seec cap template€¦ · web viewa product of the statewide energy efficiency collaborative...

Climate Action Progress Report Template

Implementation Progress and Emissions Reductions Achieved through the Climate Action Plan of [Year]

[Jurisdiction] [year] Climate Action Progress Report of 27

Date, year


This Progress Report Template is a product of the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC). SEEC is a new alliance to help cities and counties reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save energy. SEEC is a collaboration between three statewide non-profit organizations and California’s four Investor Owned Utilities.

SEEC members are: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA Institute for Local Government Local Government Commission Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Diego Gas and Electric Company Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company

SEEC provides education and tools for climate action planning, venues for peer-to-peer networking, technical assistance and recognition for local agencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

The collaborative effort is designed to build upon the unique resources, expertise and local agency relationships of each non-profit organization, as well as those of the four investor owned utilities.

The program is funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.


Using this Progress Report Template

Remove This Page from Your Report

This Climate Action Progress Report Template, a product of the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC), is designed for local governments who have been implementing their climate action plan for a year or more and are ready to report to their community and stakeholders on progress made through the plan. The template is designed to speed the development of a climate action progress report.

Specific components of this template may not always reflect local circumstances or be appropriate for all jurisdictions. Please modify this template as needed to accommodate local goals, knowledge, commitments, and the results of your re-inventory and project evaluations. This template is a starting point and outline of your own Climate Action Progress Report and is designed to be used in conjunction with Milestone 5 Guidance: Measuring and Reporting Progress in Emissions Reduction.

Modify the Template

Local governments are encouraged to use whatever information within this template they find useful. Sections may be added or removed or the layout changed altogether. The narrative language included here should be replaced or filled in as needed.

Instructions in the document body are bold and highlighted. Remove the instructions prior to release.

Replace the words in brackets “[xxxxxx]” found throughout the document.

The bracketed words function as placeholders for the name of your jurisdiction, a specific date of a local event, or other local information. To quickly find and replace these with local terms, use the functionality of your document editing software; for example, use the Find and Replace function in Microsoft Word to search for common replaceable words like “[Jurisdiction]” or for locating the brackets themselves “[”. Searching for either an opening or closing bracket by itself “[” will allow you to find all of the replaceable words, replace them, and verify that none remain.

Start now by finding and replacing (CTRL+F) all instances of “[Jurisdiction]” with the name of your local government. This will allow you to quickly begin customization


of the sample text included here. Note that the Find and Replace function may not catch the page footers - open the footer in each section and make changes as necessary. Continue on, modifying the template and adding your own information.

To explore the document fully, it is recommended that users “show” all formatting marks. Use your document editor’s Help function and search for “show formatting” if you are unsure of how to do this. Good luck!


Credits and Acknowledgments[Jurisdiction]

Name, Title, Department 1Name, Title, Department 2Name, Title, Department 3Name, Title, Department 4

[Partner 1]

Name, Title Name, Title

[Partner 2]

Name, Title Name, Title

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA

Name, Title

This report was prepared by Name, Title at organization. The authors would like to thank [jurisdiction] staff for providing much of the insight and local information necessary for the completion of this report.


Table of ContentsExecutive Summary……………………………………………………….……….……..6

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………….………..……..8

What this Report Covers……………………………………………………….……………..…….8

2. Project Implementation and Emissions Reductions……………………..…………10

Implemented Community Programs………………………………………………………………10

Implemented Government Operations Projects…………………………………………………...10

Implementation Challenges Encountered……………………………………….………………....11

3. Aggregate Emissions Changes……………………………………….………………12

Community-wide Emissions Comparison………………………………………………………….12

Government Operations Emissions Comparison…………………………………………………..15

4. Moving Forward………………………………………………….…………………...17

Progress toward Community Target………………………………………………………………17

Proposed New and Expanded Community Programs…………………………………….….……18

Progress toward Government Operations Target……………………………………………..…...18

Proposed New and Expanded Government Operations Projects…...……………………………..19

Appendix A: Methodology for Project-based Emissions Reductions……………..….20


Appendix B: Re-inventory and Baseline Update Methodology……………..………...21


Executive SummaryIn [Year], the [jurisdiction] council adopted the [Jursdiction] Climate Action Plan, designed to reach the goal of reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions to [%] below [baseline year] levels by [year].

List highlights of accomplishements through plan.

Overall, [%] percent of the programs and projects propsed in the Climate Action Plan have been fully implemented, while [%] percent have been partially implemented or are in progress. Implementation progress is summarized in Table 1. Added together, these programs and projects produced community-wide emissions reductions of [#] metric tons CO2e compared to a business-as-usuall scenario. However, several other factors influenced [re-inventory year] emissions, resulting in an overall [decrease/increase] of [#] tons CO2e from [baseline year] to [re-inventory year]. The most significant factor contributing to this was [explain factor].

