You make good points and we are in agreement on the need for action, and the
need to provide tools to facilitate the process.  Whether it is in-house or
by consultant is a value proposition as is every other municipal initiative.
As for the LGOP, it's actually quite clear in terms of requirements and
procedure.  The required modifications to the calculator to address both
implementation and reporting were quite manageable.  Like it or not, that
last piece will have to be addressed, particularly with the AG breathing
down everyone's neck.  Thanks for this dialogue.  It's quite helpful.
Cheers,
Sam

Sam Pierce, PE, LEED AP, MArch.
Principal
TEAA

707-542-3171 office
707-328-0522cell
707-324-8222 fax
1400 N. Dutton Ave. Unit #17
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

"Well done is better than well said." - Ben Franklin

...

read more »