eastern pima county • city of tucson • pima county ... · pdf file• pima county...
TRANSCRIPT
November 2008
• Eastern Pima County
• City of Tucson
• Pima County Government Operations
• City of Tucson Government Operations
i
PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
REGIONAL COUNCIL
Chair
Ramon Valadez
Supervisor Pima County
Vice Chair
Lynne Skelton
Mayor Town of Sahuarita
Treasurer
Ned Norris Jr. Chairman
Tohono O’odham Nation
Member
Peter Yucupicio
Chair Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Member
Paul Loomis
Mayor Town of Oro Valley
Member
Jennifer Eckstrom
Mayor City of South Tucson
Member
Robert Walkup
Mayor City of Tucson
Member
Ed Honea Mayor
Town of Marana
Member
S. L. Schorr
Arizona State Transportation Board
Representative
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Rakesh Tripathi, Arizona Department of Transportation, Tucson Planning Division Enrique Serna, Manager, City of South Tucson
Arcadio Gastellum, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Richard Miranda, Assistant Manager, City of Tucson Charles Huckelberry, Administrator, Pima County
Gilbert Davidson, Manager, Town of Marana James Stahle, Manager, Town of Sahuarita
Fred Stevens, Project Specialist, Tohono O’odham Nation David Andrews, Manager, Town of Oro Valley
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Gary G. Hayes
Environmental Planning Coordinator
Dennis Dickerson
Air Quality Planning Staff:
Air Quality Planning Manager
Lee Comrie
Air Quality Planner
Susanne Cotty
November 2008
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................. v 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................1 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................2 3. Project Objectives .........................................................................................................................................................3 5. Location-Specific Methodology and Preliminary Results................................................................................7
A. Eastern Pima County...............................................................................................................................................7 B. Tucson....................................................................................................................................................................... 16 C. Pima County Government Operations........................................................................................................... 24 D. City of Tucson Government Operations........................................................................................................ 31
6. Inventory Role and the Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 38 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................................. 39
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Area.................................................................................................................8 Figure 2. Comparison of Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006........................9 Figure 3. Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions 1990-2006..................................................................................9 Figure 4. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector ...................................................................... 12 Figure 5. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Source ..................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Comparison of Tucson GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006................................................ 19 Figure 7. Tucson GHG Emissions 1990 to 2006..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Sector ................................................................................. 20 Figure 9. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Source................................................................................ 21 Figure 10. Comparison of County Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000-2007 ........................... 25 Figure 11. County Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007............................................................................. 25 Figure 12. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Sector .................................................................... 27 Figure 13. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Source ................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Comparison of City Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000 and 2007.......................... 32 Figure 15. City Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007 ................................................................................... 32 Figure 16. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Sector ........................................................................... 34 Figure 17. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Source .......................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Eastern Pima County Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons CO2e) and Energy (million Btu)
1990 to 2006 ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2. Summary of County Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to
2006 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3. Tucson Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) and Energy (million Btu) 1990 to 2006..... 18 Table 4. Summary of City Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to 2006 22 Table 5. Pima County Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons), Energy (million Btu)
and Expenditures (dollars) 2000 to 2007....................................................................................................... 30 Table 6. City of Tucson Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons), Energy (million Btu)
and Expenditures (dollars) 1990-2007 ........................................................................................................... 37
iii
APPENDICES
A: Data Sources for Community and Government Inventories B: Population Data for the United States, Arizona, Eastern Pima County and the City of Tucson C: Emissions Factors for Electricity Use D: Pima County Community Inventory Summary E: Waste Characterization Standards F: EPA WARM Model Emission Factors G: City of Tucson Community Inventory Data Summary H: Pima County Government Inventory Data Summary I: City of Tucson Government Inventory Data Summary
iv
Acknowledgments
Numerous representatives from various organizations have contributed to the production of this report and their efforts are greatly appreciated. We extend a special note of thanks to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and the City of Tucson for their contributions. Additionally, various members of Pima Association of Governments, Tucson Electric Power, Southwest Gas, Tohono O’odham Utility Authority, Trico Electric Cooperative Inc. , Tucson International Airport , Ryan Airfield, Marana Airport, Union Pacific Railroad, Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality provided data and guidance in compiling this report. A full list of contributors is contained in Appendix A.
v
List of Acronyms
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
APC Arizona Portland Cement Company
Btu British thermal units
B-20 Biodiesel containing 20 percent vegetable oil and 80 percent diesel
CACP Clean Air and Climate Protection model
CH4 Methane
CKD Cement Kiln Dust
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents
DOE Department of Energy
EIA Energy Information Administration (department within DOE)
eGRID Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KWh Kilowatt hours
LTO Landings and Take-offs
MMBtu Million British thermal units
N2O Nitrous oxide
PAG Pima Association of Governments
PCWRD Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department
PDEQ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality
PFC Perfluorocarbons
RCI Residential, Commercial and Industrial sectors
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
TEP Tucson Electric Power
TIA Tucson International Airport
TRP Travel Reduction Program
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WARM Waste Reduction Model
WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
1
1. Executive Summary Pima Association of Governments (PAG), on behalf of Pima County and the City of Tucson and with direction from the PAG Regional Council, has completed the first draft of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory for the region since an initial inventory was completed for the City of Tucson in 1998. This inventory is intended to be a living document, to be updated as new and more accurate data become available. This report presents initial estimates of historical and current anthropogenic GHG emissions for select years from 1990 to 2006 for eastern Pima County and the City of Tucson (hereinafter referred to as the County and the City respectively). The County inventory encompasses the entire Tucson region inclusive of the City, with the City inventory only reflecting emissions from within the city limits. In addition, Pima County and City of Tucson government inventories (hereinafter referred to as the County government and the City government) were developed for 2000 to 2007, which focus on emissions generated in their respective government operations. These estimates are intended to provide County and City stakeholders with an initial understanding of past and current regional GHG emissions and to serve as a basis for analyzing and designing mitigation plans and strategies. Pima County has experienced rapid population and economic growth from 1990 to 2006, with a concurrent increase in GHG emissions. The City experienced a somewhat slower increase in population and GHG emissions. County GHG emissions increased by 46 percent during this period, while emissions generated within the City showed a 34 percent increase over 1990 levels. Nationally, GHG emissions are estimated to have increased 15 percent from 1990 to 2006 (USEPA, 2008), reflecting the slower population growth. In contrast, Arizona’s rapid population and economic growth is reflected in the concurrent increase in GHG emissions that were projected to increase 60 percent over the same period (Bailie et al, 2006). Population statistics can be found in Appendix B. Modeling analyses for 2006 conducted for this report estimate that the County region produced 14.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), while emissions originating within the City were 7.3 million metric tons of CO2e. From 1990 through 2006, transportation and energy use by the various economic sectors produced the largest share of GHG emissions both at the County and City levels. In 2006, 34 percent of the County GHG emissions were from transportation, while energy use from residential, commercial and industrial energy use totaled 64 percent, with residential energy use being the largest contributor at 27 percent. The City’s major sources and trends of GHG emissions mirror those of the County. In 2006, emissions due to City residential, commercial and industrial energy use totaled 63 percent and transportation emissions were 33 percent of total City emissions, respectively. In 2006, County government emissions were less than 1 percent of total County emissions. County government emissions in 2007 were 141,739 metric tons, representing a 47 percent rise over 2000 levels. With the exception of employee commuting, emissions from all other inventoried sources experienced growth in GHG emissions over this seven-year period. The majority of this increase can be attributed to energy use in County facilities and in wastewater treatment which exhibited the greatest rate of growth over this time. The emissions from energy use in County
2
government facilities averaged 51 percent of emissions and wastewater treatment averaged 25 percent from 2000 to 2007. Emissions from the County fleet and employee commute vehicle use, waste disposal and public lighting combined are responsible for an average of 24 percent of total emissions from 2000 to 2007. Electricity is the major form of energy consumed and averaged 63 percent of total County government emissions from 2000 to 2007. In 2006, City government emissions were approximately 3 percent of total City community emissions. City government emissions in 2007 were 225,632 metric tons, representing a 6 percent reduction over 2000 levels. Water energy use and waste disposal emissions increased from 2000 to 2007 while emissions from facility energy use, vehicle fleet, employee commute declined over this same period. Emissions generated from energy used in pumping, treating and distributing drinking water remain the greatest contributor to City government emissions from 2000 to 2007, averaging 50 percent of total emissions. Facility energy use emissions, another significant component of City government emissions, averaged 21 percent of the totals over this same period. Emissions generated by reclaimed water energy use, public lighting, City fleet, employee vehicle use and waste disposal, combined, make up the remaining 29 percent of City government totals over this seven-year period. Electricity is the predominant form of energy consumed and is responsible for an average of 75 percent of emissions from 2000 to 2007.
2. Introduction Scientific consensus that the earth’s climate is being affected by human activities has been documented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a series of assessment reports (IPCC, 2007). Increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere represent an elevated risk of inducing climate change. In response, governments across the world have endorsed measures to establish goals for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases. On Sept. 7, 2006, Arizona’s Governor Napolitano signed Executive Order 2006-13, which established a statewide goal to reduce Arizona's future GHG emissions to the 2000 emissions level by the year 2020, and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040. In 2006, the City endorsed the United States Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and the goals of the Kyoto Protocols.1 The first step in achieving effective reductions is to establish a baseline against which future emissions can be compared. In 1997, the City commissioned a report that provides a snapshot of carbon dioxide emissions (Fuller and Rauluk, 1998). This report characterized carbon dioxide emissions only for the City of Tucson and their operations. In 2006, the State of Arizona produced a statewide emissions inventory (Bailie et al, 2006). This report, however, does not provide a county-by-county analysis. Although these reports served as references, a reliable equivalent comparison of City and County emissions to these inventories cannot be made.
1 Adopted by Tucson Mayor and Council on September 6, 2006. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve a reduction of 7 percent in GHG emissions (as measured in 1990) by the year 2012. The U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement urged the adoption of policies to achieve even greater GHG emission reductions than required by the Kyoto Protocol.
3
This report presents initial estimates of historical and current Pima County and City anthropogenic GHG emissions for the period from a baseline of 1990 to 2006 using generally accepted principles and guidelines contained in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software for local GHG emissions. These estimates are intended to provide county and city stakeholders with an initial understanding of current regional GHG emissions to guide in analyzing and designing GHG mitigation strategies.
The inventory is structured to provide GHG emissions from the entire community of eastern Pima County (inclusive of the City) and a separate inventory reflecting emissions from the City of Tucson alone. Inventories focusing specifically on government activities of Pima County and Tucson are forthcoming. Three main greenhouse gases are included here [carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O)], as in the U.S. and Arizona GHG inventories. These greenhouse gases are emitted largely from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel. Emissions of these greenhouse gases are presented as CO2
equivalents (CO2e), indicating the relative contribution of each gas weighted according to its relative contribution to global climate change. Unlike the state and national inventories, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are not included but may be addressed in a subsequent version of this report. Local fluorinated hydrocarbons emissions are expected to represent a very small proportion of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3. Project Objectives In October 2007, the PAG Regional Council approved a resolution to conduct a GHG emissions inventory for eastern Pima County. The goal of this resolution is to provide a regional, broad-based GHG emissions inventory which will serve as baseline information to assist the region and government agencies in assessing emissions, measuring the region’s overall progress in achieving long-term GHG emission reductions and enabling the development of programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions. This preliminary inventory is not meant to be a precise accounting of GHG emissions but is designed to provide a resource for regional planning for the future. It is important to note that this report has not been validated by an independent party and is not a tool designed for developing regulations. Care also should be exercised in comparing the results of this inventory to those done by other communities since the sources analyzed and/or the greenhouse gases included are likely to be different.