Table 1: Climate Action Plan Implementation Status Summary

Comunity Implementation Status Government Operations Implementation

Programs Implemented # Programs Implemented #Programs in Progress or Partially Implemented

# Programs in Progress or Partially Implemented

#

Programs Delayed or Reconsidered # Programs Delayed or Reconsidered #Emissions Reductions (Metric tons CO2e)

Emissions Reductions (Metric tons CO2e)

As part of these programs, projects specifically addressing emissions from [Jurisdiction] government operations produced emissions reductions of [#] metric tons CO2e. In addition, these projects saved [$$] in annual fuel and energy costs. Again, other factors also influenced emissions from government


20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Business-as-usual

Target

Actual

Figure 1: Actual Community Emissions Compared to Target

operations, resulting in an overall [decrease/increase] of [#] tons CO2e from [baseline year] to [new inventory year]. [#] tons CO2e from [baseline year] to [new inventory year].

Several rounds of emissions inventories will be necessary to clearly establish [Jurisdiction]’s emissions trend relative to its target. However, if the trend between [baseline year] and [target year] were to continue, [Jurisdiction] [would/would not] be on track to meet its community-wide emissions reduction goal of [%] below [baseline year] emissions by [target year], as shown in Figure 1. However, this change in emissions was also affected by [factor]. Without [factor] emissions would have been [closer to/further from] the goal.

Similarly, if the trend between [base year] and [re-inventory year] were to extend into the future, [Jurisdiction] [would/would not] be on track to meet its government operations emissions reduction goal of [%] below [baseline year] emissions by [target year], as shown in Figure 2. However, this change in emissions was also affected by [factor]. Without [factor] emissions would have been [closer to/further from] the goal.

Based on the results of this progress evaluation, [Jurisdiction] has been particularly successful in reducing emissions from [source or sector]. [Program] has been particularly effective while also [describe co-benefits]. The [City/County] has encountered challenges to reducing emissions from [source / sector], due to [describe factors]. Based on these successes and challenges, [Jurisdiction] can now utilize this new data to: [reevaluate its emissions reduction targets; revisit the measures prioritized in its Climate Action Plan; recalibrate the implementation of certain policies and programs; etc.]


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Business-as-usual

Target

Actual

Figure 2: Actual Government Operations Emissions Compared to Target

1. IntroductionIt has been said that you “can’t manage what you don’t measure,” and this is particularly true in regard to climate planning. The [Jurisdiction] Climate Action Plan adopted in [adoption year] forecasts business as usual emissions and estimates the projected impact of the proposed programs and projects identified in the plan; this report is an evaluation of how closely actual greenhouse gas emissions are following those estimates. Measuring and tracking the actual impact of the implemented actions will allow [Jurisdiction] to understand the progress we are making towards the [target year] GHG reduction goal and to target future investments in effective, high-impact strategies.

Measuring and reporting progress are important parts of Milestones 4 and 5 in ICLEI’s Five Milestones for Climate Mitigation. The Milestones provide a framework and methodology for local governments to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

1. Conduct an inventory and forecast of local greenhouse gas emissions;

2. Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target;

3. Develop a climate action plan for achieving the emissions reduction target;

4. Implement the climate action plan; and,

5. Monitor and report on progress.

Completion of this report represents an important step for [Jurisdiction], marking completion of all Five Milestones. The real value of the information, though, will be in fine-tuning and improving the effectiveness of our GHG reduction programs and projects.


What This Report CoversThis report looks at three basic elements in evaluating the accomplishments of the Climate Action Plan. The first two look at the outcomes of individual projects, reporting on implementation progress for each proposed project, and estimating discrete emissions reductions for implemented projects where possible. The next looks at aggregate changes in emissions by comparing the [baseline year] baseline inventory with a new [re-inventory year] inventory. The aggregate changes in emissions, together with the estimates of discrete emissions reductions and a consideration of external factors, allow us to evaluate whether we are on track to meet our goal of [%] percent reduction in emissions by [target year]. The discrete emissions reductions also allow evaluating the effectiveness of each individual project or program and targeting resources to those that are most effective.

Managing greenhouse gas reductions is a long-term, iterative process. The reductions that can be seen by comparing the [base year] and [re-inventory year] inventories may be small, and external factors like the weather and economic conditions will cause emissions to go up and down from year to year. Similarly, for many of the discrete reductions from individual projects, [Jurisdiction] staff do not have the time, resources, or data to conduct a robust evaluation of emissions reduced. However, the data collected for this report is a starting point, and as more data is collected over time, a more robust picture of how emissions in [Jurisdiction] are changing will emerge.