4
4. General Methodology Community Inventories
To prepare both community GHG emissions inventories, three major emission sources were considered: energy consumption, transportation and waste disposal. Energy use was disaggregated into residential, commercial and industrial sectors electricity and natural gas use. Transportation from on-road vehicles was disaggregated by vehicle type and fuels used. Waste disposal was factored by disposal method and composition. In addition, other sources were added to include local cement production, local propane use, stationary diesel use, as well as aviation fuels and locomotive sources. While these data are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and in Appendices D and G, they are not included in the inventory analyses or in diagrams due to the absence of 1990 data. Subsequent drafts could include emissions generated by additional sources. Using the CACP model and emission factors, as appropriate, GHG emissions were estimated for select years from 1990 to 2006. The model was used to calculate emissions for all electricity and natural gas use, transportation and waste estimations. Propane and industrial diesel use emissions were estimated using emission factors imbedded in the CACP model. Emissions generated by locomotives and aviation fuels were estimated using Department of Energy emission factors corresponding to fuel type. Emissions from cement production were estimated using EPA methodology (USEPA, 2008). Local data and emissions factors were used whenever possible. Assumptions used in compiling the data are provided in this report. These estimates are preliminary and will be revised as more data becomes available. Energy use, transportation and waste disposal data from 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 (as available) were compiled and analyzed using the CACP software, which calculates GHG emissions produced by electricity, natural gas, miles traveled and from solid waste disposal. In this report, CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions are estimated and expressed as metric tons of CO2e. In addition, the CACP model also reports energy use as Btu consumption. Local energy use, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and waste disposal data were entered into the model and converted to CO2e emissions using specific emission factors or coefficients. These emission factors specify the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of energy used, miles traveled and waste disposed. These factors were then applied to activity levels in order to calculate emission levels. Annual electricity emission factors were calculated using emissions data from TEP generating resources and were supplied by TEP for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 to estimate CO2e emissions. Appendix C contains TEP emission factors used in this report. Emissions associated with TEP power purchases for all years were estimated using the eGRID WECC Southwest Region average coefficient upon TEP’s staff recommendations. EPA’s eGrid database provides air quality information on most electrical power plants in the United States using information obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Emissions data from these various sources are collected and grouped
5
according to geographic location to determine a regional average CO2e emission coefficient per unit of electricity used. Trico emission factors were supplied by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Appendix C). These factors were applied to Trico’s use data to determine CO2e emissions which are included in the electricity totals for the County. To evaluate emissions from natural gas consumption, usage data was entered into the CACP model which converts therms of natural gas into Btus and CO2e emissions, using coefficients from the Department of Energy’s Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Guidelines http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html. Emissions from natural gas and electric use are based on end-use energy consumption data, not on the emissions resulting from the production of that energy. For example, emissions from electricity consumed by residential, commercial and industrial sectors are reported, not emissions due to combustion of fuel at the electric generation facilities. Emissions from on-road vehicle fuel use are calculated for gasoline, diesel, B-20 and compressed natural gas (CNG). Data are entered as VMT per year for each type of vehicle by fuel type. Model default fuel economies for each vehicle/fuel combination are used and are based on the EIA Energy Data book and Tellus Institute research. Default emission factors depend on the type of fuel used and are derived from EPA data and the IPCC guidelines. Emissions resulting from waste disposal depend on waste composition and the method of treatment. The waste emission factors used in this inventory were from the EPA’s most recent evaluation, updated in August 2002. GHG emission and energy reductions resulting from waste diversion were estimated using EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) (USEPA, 2006). The model uses a life-cycle approach accounting for emissions avoided in producing replacement materials (upstream) and disposal-related emissions (downstream). Calculations are based on a comparison of the CO2e emissions and energy use that would be incurred if materials were landfilled and the savings realized through alternative waste management practices (e.g. source reduction, recycling, composting). Emissions generated by locomotives, aircraft fuel use and propane consumption are evaluated separately and included in the “Other” category. The 2000 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) yard and line haul locomotives’ CO2 emissions were based on diesel use data taken from an inventory commissioned by PAG (Envair, 2001). Emissions from yard and line haul locomotives for 2005 and 2006 were derived using diesel use data supplied by UPRR. Locomotive diesel combustion totals are included in the other category. EIA diesel emission factors were used to determine all CO2e emissions (EIA, 2007). Emissions from jet fuel and aviation gasoline use at Tucson International Airport (TIA), Ryan Airfield and Marana Airport were derived using the EIA’s fuel emission factors (EIA, 2007).
6
Propane emissions were derived from emission factors imbedded in the CACP model. In addition to emissions generated by industrial electricity and natural gas use, direct emissions from County industries are estimated. Specifically, 2000, 2005 and 2006 emissions from cement production and diesel use at Arizona Portland Cement (APC) and fuel combustion from Phelps Dodge Sierrita mining operations are presented. Emission factors in the CACP model were used to estimate diesel and B-20 use emissions. At the time of this report, only data from these two industries were available. Subsequent report versions could include other industrial sources. PAG’s Air Quality Planning staff prepared these analyses in close consultation with representatives of the City and County, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Southwest Gas, Tohono O’odham Utility Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Inc. and Trico Electric Cooperative Inc (Trico). Additionally, representatives of three area airports, Union Pacific Railroad, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office provided data for this report. Technical guidance was provided by the ICLEI staff who, in cooperation with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and Torrie Smith Associates, developed the inventory software used in this report. Government Operations Inventories
To prepare both government operations GHG emissions inventories, three major emission sources were considered: energy consumption, on-road vehicle use and waste disposal. Electricity and natural gas use data are presented for facility, water distribution and treatment and public lighting. On-road vehicle use included travel by government fleets and employee commuting and was disaggregated by vehicle and fuel type. Waste disposal was factored by disposal method and composition. Energy use, transportation and waste disposal data from 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (as available) were compiled and analyzed using the CACP software, as in the community inventories. Additionally, cost data for each category were compiled for all survey years. Annual TEP and Trico emission factors were used to estimate emissions from electricity use (Appendix C). At the time of this report, a 2007 TEP emission coefficient was not available and the 2006 emission coefficient was used to estimate 2007 electricity-related emissions. Gasoline, diesel, B-20 and CNG emissions generated by government fleets and employee commuting are included. As in the community inventory, emissions generated by these types of on-road vehicle use were determined using the U. S. Department of Energy’s Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Guidelines coefficients http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html. Emissions generated by natural gas use and waste disposal were calculated in the same manner as in the community inventories. PAG’s Air Quality Planning staff prepared these analyses in close consultation with representatives of the County and City governments.
7
5. Location-Specific Methodology and Preliminary Results Four inventories are detailed in this section: Pima County and Tucson community inventories and Pima County and City of Tucson government operations inventories. The County inventory as defined in this analysis encompasses the greater metropolitan area that also includes the City of Tucson. The areas specified for the County and City inventories are outlined (Figure 1). Emissions from select years from 1990 to 2006 are included in these community inventories. The County and City community GHG inventories include emissions generated by government operations, however, the CACP model provides the option to induct separate modeling for detailing government-generated emissions. Emissions for both government activities are included for select years from 2000 to 2007. For both County and City government inventories, 2000 is the earliest year that complete data are available. Therefore, comparisons of emissions, energy consumption and expenditures are made using 2000 and 2007 information. A. Eastern Pima County Residential, Commercial and Industrial (RCI) Sector Energy Use Energy use for the RCI sectors only includes natural gas and electricity. Other fuel sources such as heating oil and wood are not included in this initial inventory. The relative percentages provided in this report are likely to change when additional data are obtained. The residential sector is based on household energy use for activities such as heating, cooling and lighting. The industrial sector includes energy use by the utility companies, mining and agriculture. Industrial activities include manufacturing, production and factory operations. The commercial sector encompasses fuel and electricity used in non-residential buildings such as schools, hospitals and retail facilities. Government-owned facilities and institutional activity also are included in this sector. Electricity and natural gas use data, by sector, were submitted by TEP, Trico and Southwest Gas, respectively. The Tohono O’odham Nation purchases its electricity from TEP and its emissions were determined using the annual TEP-supplied electricity coefficients. Total electricity use data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were supplied by the Tohono O’odham Utility Authority staff. Based upon their recommendation, one-third of the total use was designated as residential and two-thirds was entered as commercial. Tribal electricity-use emissions are included in the County residential and commercial sectors’ electricity totals (Table 1). Electricity for the Pascua Yaqui tribe is supplied by Trico and is included in the residential and commercial electricity data. Southwest Gas supplies natural gas to both the Tohono O’odham nation and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe; it is included in the natural gas residential and commercial totals. From 1990 to 2006, energy use by the RCI sectors remained the greatest contributor to GHG emissions (Figure 2). Emissions from total County energy use have shown a steady increase over this 16-year period (Figure 3). Combined RCI energy use during 2006 produced 64 percent of the County’s GHG emissions (Figure 4). Of total County
8
emissions, approximately 57 percent can be attributed to electricity use from these three sectors; natural gas usage is responsible for 8 percent of total CO2e emissions for 2006 (Figure 5).
Figure 1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Area
9
0
4,000,000
8,000,000
12,000,000
16,000,000
1990 2006Year
CO2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Transportation Residential Energy Use Commercial Energy UseIndustrial Energy Use Waste
Figure 2. Comparison of Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006
0
4,000,000
8,000,000
12,000,000
16,000,000
1990 1995 2000 2005Year
CO2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Residential Energy Use Commercial Energy Use Industrial Energy Use
Transportation Waste Total
Figure 3. Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions 1990-2006
10
On-Road Transportation Emissions from on-road vehicle activity only are reported here; travel and fuel use by nonroad vehicles and equipment (tractors, bulldozers, and lawnmowers) are not presented in this report. Information on the total VMT for 1990 to 2006 was developed for the County using PAG’s travel demand forecasting model. PAG’s current travel forecasting model is a standardized four-step procedure model that covers trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice and traffic assignment. VMT is one of the most widely used outputs produced and also provides the forecasting for future travel in eastern Pima County. Estimates for 1990 were based on model runs done that year for transportation planning purposes. The 2000 VMT data were obtained from model runs performed in 2002 for a 2000 On-Road Emissions Inventory (PAG, 2004). The VMT data for 2005 and 2006 reflect recent model runs done by PAG’s Technical Services Division staff for eastern Pima County (Appendix D). Based on the U.S. average and ICLEI’s staff recommendations, CACP model defaults were used to apportion the local vehicle mix.2 Specifically, 93 percent of the vehicles were assumed to be gasoline-powered and 7 percent was assumed to be diesel. The model default VMT allotted to buses was removed and replaced by actual transit data provided by Sun Tran. In addition to the VMT driven by private and commercial vehicles, the inventory also includes 1990 to 2006 VMT data from public transit (Sun Tran, Old Pueblo Trolley, Ticet, Coyote Run), rural transit and special needs paratransit and university shuttles, as available. These are referred to as “Other Transportation” in Table 1 and are listed individually in Appendix D. From 1990 to 2006, emissions associated with private, commercial and public transportation contribute significantly to County GHG totals (Table 1). Over this period, private and commercial vehicles contributed the greatest amount to transportation emissions (99.7 percent). In 2006, 34 percent of County CO2e emissions were attributed to transportation (Figure 4). In 2006, emissions from gasoline-powered private, commercial and public vehicles contributed 27 percent of total GHG emissions; diesel use was responsible for 6 percent of emissions (Figure 5).
2 Model default vehicle mix: Gasoline - Auto (full-size) = 8.5 percent; auto (mid-size) = 18.7 percent; auto (compact/subcompact) = 33.0 percent; light truck/SUV/pickup = 32.4 percent; motorcycle = 0.4 percent. Diesel - Auto (compact/subcompact) = 0.3 percent; light truck/SUV/pickup = 1.3 percent; heavy truck = 5.2 percent; bus = 0.2 percent.
11
Table
1. E
astern
Pim
a C
ounty
Gre
enhouse
Gas Em
issions (m
etric tons CO
2e) and Energ
y (m
illion Btu
) 1990 to 2006
1990
2000
2005
2006
Perc
ent CO
2e
Change
1990-2
006
CO
2e
(metric tons)
MM
Btu
CO
2e
(m
etric tons)
MM
Btu
CO
2e
(m
etric tons)
MM
Btu
CO
2e
(m
etric tons)
MM
Btu
Residential Energ
y U
se
Electricity
1,901,924
7,373,084
2,801,674
11,114,183
3,446,426
13,439,430
3,608,783
14,079,656
Natu
ral G
as
451,025
8,047,134
503,455
8,982,587
469,901
8,383912
459,469
8,197,794
Residential Tota
l 2,352,949
15,420,218
3,305,129
20,096,770
3,916,327
21,823,342
4,068,252
22,277,450
73
Com
merc
ial Energ
y U
se
Electricity
1,235,612
5,705,634
1,617,714
6,413,811
2,036,099
7,822,904
2,109,300
8,245,709
Natu
ral G
as
319,789
4,787,865
347,013
6,191,368
330,103
5,889,666
337,429
6,020,365
Com
merc
ial Tota
l 1,555,401
10,493,499
1,964,727
12,605,179
2,366,202
13,712,570
2,446,729
14,266,074
57
Indust
rial Energ
y U
se
Electricity
2,454,013
9,517,092
3,009,036
11,924,148
2,768,660
10,835,382
2,798,833
11,127,712
Natu
ral G
as
164,644
2,937,558
703,455
12,550,967
391,949
6,993.109
370,937
6,618,219
Indust
rial Tota
l 2,618,657
12,454,650
3,712,491
24,475,115
3,160,609
17,828,491
3,169,770
17,745,931
21
Tra
nsp
ortation
Private
and com
mercial v
ehicle use
3
3,415,256
43,660,650
4,298,737
55,000,983
4,839,584
62,187,638
4,915,312
63,196,348
Oth
er transp
ortation
14,540
185,018
14,673
195,283
13,534
195,307
15,477
229,228
Tra
nsp
ortation T
ota
l 3,429,796
43,845,668
4,313,410
55,196,266
4,853,118
62,382,945
4,930,789
63,425,576
44
Wast
e D
isposa
l Tota
l4
224,689
238,610
258,024
274,245
22
Tota
l 10,1
81,4
92
82,2
14,0
35
13,5
34,3
67
112,3
73,3
30
14,5
44,2
80
115,7
47,3
48
14,8
89,7
85
117,6
59,3
99
46
Oth
er
Loco
motives
89,632
5
1,216,198
84,617
1,148,674
86,620
1,175,733
Aviation G
as6
56
793
456
6,320
515
5,882
495
6,966
Je
t A
6
38,682
540,000
31,413
438,534
35,566
496,555
33,859
472,723
Pro
pane
86,242
1,282,001
92,717
1,378,254
84,343
1,253,772
Indust
rial Pro
cess
n.a.
n.a.
AZ Portland Cem
ent (p
roce
ss)
924,275
0
1,049,413
0
1,068,429
0
AZ Portland Cem
ent (fuel)
157
2,182
70
970
150
1,070
Phelp
s Dodge Sierrita M
ine
2,601
33,363
2,190
28,089
2,071
26,566
3 Tra
nsp
ortation VM
T data
for 1990 and 2000 w
ere
estim
ate
d using a differe
nt PAG tra
nsp
ortation m
odel than the m
odel u
sed for 2005 and 2006 (se
e m
eth
ods se
ction)
4 W
aste disposa
l info
rmation for 1990 repre
sents Los Reales only. O
ther landfill data
for 1990 are
not cu
rrently availa
ble.
5 2000 lo
com
otive fuel u
se are
tak
en fro
m Emission In
ventories fo
r the Tucson Air Planning Area. E
nva
ir, 2
001; 2
005 and 2006 data
were
supplie
d by UPRR.
6 A
viation G
as and Jet A tota
ls for 1990 reflect only Rya
n A
irfield
and TIA
use
resp
ectively; 2
000, 2
005 and 2006 aviation gas and Jet A tota
ls repre
sent all C
ounty
airports.
12
Residential
Energy Use
27%
Commercial
Energy Use
16%Industrial
Energy Use
21%
Transportation
34%
Waste
2%
Figure 4. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector
Electricity
57%
Natural Gas
8%
Gasoline
27%
Waste
2%
B-20
<1 %CNG
<1 %
Diesel
6%
Totals are the result of rounding values
Figure 5. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Source Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal data for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 were collected from the Ina, Sahuarita, Tangerine and Los Reales landfills, as available (Appendix D). Waste composition for all landfill waste was determined using results from Arizona and California waste characterization studies (Cascadia, 2003; Cascadia, 2004; Cascadia, 2006) (Appendix E).
13
Waste disposal-related emissions over the 16-year timeframe have increased about 22 percent but remain a small component of total emissions (Table 1). In 2006, emissions due to waste disposal contributed 2 percent to total CO2e emissions (Figure 4). Diverted Waste Recycled waste data from the voluntary collection sites at the Ina, Sahuarita, Tangerine, Catalina, Ina and Los Reales facilities and City and County curbside pickup programs were submitted by County and City staff, as available. Data from 1990 represents voluntary drop-offs collected at Los Reales only. Totals for 2000 represent City green bin collection and voluntary drop-offs at Los Reales and Tangerine landfills. Data from 2005 and 2006 represents County and City curbside pick-ups, private recyclers and voluntary drop-offs at landfills. Savings in CO2e emissions and Btus were estimated using EPA’s WARM model (USEPA, 2006), and results from all County recycling activities are shown in Table 2. A summary of WARM emission factors are included in Appendix F. Table 2. Summary of County Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to 2006
All Pima County Facilities
and Collections7 Recycled Waste
(metric tons)
CO2e Saved (metric tons)
MMBtus Saved
1990 51,710 255,926 1,004,572
2000 30,744 49,562 506,698
2005 75,632 177,417 1,450,024
2006 92,705 231,543 2,037,664 No obvious recycling trend emerges from 1990 to 2006, which may be due to several factors. City green bin recycling started in 1992, and selected materials were collected every other week. Weekly collection of City blue barrel recyclables started in 2002, and was not fully operational until 2003 (Personal communication, Hughes, 2008). County curbside recycling programs began in 1990, but curbside recycling totals were available only for 2005 and 2006. Private hauler data were available for 2005 and 2006 only. Other Emissions from locomotives, aviation gas, jet A and propane use are shown are shown in Table 1 but not included in the calculation for total emissions or figures due to the absence of 1990 data. Appendix D shows gallons of fuel used for the various components.
7 1990 data represents only Los Reales voluntary recycling. The 2000 totals represent green bin City curbside pick-up and County landfills collections only. Totals for 2005 and 2006 represent volunteer, curbside and commercial City and County recycling activities and private hauler collections.
14
Locomotive Emissions All locomotive emissions were allotted to the County inventory due to the difficulty isolating tract sections and fuel usage only within the city limits. The 2000 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) yard and line haul locomotives’ fuel use are taken from an inventory commissioned by PAG (Envair, 2001). UPRR staff provided fuel use data for 2005 and 2006. EIA’s (2007) diesel emissions factors were used to evaluate emissions (CO2: 10.15 kg/gallon; N2O: 0.26 g/gallon and CH4: 0.8 g/gallon) were used to calculate CO2e emissions for all years. Emissions from County locomotive activity declined by 3 percent from 2000 to 2006 (Table1). Aviation Fuels: Aviation Gas and Jet A All aviation fuel emissions were allotted to the County inventory due to difficulty in portioning County vs. City airshed emissions. Aviation gas and Jet A fuel use data were collected from TIA, Ryan Airfield and Marana Airport staff for 2000, 2005 and 2006; only TIA Jet A and Ryan Airfield aviation gas estimates were available for 1990. Davis-Monthan fuel use information was not available for public release. Based upon other airport GHG studies and TIA staff guidance, only 10 percent of the total aviation gas and Jet A fuel from the three airports was used to calculate emissions produced in the County airshed. This 10 percent represents the fuel used during the landings and take-off (LTO) phase. EIA’s emission factors for aviation gas (CO2: 8.31kg/gallon; CH4: 7.26 g/gallon; N2O: 0.09 g/gallon) and for Jet A fuel (CO2: 9.57 kg/gallon: CH4: 0.27 g/gallon; N2O: 0.32 g/gallon) were used to determine fuel combustion emissions at all three airports. Individual GHG emissions were entered into the CACP model and are reported as CO2e totals. Emissions for fuel use at these airports are reported as a total CO2e by fuel type (Table 1). Aviation fuel GHG emissions increased 8 percent from 2000 to 2006. Propane State propane sales data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were obtained from the Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office (2008). As suggested by Energy Office staff, population data was used as a surrogate to determine Pima County propane use from state sales totals for 2000, 2005 and 2006. After determining Pima County totals, a population allocation factor (0.96) was used to estimate propane use for the County inventory (PAG, 2008). Emissions were estimated using a propane emission factor contained in the CACP model. Propane use declined slightly from 2000 to 2006 resulting in a 2 percent drop in emissions over this period (Appendix D, Table 1).
15
Industrial Processes At the time of this report, data from just two of the larger industries were available from the state and County regulatory agencies. Presented here are the emissions from Arizona Portland Cement and Phelps Dodge. Subsequent drafts could include emissions generated by other County industrial sources. Arizona Portland Cement (APC) Cement manufacturing generates CO2 from the fuel used in making cement and from the chemical process itself. Both types of emissions associated with cement production are included here. During cement production, an intermediate product, clinker, is produced and CO2 is a byproduct of its formation. A recommended method for estimating process CO2 emissions is based on the amount of clinker produced and using a national default emission factor (CO2 per ton of clinker produced) (IPCC, 2006). In this report, CO2 emissions were calculated following the IPCC guidance and applying the constants specified in EPA’s GHG Inventory (USEPA, 2008). In determining the emission factor, EPA assumed that the average lime fraction of clinker was 65 percent and that a constant mass of CO2 is released per unit of time. The factor used by the EPA and in this report was 0.51 metric tons of CO2 per metric ton of clinker produced. During clinker production, some precursor material remains in the kiln as cement kiln dust (CKD). It is recommended that CO2 emissions from this residual be included in the total CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2006). CKD CO2 emissions are estimated at 2 percent of the
emissions from clinker production and are included in the total (IPCC, 2006; USEPA, 2008). The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) provided APC clinker production data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 (Appendix D). Cement emission totals reflect the total CO2e emissions resulting from clinker production and CKD (Table 1). Emissions from cement manufacturing have increased by 16 percent from 2000 to 2006 (Table 1). ADEQ staff provided diesel and B-20 use for 2000, 2005 and 2006 (Appendix D). Diesel (CO2; 9.51 kg/gallon) and biodiesel (CO2: 7.52 kg/gallon) emission factors embedded in the CACP model were used to estimate CO2e emissions. Diesel fuel use was similar in 2000 and 2006, but declined in 2005, due to the availability of other fuel sources (Appendix D). Although there was a 4 percent increase in fuel use from 2000 to 2006, APC fuel emissions dropped by 5 percent due to the use of B-20 (Table 1). Phelps Dodge Sierrita Mine Data from diesel fuel used in blasting operations was submitted by ADEQ for 2000, 2005 and 2006 (Appendix D). To estimate emissions, a diesel emission factor (CO2: 9.51 kg/gallon) contained in the CACP model was used. Fuel use emissions declined by 20 percent from 2000 to 2006.
16
Pima County Synopsis
County GHG emissions increased by 4.7 million metric tons from 1990 to 2006, representing a 46 percent increase. Energy use by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors remained the major source of GHG emissions from 1990 through 2006. Combined energy use from these sectors represents 64 percent of County emissions in 2006. County residential energy use experienced a 73 percent increase over this 16-year period. Similarly, commercial GHG emissions showed a 57 percent increase over this same period. Industrial GHG emissions, however, showed more modest growth (21 percent). These trends in emissions mirror the rapid increase in County population and economic growth experienced during this period. Electricity is the major energy source used and produced 57 percent of energy-related emissions in 2006; natural gas use is responsible for a smaller portion of energy-based emissions (8 percent). Emissions resulting from on-road private, commercial and public vehicles remained the other major contributor to County emissions from 1990 though 2006. Transportation-related emissions increased by 44 percent from 1990 to 2006. A 72 percent rise in County VMT accounts for this GHG emissions increase. Transportation emissions were approximately 34 percent of the County’s total emissions in 2006. Private and commercial vehicle use produced 99.7 percent of the 2006 transportation emissions. Emissions associated with County solid waste disposal have increased 22 percent over the past 16 years but their relative contribution to County totals remains low, at about 2 percent. This may be attributed to the countywide recycling programs which divert wastes from the landfills.
B. Tucson Residential, Commercial and Industrial (RCI) Sector Energy Use The City electricity and natural gas use data were submitted by TEP and Southwest Gas by sector for several but not all years included in the report. TEP supplied City use for 2002 through 2006 and Southwest Gas supplied City use data applicable to 2000 through 2006. The City’s 1990 and 2000 electricity use values were developed based on data supplied by PAG staff and TEP. The City residential electricity use for 1990 and 2000 is based on communication with PAG’s Technical Services Division using historical data on the number of estimated TEP hookups (PAG, 2008). City commercial and industrial use data for 1990 and 2000 were estimated using the proportion of City use for calendar year 2002 using data provided by TEP. These relative proportions were applied to the County electricity use in the commercial and industrial sectors to estimate the City electricity sector use. City electricity use for 2005 and 2006 for each sector was
17
determined directly using information supplied by TEP (Table 3). The same TEP electricity annual emission factors used for County evaluations were used for estimating the City electricity use emissions. In the absence of City natural gas use data for 1990, PAG staff assumed that the City to County natural gas use proportion was constant from 1990 through 2006. This ratio is based on 2007 use data supplied by Southwest Gas. These relative proportions were applied to the RCI County gas use data to determine City use for 1990 (Table 3). Energy use from the RCI units has remained a major source of City GHG emissions from 1990 to 2006 (Figure 6). In general, there has been a steady increase in RCI energy use emissions from 1990 to 2005. However, from 2005 to 2006, there was a slight decrease in energy-related emissions in the residential and industrial sectors. These declines contribute to the overall 0.1 percent decrease in total emissions from 2005 to 2006 (Figure 7). The City’s emissions in 2006 resulting from electricity and natural gas use in the RCI sectors are responsible for 63 percent of total CO2e emissions (Figure 8). Of these energy use-related emissions, 53 percent is due to electricity; natural gas comprises 10 percent of total energy emissions (Figure 9).