2. Project Implementation and Emissions reductionsThe [Jurisdiction] Climate Action Plan proposed [#] measures to reduce community-wide emissions and [#] measures to reduce emissions associated with [Jurisdiction] government operations. Of those proposed actions, [#] for the community and [#] for government operations have been fully implemented. The implementation status of each proposed measure is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Implementation Status of Actions Proposed in Climate Action PlanProgram Name Status Implementation NotesPrograms to Reduce Community EmissionsProgram 1 Fully ImplementedProgram 2 Partially

ImplementedProgram 3 ReconsideredProgram 4 Delayed Capital timetable extended due to

budgetProjects to Reduce Government Operations EmissionsProject 1 Fully ImplementedProject 2 Starts Jan 2013

Implemented Community Programs[Program One][Program description][#] [kWh, therms, etc] reduced[#] tons CO2e reduced[$$] in energy savings by [homeowners, participating businesses, etc]

Repeat for each implemented program. Pictures of completed projects are also good to add.

Implemented Government Operations Projects[Project One][Project description][#] [kWh, therms, etc] reduced


[#] tons CO2e reduced[$$] in energy savings

[Repeat for each implemented project]

Implementation Challenges Encountered

The implementation of [project] and [other project] was delayed due to budgetary challenges arising from the economic downturn. [Describe reasons additional proposed programs delayed or reconsidered].


3. Aggregate Emissions ChangesNote: You may not have data availability or resources to track all the indicators referenced in the following section, such as weather and economic conditions. See Milestone 5 Guidance: Measuring and Reporting Progress in Emissions Reduction for more guidance on prioritizing data to track.

Community-Wide Emissions Comparison[Jurisdiction] roll-up community-wide emissions from [list scopes and sources in roll-up] [decreased/increased] [%] percent from [base year] to [re-inventory year]. The [sector] sector showed the largest emissions decrease at [%] percent, followed by the [sector] sector at [%]. However, emissions in the [sector] sector increased [%] percent. Emissions by sector for the two years are shown in Table x and Figure x.

Figure x: Community Emissions by Sector in 2008 and 2011

Table x: Community Emissions by Sector in 2008 and 2011Sector 2008 Metric Tons

CO2e2011 Metric Tons CO2e

Change

Residential 20 19 -1CommercialIndustrialTransportationWaste


05

1015202530354045

Reside

ntial

Commer

cial

Indus

trial

Transp

ortati

onW

aste

Thou

sand

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

20082011

Total

Residential, Commercial and Industrial Electricity

Emissions from electricity in [re-inventory year] were [x] percent [higher/lower] than the base year, due to changes in local electricity consumption and in the carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity. Residential electricity use [increase/decreased] [%] percent over the period. Commercial electricity use [increase/decreased] [%] percent, and Industrial electricity use [increase/decreased] [%] percent. Changes in electricity related emissions were also affected by a [%] percent decrease in the CO2 equivalent per kWh of electricity consumed. This change in emissions factor was influenced by [utility]’s actions to meet the California Renewable Portfolio Standard, as well as by an [increase/decrease] in precipitation between [base year] and [re-inventory] year, which allowed for [more/less] hydropower production. In wetter years, hydropower is able to displace more fossil-fuel based generation, resulting in a lower emissions factor. It was anticipated as part of the Climate Action Plan that both factors would be important in reaching the reduction goal, as achieving significant emissions reductions requires action at the local as well as at the state, utility, and Federal levels.

As described in Section 2, programs implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have reduced electricity use by [x] kWh ([y] percent of baseline use) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Residential and commercial electricity use were affected by [re-inventory] year being [warmer/cooler] than [base year], resulting in [more/less] energy use for air conditioning. Commercial and industrial electricity use also may have been reduced by the economic downturn. Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in emissions from community electricity appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, weather, etc].


88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

2008 2011

Perc

ent o

f 200

8 Va

lue

Res, Com and Indelectricity use

Electricty emissions

Figure x: Changes in community electricity use and emissions

Residential, Commercial and Industrial Natural Gas

Emissions from natural gas in [re-inventory year] were [x] percent [higher/lower] than the base year, primarily due to changes in natural gas consumption. Residential natural gas use [increased/decreased] [%] percent over the period. Commercial natural gas use [increase/decreased] [%] percent, and Industrial natural gas use [increase/decreased] [%] percent. The natural gas emissions factor does not change significantly from year to year.

As described in Section 2, programs implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have reduced natural gas use by [x] therms ([y] percent of baseline use) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Residential and commercial natural gas use were also affected by [re-inventory] year being [warmer/cooler] than [base year], resulting in [more/less] energy use for heating. [Add other factors if relevant]. Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in emissions from community natural gas use appears to be [programs implemented, weather, etc].