18
Table
3. T
ucs
on G
reenhouse
Gas Em
issions (m
etric tons) and Energ
y (m
illion Btu
) 1990 to 2006
1990
2000
2005
2006
Perc
ent
CO
2e
Change
1990-2
006
CO
2e
(metric
tons)
MM
Btu
CO
2e
(m
etric
tons)
MM
Btu
CO
2e
(m
etric
tons)
MM
Btu
CO
2e
(m
etric
tons)
MM
Btu
Residential Energ
y U
se
Electricity
8
1,159,530
4,485,563
1,541,177
6,103,652
1,596,105
6,250,003
1,571,870
6,253,955
Natu
ral G
as9
218,344
3,865,675
243,726
4,348,534
227,482
4,058,711
222,432
3,968,610
Residential Tota
l 1,377,874
8,381,238
1,784,903
10,452,186
1,823,587
10,308,714
1,794,302
10,222,565
30
Com
merc
ial Energ
y U
se
Electricity
10
84,4324
3,266212
1,071,749
4,244,539
1,272,901
4,984,404
1,293,813
5,147,660
Natu
ral G
as9
173,071
3,087,921
187,805
3,350,802
178,654
3,187,519
182,618
3,258,254
Com
merc
ial Tota
l 1,017,395
6,354,133
1,259,554
7,595,341
1,451,555
8,171,923
1,476,431
8,405,914
45
Indust
rial Energ
y U
se
Electricity
10
1,002,743
3,879,044
1,263,460
5,003,788
1,086,654
4,255,102
1,053,015
4,189,603
Natu
ral G
as9
143,699
2,563,865
613,967
10,954,330
342,088
6,103,499
323,749
5,776,300
Indust
rial Tota
l 1,146,442
6,442,909
1,877,427
15,958,118
1,428,742
10,358,601
1,376,764
9,965,903
20
Tra
nsp
ortation
Private
and com
mercial v
ehicle
use
11
1,680,306
21,481,039
2,114,978
27,060,478
2,381,076
30,596,321
2,409,289
30,976,321
Oth
er transp
ortation
14,314
182,115
13,183
175,554
11,822
171,037
13,660
203,213
Tra
nsp
ortation T
ota
l 1,694,620
21,663,154
2,128,161
27,236,032
2,392,898
30,767,358
2,422,949
31,179,534
43
Wast
e D
isposa
l Tota
l 224,689
- 227,483
- 237,108
- 259,163
- 15
Tota
l 5,4
61,0
20
42,8
41,4
34
7,2
77,5
28
61,2
41,6
77
7,3
33,8
90
59,6
06,5
96
7,3
29,6
09
60,4
81,6
36
34
Oth
er
Pro
pane
n.a.
- 51,535
766,081
53,135
789,868
47,609
707,720
8 Tucs
on residential e
lectricity
use
for 1990 and 2000 is
base
d on com
munication w
ith PAG’s Tech
nical S
erv
ices Division using histo
rica
l data
on the num
ber of estim
ate
d TEP hooku
ps
9 The ratio of Tucs
on : Eastern
Pim
a County
natu
ral g
as use
for 1990 is
assum
ed to be constant from
1990 thro
ugh 2006 and is
base
d on 2007 use
data
supplie
d by South
west G
as
10 The ratio of Tucs
on : Eastern
Pim
a County
com
mercial a
nd in
dustrial e
lectricity use
for 1990 and 2000 is
ass
um
ed to be the sam
e as th
at of 2002 city use
fro
m data
supplie
d by TEP
11 Tra
nsp
ortation VM
T data
for 1990 and 2000 w
ere
estim
ate
d using a differe
nt PAG tra
nsp
ortation m
odel that th
e m
odel u
sed for 2005 and 2006 (se
e m
eth
ods se
ction)
19
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
1990 2006Year
CO
2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Transportation Residential Energy Use
Commercial Energy Use Industrial Energy Use
Waste
Figure 6. Comparison of Tucson GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
1990 1995 2000 2005Year
CO2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Residential Energy Use Commercial Energy Use Industrial Energy Use
Transportation Waste Total
Figure 7. Tucson GHG Emissions 1990 to 2006
20
On-Road Transportation PAG’s Technical Services provided an estimation of City VMT based upon a 2005 transportation model analysis. In the absence of an annual City to County VMT breakout, PAG staff recommended allotting a 49.2 percent share of County VMT to the City for all years. Only miles driven within the City limits by public, paratransit and university shuttles were included in the City inventory and are listed as “Other Transportation“(Table 3). Emission trends for City travel by private, commercial and public vehicles mirror those of eastern Pima County. Transportation emissions were a major source of City GHG emissions from 1990 to 2006 (Figure 7); of these emissions, 99.4 percent can be attributed to private and commercial vehicle use (Table 3). In 2006, 33 percent of the City’s CO2e emissions were generated by on-road private, commercial and public vehicles (Figure 8). Of those emissions, 27 percent were produced by gasoline-powered vehicles and 6 percent were generated by diesel vehicles (Figure 9).
Residential
Energy Use
24%
Commercial
Energy Use
20%Industrial
Energy Use
19%
Waste
4%
Transportation
33%
Figure 8. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Sector
21
Electricity
53%
Natural Gas
10%
Gasoline
27%
Diesel
6%
Waste
4%
CNG
<1%B-20
<1%
Totals are the result of rounding values
Figure 9. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Source Waste Disposal Los Reales waste disposal information was collected and analyzed for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 and entered into the CACP model to determine CO2e emissions. It was characterized using the same methods as the County wastes (Cascadia, 2003; Cascadia, 2004; Cascadia, 2006) (Appendix E). Waste-related emissions increased by 15 percent but remained a constant percentage of total City emissions (about 3.5 percent) from 1990 to 2006 (Figure 7). Similar to County trends, 2006 emissions resulting from waste disposal are small (4 percent) in comparison to those produced by energy use and transportation (Figure 8). Diverted Waste Detailed City waste data from voluntary collection bins at Los Reales, community centers, commercial and curbside recycling were submitted by City staff for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006, as available. CO2e emissions and Btu savings due to waste diversion were estimated using EPA’s WARM model (USEPA, 2006). Benefits for landfill gas capture were included in the savings calculations for 2000, 2005 and 2006 using the national average methane capture efficiency (75 percent). No clear recycling pattern appears from 1990 to 2006 which could be attributed to several aspects. City green bin recycling started in 1992, and selected materials were collected every other week. Weekly collection of City blue barrel recyclables started in 2002, and was not fully operational until 2003 (Personal communication, Hughes, 2008). Therefore, the 1990 totals represent recyclable dropped off at Los Reales by area residents and the 2000 totals represent green bin curbside recycling and voluntary landfill drop-offs. Data from 2005 and 2006 represents full-scale curbside pick-up and Los Reales totals.
22
Table 4. Summary of City Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to 2006
City Collections12 Waste Recycled
(metric tons)
CO2e Saved (metric tons)
MMBtus Saved
1990 51,710 255,926 1,004,572
2000 18,189 47,222 505,915
2005 34,279 76,306 825,355
2006 62,597 127,361 1,336,250 Other Propane Propane use and emissions are recorded in Appendix G and Table 3, respectively, but are not included in the City totals as 1990 data were not available. State propane sales data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were obtained from the Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office (2008). City propane use was estimated based on City/state population proportions for 2000, 2005 and 2006. City propane use has declined from 2000 to 2006 resulting in an 8 percent drop in emissions over this period. Locomotives and Aviation Fuels Emissions Note that emissions from locomotives are excluded from the City inventory due to the difficulty in isolating track segments and emissions specifically within City boundaries. Likewise, emissions due to aviation gas and Jet A fuel are not included in the City inventory due to the difficulty in isolating City air space that is affected by fuel emissions. Industrial Processes At the time of this report, data were not available for City industrial process emissions. Subsequent reports could include process emissions.
City of Tucson Synopsis
City GHG emissions have increased by 1.9 million metric tons from 1990 to 2006 representing a 34 percent increase. Over the past 16 years, City GHG emissions averaged about one-half of County emissions but the proportion of County GHG attributed to the City has been declining over the past 16 years. This is largely due to
12 Data for 1990 represents only voluntary drop-offs at Los Reales. 2000 data represents limited City curbside pickup and drop-offs; 2005 and 2006 totals include comprehensive curbside pick-ups, commercial collections and voluntary drop-offs.
23
the lower rate of population increase in the City. However, the general trends and major sources of emissions are similar. Energy use by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors is the major source of emissions, contributing approximately 63 percent to total City CO2e emissions. From 1990 to 2006, residential energy use emissions increased by 30 percent, much lower than the County during this time. City commercial energy use showed a 45 percent increase, 12 percent lower than the County rate. These differences also can be attributed to the City’s slower rate of population growth. City and County industrial energy use experienced essentially the same the rate of increase over these 16 years. Electricity is the major energy source and is responsible for 53 percent of all sector energy-related emissions while natural gas use contributes 10 percent to the City total. Like the County, on-road vehicle travel is the other major contributor to City GHG emissions. From 1990 to 2006, City GHG emissions increased by 43 percent resulting from a 71 percent increase in VMT. City VMT and GHG emissions trends mirror those exhibited in the County. In 2006, travel by private, commercial and public vehicles produced 33 percent of the City’s emissions. Private and commercial travel produced 99.4 percent of the 2006 transportation emissions. Emissions associated with City solid waste disposal have increased by 15 percent over the past 16 years but remain a small part of total emissions. By instituting a broad based recycling program in 2002, the City has been able to limit emissions associated with landfill disposal. Overview of the County and City Community Inventories The County and City exhibit similar trends in GHG emissions, energy use, transportation and waste disposal. County GHG emissions have increased by 46 percent and City emissions have increased by 34 percent from 1990 to 2006. Energy use and on-road vehicle travel are the major sources of regional GHG emissions and have shown the greatest increase over this 16 year period, and are associated with the rapid population growth in the Tucson metropolitan area over this time period. Regional energy demands by all economic sectors and the resulting GHG emissions have risen steadily from 1990 to 2006. Residential and commercial energy consumption and emissions have shown the greatest increase over this time period. These increases can be linked directly to regional population increases and growth in commercial energy use, reflecting the increased demand for services. In contrast, regional industrial energy use and associated emissions have exhibited modest increases over this same period. Electricity consumption is primarily responsible for this rise in energy use and emissions. Regional electricity use generated over 50 percent of total emissions from 1990 to 2006.
24
From 1990 to 2006, on-road vehicle travel has increased by over 70 percent at both the County and City levels. As a consequence, GHG emissions from regional transportation are approximately one-third of total emissions. Use of personal and commercial vehicles constitutes over 99 percent of all transportation emissions. Emissions resulting from waste disposal have increased both at the County and City levels but remain a small component of total GHG emissions. Establishment of region wide recycling programs has diverted waste from the landfills and has helped to modify the rate of increase despite rapid population growth.
C. Pima County Government Operations Emissions generated by County government operations are summarized below. A detailed list of input data for the County government inventory can be found in Appendix H. Energy Use Energy use in this section refers to activities such as heating, cooling and lighting for County buildings and parks, wastewater treatment and street lighting. Emissions from County facilities, wastewater treatment plants and public lighting energy use are presented separately in Table 5 and in Figures 10 to 12. Emissions from these three categories are combined when comparing emissions by energy source (Figure 13). Facility Energy Use Actual County government electricity and natural gas use data were not available at the time this inventory was prepared. However, County staff provided electricity and natural gas expenditures for 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Upon County staff recommendations, an average rate per KWh ($0.088/KWh) was applied to the expenditure data to estimate facility electricity use for all survey years. Additionally, County representatives recommended that PAG staff apply the 2000 to 2007 natural gas data (cost/MMBtu) submitted by County wastewater treatment staff to the facility use and cost data to determine natural gas use for the various years.13 Facility energy use remained the predominant component of County government’s total emissions over the past seven years (Figure 10). From 2000 to 2007, County government facility electricity use rose by 27 percent and natural gas use grew by 94 percent. As a result of these increases, facility energy use emissions have experienced a 30 percent rise over this same period (Figure 11, Table 5). Electricity is the chief source of energy, averaging 91 percent of facility energy use emissions for the survey years. In 2007, facility energy use was 48 percent of total emissions (Figure 12). County staff attributes this increase in energy use to the addition of approximately 825,000 square feet of County government properties from 2000 to 2007.
13 Dollars/MMBtu: 2000: $6.00; 2005: $10.00; 2006: $10.50; 2007: $11.50
25
Figure 10. Comparison of County Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000-2007
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 2007Year
CO
2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Facility Energy Use Wastewater Treatment Energy Use Employee CommuteVehicle Fleet Public Lighting Waste
Figure 11. County Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
CO
2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Facility Energy Use Wastewater Treatment Energy Use
Employee Commute Vehicle Fleet
Public Lighting Waste
Total
26
Wastewater Treatment Energy Use County government is responsible for treating wastewater generated in the eastern portion of the County and operates three metropolitan facilities (Ina Road, Roger Road and Randolph Park) and several non-metropolitan facilities (Arivaca Junction, Avra Valley, Corona de Tucson, Pima County Fairgrounds, Green Valley, Marana, Mount Lemmon and Rillito Vista) (PCWRD, 2008). Electricity and natural gas use and expenditure totals for the 11 combined wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) for 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were submitted by County staff. Emissions due to wastewater treatment tripled from 2000 to 2007 (Table 5, Figure 10). During this seven-year period, County government WWTF have greatly expanded their flow rates and corresponding energy use to accommodate the County’s rapidly growing population. In 2007, these emissions contributed 31 percent to the County government’s GHG total (Figure 12). Public Lighting Total energy use and expenditure data for all public lighting (street and traffic lights combined) were submitted by County government staff for 2007. PAG staff used the 2007 energy use and cost information for all years, since data for 2000 through 2006 were not available (Table 5). Although electricity use was held constant for all years, emissions varied by year due to the differences in yearly TEP electricity emission factors (Appendix C). Emissions resulting from public lighting were 1 percent of total County government emissions during 2007 (Figure 12). In 2007, electricity use in government facilities, wastewater treatment and public lighting was a major contributor to total emissions and was responsible for 66 percent of total emissions (Figure 13). Two thirds of this electricity use can be attributed to facilities usage. Emissions due to natural gas use (in facilities and for wastewater treatment) contributed 14 percent to the 2007 total (Figure 13).
27
Figure 12. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Vehicle Fleet
8%
Facility Energy
Use
48%
Waste
<1%
Wastewater
Treatment Energy
Use
31%
Employee
Commute
12%
Public Lighting
1%
Figure 13. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Source
Electricity
66%
Natural Gas
14%
Diesel
1%Waste
<1%
Gasoline
19%
On-road Vehicle Use Emissions from on-road vehicle activity by County fleet and employee commute vehicle use are itemized in Table 5 and in Figures 10 through 12. These sectors are combined to estimate emissions by energy source (gasoline and diesel) (Figure 13). Vehicle Fleet County government staff provided VMT and expenditure data by vehicle and fuel type for fiscal years 2000, 2005 and 2007. VMT and cost information for fiscal year 2006 were interpolated using 2005 and 2007 data.
28
From 2000 to 2007, fleet VMT increased by 14 percent which resulted in an 11 percent increase in emissions (Table 5, Figure 10). Despite this increase, County fleet emissions remained a small portion of all County government emissions and represented 8 percent of the 2007 total (Figure 12). Employee Commute The Travel Reduction Program (TRP) started in 1989 to reduce carbon monoxide levels and traffic congestion in the Tucson metropolitan area. The program requires PAG staff to survey all employers who have 100 or more employees at one site. From 1989 through 2005, PAG conducted annual surveys and is currently conducting surveys biennially. The average survey participation rate for County government employees averaged 76 percent over the past 19 years. For this report, County employees’ daily drive-alone, one-way VMT survey data were used to calculate annual round-trip VMT for 2000, 2005 and 2007. County government commuter data for 2006 were interpolated using 2005 and 2007 survey data. As recommended by ICLEI staff, a model default vehicle mix was used to characterize County government commuting patterns.14 From 2000 to 2007, County employee VMT declined by 11 percent, resulting in a 6 percent drop in emissions (Table 5). These results indicate that County employees are reducing daily commuting miles through alternate modes (bus, bike, walking, and carpooling/vanpool). Employee commuting produced a consistent amount of emissions over this seven-year period. In 2007, the employee commute represented 12 percent of total County government emissions (Figure 12). Gasoline is the predominant fuel used in the County fleet and in employee commuting. Gasoline-powered County fleet and employee commuting vehicles produced 19 percent of the total 2007 emissions while fleet diesel use generated 1 percent of total emissions (Figure 13). Government-generated Solid Waste County staff submitted waste data for 2007; earlier data were not available. Based upon County staff recommendations, 2007 totals were used for 2000, 2005 and 2006. County government waste was characterized using data from a 1993 Tucson government waste study (Hughes, et al, 1993) (Appendix E). Emissions from waste disposal were a small component of emissions, contributing less than 1 percent to the 2007 total (Figure 13).
14 Commuter vehicle fleet mix: Gasoline - Auto: full-size/SUV/Pickup (36.4 percent); Auto: mid-size (18.8 percent) Auto: compact/subcompact (44.8 percent).
29
County government synopsis In 2006, emissions resulting from County government were less than 1 percent of total County emissions. County government emissions increased over 45,000 metric tons from 2000 to 2007, representing a 47 percent rise. With the exception of employee commuting, emissions from all other inventoried sources experienced growth in GHG emissions over this seven-year period. The majority of this increase can be attributed to energy use in County facilities and in wastewater treatment which exhibited the greatest rate of growth over this time. Electricity is the major form of energy consumed and was responsible for an average of 63 percent of total County government emissions from 2000 to 2007.
30
Table
5. P
ima County
Govern
ment Gre
enhouse
Gas Em
issions (m
etric tons), E
nerg
y (m
illion Btu
) and Exp
enditure
s (d
ollars) 2000 to 2007
2000
2005
2006
2007
CO
2e
(metric
tons)
M
MBtu
Cost
(d
ollars
)
CO
2e
(metric
tons)
MM
Btu
Cost
(d
ollars
)
CO
2e
(metric
tons)
MM
Btu
Cost
(d
ollars
)
CO
2e
(metric
tons)
MM
Btu
Cost
(d
ollars
)
Perc
ent
Change
CO
2e
2000-
2007
Facilities Energ
y U
se
Electricity
49,848
197,418
5,165,261
57,049
223,391
6,013,512
55,870
222,289
5,257,981
62,614
249,120
5,813,167
Natu
ral G
as
3,136
55,953
335,718
5,686
101,450
1,014,497
8,200
146,305
1,536,199
6,086
108,580
1,248,674
Facilities Energ
y U
se Tota
l 52,984
253,371
5,500,979
62,735
324,841
7,028,009
64,070
368,594
6,794,180
68,700
357,700
7,061,841
30
Wast
ewate
r Tre
atm
ent
Electricity
5,769
22,848
535,550
15,347
60,094
1,584,664
29,471
117,257
3,538,667
29,658
117,998
3,699,324
Natu
ral G
as
8,191
146,134
876,806
11,607
207,097
2,070,970
13,233
236,095
2,479,000
13,736
245,082
2,818,443
Wast
ewate
r Tre
atm
ent Tota
l 13,960
168,982
1,412,356
26,954
267,191
3,655,634
42,704
353,352
6,017,667
43,394
363,080
6,517,767
211
Vehicle
Fle
et1
5
Gaso
line
8,951
115,007
1,330,631
9,299
120,081
2,612,584
9,451
122,126
2,780,593
9,704
125,457
2,965,782
Diese
l 1,268
16,109
206,190
1,744
22,144
472,543
1,785
22,674
502,931
1,595
20,251
516,138
Vehicle
Fle
et Tota
l 10,219
131,116
1,536,821
11,043
142,225
3,085,127
11,236
144,800
3,283,524
11,299
145,708
3,481,920
11
Em
plo
yee C
om
mute
Tota
l16
17,735
227,000
- 16,394
211,135
- 16,592
213,898
- 16,702
215,448
- -6
Public Lig
hting
Electricity
1,381
5,469
116,678
1,397
5,469
116,678
1,375
5,469
116,678
1,375
5,469
116,678
Solar
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Public Lig
hting Tota
l17
1,381
5,470
116,678
1,397
5,470
116,678
1,375
5,470
116,678
1,375
5,470
116,678
Govern
ment Solid W
ast
e
Tota
l18
269
- 42,300
269
- 42,300
269
- 42,300
269
- 42,300
Gra
nd Tota
l 96,548
785,939
8,609,134
118,792
950,862
13,927,748
136,246
1,086,114
16,254,349
141,739
1,087,406
17,220,506
47
15 2006 vehicle fleet data
was inte
rpolate
d using FY05/0
6 and FY06/0
7 data
supplie
d by Pim
a C
ounty
sta
ff.
16 2006 C
ounty
govern
ment em
plo
yee com
muting VM
T w
as inte
rpolate
d using 2005 and 2007 PAG TRP surv
ey data
. 17 2007 public
lighting energ
y use
and exp
enditure
data
were
use
d for all ye
ars.
18 2007 w
aste tota
ls and exp
enditure
data
were
use
d for all years.
31
D. City of Tucson Government Operations Emissions generated by the City government operations are summarized below. A detailed list of City government input data can be found in Appendix I. Electricity and natural gas use from city-run facilities, public lighting and all water pumping, treatment and delivery systems are included in the City government inventory. Additionally, emissions resulting from the City government employee commuting, fleet vehicle travel and government-generated waste disposal are summarized in this section. Although 2000 is the earliest year that complete data are available, 1990 facility and water energy use information were submitted and are included in Appendix I; 1990 emissions resulting from this energy use are shown in Table 6 for informational purposes. Energy Use Emissions from City government facilities, all water pumping, treatment and delivery and public lighting energy use are listed separately in Table 6 and in Figures 14 through 16. These three categories are combined when comparing emissions by source (Figure 17). Facility Energy Use The City government operates over 200 buildings, parks, golf courses, sports venues, neighborhood centers and entertainment facilities in Tucson. Electricity and natural gas use and utility expenditures for individual facilities were provided by City government staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Data were sorted and compiled by year and department; utility cost data were similarly compiled. Values in Table 6 represent the total CO2e emissions, Btus and costs by utility type for all City government facilities. A more detailed list of energy use and expenditures by department is found in Appendix I. From 2000 to 2007, facility electricity and natural gas use has declined by 29 percent and 2 percent, respectively. This decline resulted in a 28 percent drop in overall energy-associated emissions during this period (Figure 14, Table 6). However, facility energy use emissions have remained a significant contributor to total City government emissions from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 15). Facility energy use emissions contributed 20 percent to total emissions in 2007 (Figure 16). Electricity is the major energy source and was responsible for 93 percent of 2007 facility energy use emissions (Table 6).
32
Figure 14. Comparison of City Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000 and 2007
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 2007Year
CO
2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Water Energy Use Facility Energy UsePublic Lighting Vehicle FleetEmployee Commute Waste
Figure 15. City Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
CO
2e emissions (m
etric tons)
Vehicle Fleet Facility Energy Use Water Energy Use
Employee Commute Public Lighting Waste
Total
33
Water Energy Use TEP electricity and natural gas use and expenditures for all City water-related operations were submitted by Tucson Water staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Energy use and cost data were provided for individual potable (drinking) water and reclaimed water components and were grouped by Tucson Water staff for computation efficiency. Preliminary Trico electricity use and cost totals for the potable water and reclaimed water systems were submitted by Tucson Water staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. A detailed list of energy use and expenditures by location for TEP electricity and natural gas use and total Trico electricity use by water system is found in Appendix I. Emissions, energy consumption and cost information were estimated and compiled by water system (drinking and reclaimed) and combined to reflect totals for all water-associated energy use. Potable water totals represent GHG emissions, Btus and costs resulting from energy used by all equipment in the pumping, treatment and delivery of drinking water (Table 6). The reclaimed water totals denote GHG emissions, Btus and costs for all reclaimed water treatment and delivery systems. Water energy use totals represent emissions, energy consumption and expenditures from both drinking and reclamation water operations (Table 6). a. Potable Water System Tucson Water is a department within the City government that delivers potable water to over 710,000 people, about 85 percent of the greater Tucson metropolitan area’s population. It serves customers both inside and outside the City boundaries (City of Tucson Water Department, 2006). A large amount of energy is required for the pumping, treatment and delivery of drinking water. These emissions have increased by 13 percent from 2000 to 2007 and still remain the largest source of City government emissions. Over this seven-year period, these energy use emissions averaged 50 percent of the City government total. Electricity is the main energy source and in 2007, electricity used in these operations was 42 percent of the total City government emissions (Table 6). b. Reclaimed Water System Reclaimed water is wastewater that has been treated to remove solids and impurities and is used for nondrinking uses such as irrigation. Tucson Water has been delivering reclaimed water for more than 20 years in the Tucson metropolitan area. Current reclaimed water recipients include 14 golf courses, 35 parks, 47 schools and over 700 single family homes (City of Tucson Water Department, 2006). Emissions from electricity use in the reclaimed water system have risen by 28 percent from 2000 to 2007 (Table 6). This reflects the region’s growing acceptance of treated wastewater for nonpotable uses. In 2007, electricity use in the reclamation process contributed 6 percent to total City government emissions (Table 6).
34
In summary, energy use emissions related to both water delivery systems increased by 14 percent from 2000 to 2007 (Table 6) and remain the largest source of City government emissions over this time period (Figure 15). In 2007, emissions due to all water operations were responsible for 59 percent of total City government emissions, of which 82 percent can be attributed to electricity use (Figure 16, Table 6). Figure 16. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Water Energy Use
59%
Waste
1%
Employee
Commute
4%
Vehicle Fleet
7%
Public Lighting
9%
Facility Energy
Use
20%
Public Lighting Information on the type, number, electricity use and costs for city street and traffic lights were submitted by City staff for 2007. PAG staff used the 2007 electricity use and cost data for 2000 through 2006 since public lighting data were not available (Table 6). Although energy use was held constant for all years, the resulting emissions differ due to varying TEP emission factors (Appendix C). In 2007, emissions produced by public lighting were responsible for 9 percent of total City government emissions (Figure 16). Electricity use by City government facilities, all water operations and public lighting were responsible for 75 percent of total City government emissions in 2007 (Figure 17). During the same year, natural gas use by facilities and potable water operations contributed 12 percent to total City government emissions.
35
Figure 17. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Source
Electricity
75%
Natural Gas
12%
Gasoline
9%
CNG
<1%
Waste
1%
B-20
3%
On-road Vehicle Use Emissions from the City fleet and employee vehicle use are summarized separately in Table 6 and in Figures 14 through 16. These sectors are combined when comparing emissions by energy source (Figure 17). Vehicle Fleet City government staff provided data on fuel costs and VMT traveled by on-road fleet vehicles by fuel and vehicle type for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Data for 2000 were estimated using the average rate of increase for City fleet fuel use and cost from 2001 to 2005. As recommended by City government staff, the 2008 vehicle fleet composition was used to estimate emissions for all years. 19 City fleet emissions have shown a 37 percent decline from 2000 to 2007 (Table 6). This reduction in emissions could be partially due to the different methods used to estimate 2000 and 2007 fleet vehicle usage. Fleet emissions have remained a small portion of the City government total, averaging 8 percent of total emissions from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 15). Employee Commute As mentioned previously, PAG TRP staff conducted annual commuter surveys from 1989 through 2005, and currently conducts surveys biennially. City employees’ daily drive-alone, one-way VMT survey data were used to calculate annual round-trip VMT for 2000,
19 2008 City fleet composition: Gasoline - Auto: full-size (32 percent); Auto: mid-size (30 percent); Heavy truck (8 percent); Light truck (5 percent); Motorcycle (5 percent). Diesel - Heavy truck (19 percent); Bus (1 percent).
36
2005 and 2007. City government commuter data for 2006 was interpolated using 2005 and 2007 survey data. The survey participation rate for City government employees is high, averaging 88 percent over the past 19 years. As recommended by ICLEI staff, a model default vehicle mix was used to describe City employee commuting patterns.20 From 2000 to 2007, City government workers drove 17 percent less miles which resulted in a 33 percent decrease in emissions (Table 6). These results indicate that City employees are reducing daily commuting miles through alternate modes (bus, bike, walking and carpooling/vanpool). Emissions generated by City employee commuting remain a small portion of total emissions (Figure 15) and in 2007, produced 4 percent of total City government emissions (Figure 16). Government-generated Solid Waste City government staff provided government-generated solid waste totals for 1993 and 2007. Waste data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were interpolated using the 1993 and 2007 totals. Specifically, a 3.5 percent decrease per year was applied to the 2007 total and progressively to each subsequent year to estimate 2006, 2005 and 2000 wastes. City government waste was characterized using a Tucson’s government waste study (Hughes, et al, 1993) (Appendix E). Waste disposal emissions experienced a 28 percent increase from 2000 to 2007. Despite this increase, waste disposal emissions remain a small portion of emissions and contributed 1 percent to the 2007 total (Figure 17).
20 Commuter vehicle fleet mix (all gasoline-powered): Auto: full-size/SUV/Pickup (36.4 percent); Auto: mid-size (18.8 percent) Auto: compact/subcompact (44.8 percent).
37
Table
6. C
ity of Tucs
on G
overn
ment Gre
enhouse
Gas Em
issions (m
etric tons), E
nerg
y (m
illion Btu
) and Exp
enditure
s (d
ollars) 1990-2
007
38
City Government Synopsis
In 2006, City government emissions were approximately 3 percent of total City community emissions. From 2000 to 2007, City government emissions declined by over 14,000 metric tons, representing a 6 percent reduction. Emissions from facility energy use, fleet and commuter vehicle travel decreased during this period while water energy use and waste emissions increased. Emissions generated from energy used in pumping, treating and distributing drinking water remain the greatest contributor to City government emissions from 2000 to 2007, averaging 50 percent of total emissions. Facility energy use emissions, another significant component of City government emissions, averaged 20 percent of the totals over this same period. Energy use in reclaimed water systems and public lighting, City fleet and employee vehicle use and waste disposal combined, make up the remaining 30 percent of City government emissions over this seven-year period. Overview of the County and City Government Inventories For the most part, County and City government emissions are generated by similar sources. Energy use, particularly electricity, is responsible for the majority of emissions by both government groups. Specifically, energy use in City water operations and County wastewater treatment activities make up a significant portion of their respective emission totals. Facility energy use also is responsible for a substantial share of total GHG emissions in both government entities for all survey years. Emissions due to on-road vehicle travel, waste disposal and streetlight energy use are minor contributors to total County and City government emissions. Although there are several similarities between the two governments’ emission profiles, a major difference occurred in their trends over the past seven years. From 2000 to 2007, County government emissions have shown a 47 percent increase while City government emissions have shown a 6 percent decline. This differential can be attributed to the need to provide services to the County’s population which is expanding at a greater rate than populations within the City. County population grew by 19 percent from 2000 to 2007 while City population grew at a slower rate (11 percent) over this same time. 6. Inventory Role and the Next Steps The goal of this initial report is to provide a regional, broad-based GHG emission estimate data from 1990 and select years through to 2007. It provides baseline information identifying the major sources of County and City GHG community and government emissions. These data can serve as a guide to assist the region and government agencies in evaluating emissions and assist them in developing programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions.
39
This report is intended to be a living document and will be periodically updated as new data become available.
References Cited
Arizona Executive Order 2006-13 Climate Change Action. 2006. http://www.governor.state.az.us/dms/upload/EO_2006-13_090806.pdf Arizona Department Commerce, Energy Office. First Sales of Petroleum Products into Arizona for Consumption. 2008 Arizona Department of Economic Security. Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places and Balance of County. 2007. http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/econinfo/FILES/EEC-06.pdf Bailie, A., Lazarus, M., Peterson, T. Hausker, K., Kuch, P. Williams, E., Colburn, K., Roe, S. The Centre for Climate Strategies, Final Arizona Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020. 2006. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Characterization of Waste from Single-family Residences. Report for the City of Phoenix Public Works Department. 2003. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Contractor’s Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2004. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. Contractor’s Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. Contractor’s Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. City of Tucson Water Department Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006. http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/ar2006.pdf Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy. Fuel Emission Factors. 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/excel/Fuel%20Emission%20Factors.xls Fuller, D. J. M. and Rauluk, V. J. City of Tucson Greenhouse Gas Reduction Campaign: Local Action Plan. 1998. Hughes, W.W., Tani, M., Aller, S. and Rathje, W.L. A Characterization of the Solid Wastes of City of Tucson Governmental Agencies. 1993. Hughes, Wilson. City of Tucson. Personal communication. 2008.
40
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use. Chapter 2: Mineral Industry Emissions. 2006. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007 – Synthesis Report. 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm Pima Association of Governments (PAG). 2000 On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. 2004. http://www.pagnet.org/documents/Air/2000onroadei.pdf Pima Association of Governments (PAG). 2008. Technical Services, personal communication. Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCWRD) 2007 Effluent Generation Report. 2008. http://www.pima.gov/wwm/reports/pdf/Effluent_gen_2007.pdf. U. S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. 2008. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T001; http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Waste Reduction Model (WARM). 2006. http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006. USEPA #430-R-08-005. 2008. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf
41
Appendix A: Data Sources
Com
munity Invento
ries
Invento
ry Sourc
e
Nam
e/A
ffilia
tion
Type o
f Data
Residential, Commercial, Industrial Energy Use
Tucs
on Electric Power
Jeff Yock
ey, TEP
County electricity
use
by se
ctor
City of Tucs
on electricity
use
by se
ctor
Em
issions factors by fu
el a
nd plant ty
pe
Trico
Electricity
Coopera
tive
Rom
i Wittm
an, T
rico
County electricity
usa
ge by se
ctor
Arizo
na Electric Power
Coopera
tive
Michelle
Fre
eark, A
rizo
na Electric Power
Coopera
tive
Em
ission coefficients by fu
el a
nd plant ty
pe for Trico
Tohono O
'odham
Utilit
y Auth
ority
Lore
n N
ixon
Tribal e
lectricity use
by se
ctor
South
west G
as
Dave N
augle, S
outh
west G
as
City and County natu
ral g
as use
by se
ctor
Transportation
VM
T
Aichong Sun, P
ima A
ssociation of Govt.
County and City VM
T estim
ate
s
Cat Tra
n
Tom
Am
para
no, U
niversity of Arizo
na
City VM
T estim
ate
s by fu
el typ
e
Coyo
te Run
Aim
ee Ram
sey, Town of Oro
Valle
y VM
T by fu
el typ
e
Old
Pueblo Tro
lley
Eugene Cayw
ood
City VM
T estim
ate
s
Rura
l Tra
nsit and Special N
eeds
Patrick M
cGowan, P
ima County
County and City VM
T by fu
el typ
e
Sun Tra
n
Georg
e Caria, C
ity of Tucs
on
Pim
a County
VM
T by bus fu
el typ
e
Tom
Fisher, City of Tucs
on
City of Tucs
on VM
T by bus fu
el typ
e
TIC
ET
Kare
n M
iller, City of Tucs
on
VM
T by fu
el typ
e
Van Tra
n
Georg
e Caria, C
ity of Tucs
on
City and County VM
T by fu
el typ
e
Wast
e and R
ecy
cled M
ate
rials
Judy Tovar, Pim
a County
Wastes, recy
cled (dro
p-o
ff) m
ate
rials tonnage and typ
e
Ina, S
ahuarita
, Tangerine
landfills; C
ata
lina Tra
nsfer Sta
tion
Eastern
Pim
a County
Recy
clin
g
Milena Sousa
, Pim
a County
County private
hauler re
cyclin
g tonnage, typ
e
Los Reales
Wilso
n H
ughes, City of Tucs
on
Wastes and recy
cled tonnag
e by ty
pe; c
hara
cteriza
tions
City of Tucs
on Recy
clin
g
Donald G
ibso
n, C
ity of Tucs
on
Curb
side recy
cled tonnage by ty
pe; c
hara
cteriza
tions
42
Oth
er
Pro
pane
Mark H
ope, A
Z D
ept. of Com
merce,
Energ
y Office
Gallons of pro
pane sold
in A
rizo
na
Jet A fuel
Fre
d Brinke
r, TIA
Gallons of Je
t A fuel u
sed at TIA
and Rya
n A
irfield
Ron H
erb
ert, M
ara
na A
irport
Gallons of Je
t A fuel u
sed
Aviation gaso
line
Fre
d Brinke
r, TIA
Gallons of aviation gaso
line use
d at TIA
and Rya
n A
irfield
Ron H
erb
er, M
ara
na A
irport
Gallons of aviation gaso
line fuel u
sed
Loco
motives
Jon G
erm
er, U
nion Pacific Railro
ad
Diese
l fuel u
se (2005, 2
006)
Envair Consu
lting
Diese
l fuel u
se (2000)
Industrial Processes
Arizo
na Portland C
em
ent
Lath
a Toopal, A
DEQ
Clinke
r pro
duction, d
iese
l fuel u
sed
Phelp
s Dodge Sierrita M
ine
Lath
a Toopal, A
DEQ
Diese
l , biodiese
l fuel u
sed
Govern
ment Invento
ries
Invento
ry Sourc
e
Nam
e/A
ffilia
tion
Type o
f Data
Facility Energy Use
Govern
ment-ru
n Facilit
ies
Paul G
uerrero
, Pim
a County
County govern
ment electricity
, natu
ral g
as use
and costs
Asia Philb
in, C
ity of Tucs
on
City govern
ment electricity, n
atu
ral g
as use
and costs
Je
rem
y M
ohr, City of Tucs
on volunte
er
City govern
ment natu
ral g
as use
and costs
Wast
ewate
r Tre
atm
ent and W
ate
r Syst
em
Energ
y U
se
Wastewate
r Tre
atm
ent Facilities
Wendy Gort, P
ima County
County govern
ment electricity
, natu
ral g
as use
and costs
Pota
ble and Reclaim
ed W
ater
Asia Philb
in, C
ity of Tucs
on
Electricity, n
atu
ral g
as use
for pota
ble and reclaim
ed
system
s and costs
Vehicle Fleet
Govern
ment vehicles
Venesa
Hartley, Pim
a County
County govern
ment fleet VM
T and costs
Robert Padilla, P
ima County
Marc Cru
m, C
ity of Tucs
on
Tony Le
on, C
ity of Tucs
on
City govern
ment fleet VM
T and costs
City govern
ment altern
ate
fuel fleet VM
T and costs
Employee Commute
Rita H
ildebra
nd, P
AG TRP
Don Fre
em
an, P
AG
Jeff H
ildebra
nd, P
AG
County and City govern
ment em
ploye
e com
mute
r data
County and City govern
ment em
ploye
e com
mute
r data
County and City govern
ment em
ploye
e com
mute
r data
43
Public Lighting
Don Pitte
nger, Pim
a County
Ray Quihuis, C
ity of Tucs
on
Ern
ie Encinas, City of Tucs
on
County govern
ment energ
y use
and costs
City govern
ment lig
hting energ
y use
and cost
City govern
ment lig
hting e
nerg
y use
and costs
Government-generated Solid W
aste
Eric Ponce
, Pim
a County
Wilso
n H
ughes, City of Tucs
on
County govern
ment waste tonnage and costs
City govern
ment waste tonnage, c
hara
cteriza
tion and
costs
44
Appendix B: Population Estimates 1990-2007
United States21
Arizona22 Eastern Pima
County2
Tucson2
1990 248,709,873 3,665,339 643,814 405,371
2000 282,194,308 5,130,632 814,468 486,699
2005 295,895,897 6,077,740 924,405 529,770
2006 298,754,819 6,305,210 947,230 534,685
2007 301,621,157 6,500,194 968,423 541,132
Appendix C: Emission Factors for Electricity Use
1990 2000 2005 2006 2007
lbs. CO2 per MWh
Tucson Electric Power23 1,945.1 1,899.9 1,921.5 1,891.2 n.a.
Trico Electric Cooperative24 1,846.8 1,846.8 2,036.8 2,511.4 2,024.8
n.a. - Data not available
21 U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-
ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T001; http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt (1990) 22 Source: Arizona Department of Commerce http://www.azcommerce.com/EconInfo/Demographics/ 23 Based on emissions and generation data representative of the fuel type/plant type combinations used by TEP to generate electricity. Data supplied by TEP staff.
24 Based on emissions and generation data representative of the fuel type/plant type combinations used by Trico to generate electricity. Data supplied by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative.
45
APPENDIX D: Pima County Data Inputs
1990 2000 2005 2006
Residential Energy Use
Natural Gas (therms) 80,471,344 89,825,869 83,839,115 81,977,939
Electricity (GWh)
TEP 2,070 3,041 3,633 3,778
Trico 91 194 274 299
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority n.a. 21 31 33
Commercial Energy Use
Natural Gas (therms) 57,056,342 61,913,682 58,896,658 60,203,648
Electricity (GWh)
TEP 1,357 1,763 2,097 2,220
Trico 46 74 133 131
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority n.a. 43 62 65
Industrial Energy Use
Natural Gas (therms) 29,375,582 125,509,673 69,931,089 66,182,190
Electricity (GWh)
TEP 2,650 3,418 3,145 3,203
Trico 139 76 30 29
Transportation (annual County miles)
Pima County VMT 4,863,931,878 6,932,920,462 8,162,682,272 8,344,955,346
Other transportation
Cat Tran25 0 132,939 222,105 235,757
Coyote Run5 0 0 140,717 145,069
Old Pueblo Trolley5 0 6,864 6,864 6,864
Rural Transit5 0 329,094 416,465 450,831
Special Needs 417,978 590,664 617,067 660,427
Sun Tran 6,884,993 7,896,625 7,899,630 7,987,433
TICET5 - 37,841 109,652 105,247
Van Tran 1,441,338 2,149,240 3,145,893 3,584,387
Waste (short tons)
Ina n.a. 23,809 30,279 26,203
Sahuarita n.a. 39,156 1,217 583
Tangerine n.a. 100,664 151,450 133,550
Los Reales 516,000 550,200 627,699 674,018
Other (gallons)
Propane n.a. 14,087,926 15,145,652 13,777,713
Jet A fuel26 4,000,000 3,248,398 3,678,189 3,501,655
Aviation Gasoline26 6,600 52,582 48,934 57,956
Railroad fuel n.a. 8,749,627 8,263,844 8,458,508
Industrial Processes
AZ Portland Cement (metric tons clinker) n.a. 1,776,769 2,017,325 2,053,881
AZ Portland Cement (gallons diesel) n.a. 15,700 6,981 9,578
AZ Portland Cement (gallons biodiesel) n.a. 0 0 6,753
Sierrita Mine (gallons diesel) n.a. 240,027 202,082 191,129
25 Transit was not operational in 1990. Coyote Run not operational until 2002. 26 1990 represents aviation gas and Jet A from Ryan Airfield and TIA, respectively. 2000, 2005 and 2006 represents totals from TIA, Ryan Airfield and Marana Airport.
46
Appendix E: Waste Characterizations
Waste Categories: Percent Composition
Commercial Waste27
Paper Products 28
Food Wastes 26
Plant Debris 2
Wood/Textiles 11
All Other Wastes 33
Construction and Demolition28
Paper Products 3
Food Wastes 0
Plant Debris 1
Wood/Textiles 20
All Other Wastes 76
Government-generated Waste29
Paper Products 15
Food Wastes 4
Plant Debris 37
Wood/Textiles 6
All Other Wastes 38
Private Self-Hauler Waste30
Paper Products 7
Food Wastes 1
Plant Debris 5
Wood/Textiles 22
All Other Wastes 65
Residential Wastes31
Paper Products 18
Food Wastes 17
Plant Debris 28
Wood/Textiles 6
All Other Wastes 31
27 Based on Waste Disposal & Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006 28 Based on Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.
29 Based on A Characterization of the Solid Wastes of City of Tucson Governmental Agencies. Hughes, W. et al, 1993.
30 Based on a Statewide Waste Characterization Study - Contactors' Report to the California Board. Cascadia Consulting Group. Dec. 2004.
31 Based on Characterization of Waste from Single-family Residences for the City of Phoenix Public Works Dept. Cascadia Consulting
Group. Nov. 2003.
47
Appendix F
WARM Model per metric ton estimates of GHG Emissions for Alternate Management Scenarios (EPA, 2006)
Material
GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Source
Reduced (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Recycled (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of Material
Land filled
(MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of Material
Combusted (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of Material
Composted (MTCO2E)
Aluminum Cans -8.23 -13.57 0.04 0.06 NA
Steel Cans -3.18 -1.79 0.04 -1.53 NA
Copper Wire -7.34 -4.92 0.04 0.05 NA
Glass -0.57 -0.28 0.04 0.05 NA
HDPE -1.79 -1.39 0.04 0.93 NA
LDPE -2.27 -1.69 0.04 0.93 NA
PET -2.09 -1.54 0.04 1.08 NA
Corrugated Cardboard -5.59 -3.11 0.4 -0.65 NA
Magazines/third-class mail -8.65 -3.07 -0.3 -0.47 NA
Newspaper -4.87 -2.79 -0.87 -0.74 NA
Office Paper -8 -2.85 1.94 -0.62 NA
Phonebooks -6.32 -2.66 -0.87 -0.74 NA
Textbooks -9.17 -3.11 1.94 -0.62 NA
Dimensional Lumber -2.02 -2.46 -0.49 -0.78 NA
Medium Density Fiberboard -2.22 -2.47 -0.49 -0.78 NA
Food Scraps NA NA 0.72 -0.18 -0.2
Yard Trimmings NA NA -0.22 -0.22 -0.2
Grass NA NA -0.01 -0.22 -0.2
Leaves NA NA -0.18 -0.22 -0.2
Branches NA NA -0.49 -0.22 -0.2
Mixed Paper, Broad NA -3.54 0.35 -0.65 NA
Mixed Paper, Residential NA -3.54 0.25 -0.65 NA
Mixed Paper, Office NA -3.42 0.47 -0.59 NA
Mixed Metals NA -5.26 0.04 -1.06 NA
Mixed Plastics NA -1.49 0.04 0.99 NA
Mixed Recyclables NA -2.91 0.14 -0.61 NA
Mixed Organics NA NA 0.24 -0.2 -0.2
Mixed MSW NA NA 0.42 -0.12 NA
Carpet -3.99 -7.18 0.04 0.39 NA
Personal Computers -55.47 -2.26 0.04 -0.2 NA
Clay Bricks -0.28 NA 0.04 NA NA
Concrete NA -0.01 0.04 NA NA
Fly Ash NA -0.87 0.04 NA NA
Tires -3.98 -1.82 0.04 0.18 NA
48
APPENDIX G: City of Tucson Data Inputs
1990 2000 2005 2006
Residential Energy Use
Natural Gas (therms) 38,956,747 43,485,339 40,587,109 39,686,100
TEP Electricity (GWh) 1,314 1,788 1,831 1,832
Commercial Energy Use
Natural Gas (therms) 30,879,205 33,508,024 31,875,194 32,582,544
TEP Electricity (GWh) 957 1,244 1,460 1,508
Industrial Energy Use
Natural Gas (therms) 25,640,426 109,550,901 61,039,230 57,767,010
Electricity (GWh) 1,137 1,466 1,247 1,228
Transportation (annual City miles)
City VMT 2,393,054,494 3,410,996,867 4,016,039,678 4,090,363,312
Other transportation
Cat Tran32 0 132,939 222,105 235,757
Old Pueblo Trolley32 0 6,864 6,864 6,864
Rural Transit32 0 16,455 20,823 22,541.
Special Needs 167,191 236,266 246,827 264,171
Sun Tran 6,884,993 7,253,929 7,086,526 7,177,224
TICET32 - 37,841 109,652 105,247
Van Tran 1,441,338 2,149,240 3,145,893 3,516,284
Waste (short tons)
Los Reales 516,000 550,200 627,699 674,018
Other (gallons)
Propane n.a. 8,418,476 8,679,866 7,777,139
32 Transit was not operational in 1990
49
APPENDIX
H: P
ima C
ounty
Govern
ment Data
County
Govern
ment Opera
tions Data
Expenditures (dollars)
2000
2005
2006
2007
2000
2005
2006
2007
Facility
Energ
y U
se
Electricity
(KW
h)
57,843,129
68,453,996
65,129,324
72,992,897
5,165,261
6,013,512
5,257,981
5,813,167
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
559,530
1,014,500
1,463,046
1,085,803
335,718
1,014,497
1,536,199
1,248,674
Wast
ewate
r Tre
atm
ent
Electricity
(KW
h)
6,696,337
17,612,538
34,366,059
34,583,254
535,550
1,584,664
3,538,667
3,699,324
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
1,461,343
2,070,970
2,360,952
2,450,820
876,806
2,070,970
2,479,000
2,818,443
Vehicle
Fle
et (m
iles/
fisc
al year)
33
Gaso
line vehicles
14,387,937
15,398,472
15,772,593
16,245,101
1,330,631
2,612,584
2,780,593
2,965,782
Diese
l vehicles
839,369
1,164,743
1,193,041
1,122,953
206,190
472,543
502,931
516,138
Em
plo
yee C
om
mute
(m
iles/
year)
34
Gaso
line vehicles
31,446,828
29,753,238
29,972,305
30,189,499
0
0
0
0
Public Lig
hting (KW
h)3
5
Electricity
1,602,440
1,602,440
1,602,440
1,602,440
116,978
116,978
116,978
116,978
Solar
241
241
241
241
0
0
0
0
Govern
ment Solid W
ast
e (sh
ort tons)
36
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
42,300
42,300
42,300
42,300
n.a. - D
ata
not availa
ble
0 - N
o use
33 2006 VM
T and costs inte
rpolate
d using FY05/0
6 and FY06/0
7 data
34 2006 Em
plo
yee com
mute
VM
T w
as in
terp
olate
d using 2005 and 2007 TRP surv
ey data
35 2007 public
lighting energ
y use
and cost data
were
use
d for all years
362007 w
aste tota
ls and exp
enditure
data
was use
d for all years; c
osts base
d on $23.50 tip
pin
g fee per sh
ort ton
50
APPENDIX
I: C
ity o
f Tucs
on G
overn
ment Data
City G
overn
ment Opera
tions Data
Expenditure
s (d
ollars
)
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
Facility
Energ
y U
se
Adm
inistration Build
ings
Electricity
(KW
h)
5,475,525
3,780,863
4,032,921
4,766,890
5,240,735
394,806
337,835
359,632
428,383
466,933
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
60,440
38,172
55,630
61,697
60,526
31,645
28,917
72,187
96,626
61,241
Fire D
epartm
ent
Electricity
(KW
h)
2,163,694
2,448,094
2,862,067
3,044,828
3,651,745
161,579
217,703
259,041
273,871
335,017
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
24,988
42,066
42,608
51,274
72,511
14,993
34,915
46,642
71,412
100,826
Libra
ries3
7
Electricity
(KW
h)
3,920,347
4,150,933
3,732,657
2,888,381
0
292,748
368,580
333,913
259,843
0
Opera
tions
Electricity
(KW
h)
1,834,590
2,912,740
3,569,320
3,205,888
3,850,638
138,447
254,067
311,294
280,163
337,220
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
24,418
5,361
5,922
4,563
5,124
16,424
4,601
6,985
6,906
8,252
Park
s
Electricity
(KW
h)
1,097,038
1,105,080
1,800,763
1,666,503
1,729,951
81,541
97,606
161,163
149,367
155,749
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
65,100
60,576
43,863
59,703
50,413
33,477
43,340
45,234
73,362
70,624
Park
s & Recreation
Electricity
(KW
h)
7,098,142
12,173,673
12,311,181
12,266,814
12,724,207
5,299,943
1,080,952
1,102,408
1,101,169
1,146,576
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
125,478
251,571
297,786
580,564
276,248
67,879
190,368
313,478
424,685
309,689
Police
Electricity
(KW
h)
4,126,030
6,270,420
3,918,750
3,607,353
3,902,462
290,415
509,156
323,638
295,264
333,228
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
5,066
74,465
70,020
63,239
94,238
3,310
59,441
80,921
92,940
114,874
Solid W
aste
Electricity
(KW
h)
53,760
248,399
310,795
324,570
317,602
4,015
6,898
28,105
29,382
28,748
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
385
409
839
651
666
389
553
1,125
1,148
1,451
Tra
nsp
ortation
Electricity
(KW
h)
628,592
1,305,901
1,387,711
2,216,741
2,484,724
46,945
115,566
124,129
196,886
219,925
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
15,689
17,825
14,269
13,489
2,925
9,670
13,403
15,013
17,200
4,535
Tucs
on C
onvention Cente
r
Electricity
(KW
h)
5,921,560
4,212,000
4,581,600
4,316,900
4,702,800
442,234
371,986
405,736
384,439
419,414
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
0
6,722
7,565
8,864
6,869
0
5,266
10,750
15,351
5,536
Zoo
Electricity
(KW
h)
348,860
1,061,780
912,150
952,210
970,920
26,078
93,054
80,606
84,447
86,199
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
2,134
3,486
3,533
3,670
3,889
1,451
3,334
4,459
5,770
6,751
Oth
er3
8
Electricity
(KW
h)
5,052,948
4,350,840
4,442,971
5,733,500
6,744,204
382,900
386,640
396,052
508,504
596,485
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
79,939
96,772
67,063
97,619
11,419
41,344
67,566
65,018
112,286
19,383
51
City G
overn
ment Opera
tions Data
Expenditure
s (d
ollars
)
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
Pota
ble
Wate
r Energ
y U
se
All Pota
ble Sys
tem
s
Trico
Electricity
(KW
h)
3,159,398
5,568,637
34,230,466
27,990,416
40,157,421
322,471
575,861
2,403,124
2,595,652
3,871,996
Cath
odic Pro
tection
Electricity
(KW
h)
2,702
16,293
29,827
33,885
34,960
202
1,526
2,682
3,029
3,063
CAP C
anal P
um
p Sta
tion
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
0
197,541
52,568
44,274
30,496
0
92,729
53,704
59,698
40,186
Lighting
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
3,270
700
650
580
0
448
122
59
52
Hayd
en U
dall W
ate
r Tre
atm
ent Plant
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
3,911,840
3,143,300
2,996,980
3,280,100
0
206,185
165,496
158,143
173,341
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
0
37,242
12,971
14,034
8,729
0
44,645
19,160
23,417
8,361
Plant 1
Electricity
(KW
h)
485,890
440,546
501,284
470,534
490,019
36,280
39,515
45,638
42,996
44,796
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
28,702
12,185
13,410
14,581
14,361
15,755
10,779
15,926
21,361
23,246
Plant 2
Electricity
(KW
h)
23,000
49,360
52,164
54,091
59,015
1,718
4,405
4,956
5,142
5,583
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
0
762
254
310
273
0
923
546
729
732
Plant 3
Electricity
(KW
h)
27,370
47,910
0
0
0
2,048
4,278
0
0
0
Plant 4
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
0
39,960
35,350
41,820
0
0
3,607
3,204
3,784
Sys
tem
Booster Pum
ps
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
70,790
431,877
1,500,107
1,302,331
1,428,808
51,171
261,549
1,343,933
1,491,289
2,242,794
Tucs
on A
irport Rem
ediation Pro
ject
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
0
47,031
16,030
41,311
32,958
0
32,207
18,189
48,631
16,883
Wate
r Distrib
ution
Electricity
(KW
h)
15,117,545
19,608,347
21,130,979
22,433,648
21,403,035
893,174
1,540,898
1,628,148
1,724,106
1,612,005
Wate
r Distrib
ution &
Tre
atm
ent
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
354,920
212,120
350,400
340,560
0
19,862
12,060
19,866
19,305
Wells - Avr
a Valle
y North
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
146,565
776,822
446,055
558,247
252,865
113,917
500,053
514,058
829,659
409,789
Wells - Avr
a Valle
y South
Electricity
(KW
h)
1,437,120
2,746,640
2,529,520
2,870,080
2,910,000
68,524
150,879
139,525
158,684
161,484
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
552,817
559,015
605,826
648,575
589,440
326,175
355,610
660,101
903,773
876,514
Wells - CAVSARP
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
0
0
1,741,900
1,364,394
1,578,327
0
0
1,863,028
1,819,490
2,379,371
52
City G
overn
ment Opera
tions Data
Expenditure
s (d
ollars
)
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
Pota
ble
Wate
r Energ
y U
se (Continued)
Wells - Central
Electricity
(KW
h)
26,955,136
28,867,614
10,817,171
13,396,705
9,251,160
1,622,872
2,025,405
739,161
925,937
641,214
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
192,177
83,594
0
0
0
107,513
46,084
568
6
0
Wells - East
Electricity
(KW
h)
7,519,660
8,520,084
6,041,016
5,499,764
5,042,660
435,294
551,429
366,010
339,893
310,592
Wells - Northwest
Electricity
(KW
h)
164,730
2,151,680
1,306,040
1,579,320
882,800
12,086
133,778
82,712
97,217
58,612
Wells - Oth
er
Electricity
(KW
h)
1,105,650
1,775,570
2,638,025
2,047,662
2,314,470
68,901
156,996
234,885
183,270
204,745
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
23,050
20,771
0
0
0
12,145
11,485
0
0
0
Wells - Park
Electricity
(KW
h)
407,776
234,357
401,035
349,687
399,114
30,417
20,902
36,030
31,434
35,237
Wells - Rillito
Electricity
(KW
h)
3,514,538
6,123,740
4,961,870
4,836,711
3,807,264
242,942
463,541
384,320
371,693
307,810
Wells - Santa
Cru
z
Electricity
(KW
h)
4,620,220
3,203,084
2,954,049
3,150,322
2,491,395
287,692
219,182
210,210
229,247
182,953
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
243,512
155,079
175,251
193,433
155,642
122,233
77,438
187,687
259,475
209,063
Wells - South
Electricity
(KW
h)
3,144,540
11,223,906
9,067,346
9,276,859
8,517,304
233,056
835,751
653,628
667,860
615,484
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
43,483
33,248
30,675
7,095
21,121
22,687
18,427
34,116
9,992
28,793
Wells South
side &
TARP
Electricity
(KW
h)
2,496,770
4,050,204
2,162,340
3,763,374
3,043,205
155,792
241,374
122,138
218,675
173,315
Natu
ral G
as (therm
s)
41,370
37,706
32,626
39,965
24,693
21,754
20,569
36,234
54,870
35,816
Wells - Tanque Verd
e
Electricity
(KW
h)
6,232,470
6,009,343
2,223,409
3,051,109
2,118,461
393,032
418,727
155,121
201,215
145,321
Reclaim
ed W
ate
r Energ
y U
se
All Reclaim
ed Sys
tem
s
Trico
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
980,710
1,111,063
1,649,667
1,868,696
0
99,167
90,404
182,008
214,169
Alvern
on
Electricity
(KW
h)
3,760
1,440
1,100
1,400
1,340
280
127
99
118
120
Northeast
Electricity
(KW
h)
530,740
970,240
1,064,260
961,680
1,094,183
38,193
53,489
59,141
53,529
61,051
Northwest
Electricity
(KW
h)
25,020
170,240
62,340
407,660
387,309
1,106
9,540
3,521
23,166
22,284
Silverb
ell
Electricity
(KW
h)
400,480
1,055,907
1,295,073
2,089,676
3,041,480
29,467
59,348
73,896
147,512
217,158
South
east
Electricity
(KW
h)
6,600
92,878
65,220
79,412
78,579
493
8,151
5,744
7,021
6,967
South
west
Electricity
(KW
h)
340,420
1,114,450
848,140
723,880
730,320
24,617
67,549
52,453
48,305
48,182
53
City G
overn
ment Opera
tions Data
Expenditure
s (d
ollars
)
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
Reclaim
ed W
ate
r Energ
y U
se (Continued)
Speedway
Electricity
(KW
h)
217,790
200,540
207,670
182,050
182,040
16,260
17,868
18,775
16,432
16,496
Sweetw
ate
r
Electricity
(KW
h)
3,862,380
8,658,820
8,557,660
8,443,360
8,739,580
192,448
528,999
513,679
519,105
526,526
Thorn
ydale
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
0
0
195,196
712,584
0
0
0
20,912
62,115
12th
Avenue
Electricity
(KW
h)
0
0
0
1,600
47,920
0
0
0
260
4,465
Vehicle
Fle
et (m
iles/
fisc
al year)
39
Gaso
line vehicles
n.a.
14,430,006
15,435,097
15,726,626
n.a.
1,424,508
3,068,344
3,428,333
3,742,401
Diese
l vehicles
3,070,951
2,045,879
0
833,309
2,878,285
2,859,033
0
CNG vehicles
0
499,568
377,500
161,782
0
1,531,950
1,372,072
1,314,739
B-2
0 vehicles
0
0
2,169,703
4,167,616
0
0
3,325,132
3,911,984
Gaso
line (gallons)
1,581,063
Diese
l (gallons)
1,064,241
Em
plo
yee C
om
mute
(m
iles/
year)
Gaso
line vehicles
n.a.
24,928,617
24,309,216
20,518,913
16,957,524
0
0
0
0
0
Public Lig
hting (KW
h)
Streetlights
n.a.
20,008,582
20,008,582
20,008,582
20,008,582
n.a.
1,400,601
1,400,601
1,400,601
1,400,601
Tra
ffic Lights
4,608,922
4,608,922
4,608,922
4,608,922
322,625
322,625
322,625
322,625
Govern
ment Solid W
ast
e (sh
ort tons)
40
n.a.
16,321
19,504
20,211
20,945
n.a.
375,387
448,582
464,852
481,737
n.a. - D
ata
not availa
ble
0 - N
o use
37 O
n July 1, 2
006, C
ity lib
raries beca
me C
ounty
facilities; subse
quent electricity
use
and costs are
included in
2007 C
ounty
use
and costs
38 O
ther facilities in
cludes TOPSC Build
ings 2, 3
and 5 and W
ate
r Sto
res
39 Vehicle fleet data
for 2000 repre
sents gallons of fu
el a
nd costs base
d on 2001 to 2005 percent ch
ange in
fuel u
se and costs
40 W
aste disposa
l cost base
d on $23.00 tip
pin
g fee per sh
ort ton