TransportationEmissions from transportation in [re-inventory year] were [x] percent [higher/lower] than the base year. This change is due to changes in three transportation factors: vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel efficiency, and the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. VMT in the community [increased/decreased] [%] percent from [base year] to [re-inventory year]. The Pavley I vehicle standards are over the long-term increasing fuel efficiency and decreasing emissions per vehicle mile. However the fuel efficiency data available for this inventory did not show a change in emissions per vehicle mile between [base year] and [re-inventory] year. [Re-write the previous sentence if you do have data showing a change in fuel efficiency]. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard is reducing the carbon intensity of fuel over the long term, but no change in carbon intensity was measured between [base year] and [re-inventory] year. [Re-write the previous sentence if you do have data showing a change in fuel carbon intensity].

As described in Section 2, programs implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have reduced VMT by [#] miles ([y] percent of baseline mileage) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. A population [increase/decrease] of [x] [percent] and [increase/decrease] of [x] percent in the number jobs located in the community also contributed to [increasing/decreasing] VMT. Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in


emissions from community transportation appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, etc].

WasteScope 3 emissions from solid waste generated by the community in [re-inventory year] were [x] percent [higher/lower] than the base year. The waste diversion rate increase from [%] percent to [%] percent from [base year] to [re-inventory year], resulting in the amount of waste sent to the landfill decreasing from [#] tons to [#] tons. Emissions per ton of waste sent to the landfill [grew / decreased / did not change] due to an [increased / decreased / constant] share of organic, emissions-causing waste in the solid waste stream.

As described in Section 2, programs implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have reduced waste sent to the landfill by [x] tons ([y] percent of baseline tonnage) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in emissions from community generated waste appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, etc].

Government Operations Emissions Comparison[Jurisdiction] roll-up government operations emissions from [list scopes and sources in roll-up] [decreased/increased] [%] percent from [base year] to [re-inventory year]. The [sector] sector showed the largest emissions decrease at [%] percent, followed by the [sector] sector at [%]. However, emissions in the [sector] sector increased [%] percent. Emissions by sector for the two years are shown in Table x and Figure x.

Table x: Government Operations Emissions by Sector in 2008 and 2011


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Build

ings

and

Faci

litie

s

Wat

erSu

pply

Was

tew

ater

Stre

etLi

ghtin

g an

dSi

gnal

s

Vehi

cle

Flee

t

Empl

oyee

Com

mut

e

Gov

ernm

ent

Gen

erat

edW

aste

Hun

dred

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

2008

2011

Table x: Government Operations Emissions by Sector in 2008 and 2011Sector 2008 Metric Tons

CO2e2011 Metric Tons CO2e

Change

Buildings 20 19 -1Water SupplyWastewaterStreet Lighting and SignalsVehicle FleetEmployee CommuteGovernment Generated WasteTotal

Emissions from Electricity UseEmissions from government operations electricity use were [x] percent [higher/lower] in [re-inventory year] than in [base year]. Government operations electricity use [increase/decreased] [%] percent from [base year] to [re-inventory year]. As with community emissions, changes in electricity related emissions were also affected by a [%] percent decrease in the amount of CO2 equivalent per kWh of electricity consumed.

As described in Section 2, projects implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have reduced electricity use by [x] kWh ([y] percent of baseline use) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Electricity use in buildings decreased [%] percent. Electricity use in street lighting [decreased] [%] because [many street lights were changed from high pressure sodium lamps to LEDs]. Electricity use in the water supply sector [increased] [%] percent. This was associated with a [%] [increase] in the gallons of water treated. Overall, the most


significant factor driving changes in emissions from government electricity use appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, etc].

Emissions from Natural Gas UseEmissions from natural gas in government operations were [x] percent [higher/lower] in [re-inventory year] than in [base year]. As described in Section 2, projects implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have reduced natural gas use by [x] kWh ([y] percent of baseline use) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Natural gas use in buildings [increased/decreased] [%] percent. Natural gas use at the wastewater treatment plant decreased [%] percent, because [equipment to use gas from the anaerobic digester for plant operations was installed in year]. As with community use, natural gas use was affected by [re-inventory] year being [warmer/cooler] than [base year], resulting in [more/less] energy use for heating. Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in emissions from government natural gas use appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, etc].

Emissions from VehiclesEmissions from government fleet vehicles were [x] percent [higher/lower] in [re-inventory year] than in [base year]. Vehicle miles driven by government fleet vehicles [increased / decreased/ remained constant]. As described in Section 2, [replacement of retiring fleet vehicles with more efficient models resulted in a decrease in fleet emissions.] Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in emissions from government fleet vehicles appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, etc].

Emissions from employee commuting were [x] percent [higher/lower] in [re-inventory year] than in [base year]. While the number of employees was [higher/ lower/roughly constant], the average miles driven to work per employee [increased/decreased] [%] percent, resulting in an [increase/decrease] in employee commute emissions. As described in Section 2, programs implemented by [Jurisdiction] are estimated to have result in employees making [x] trips by alternate modes in [re-inventory year]. This resulted in reducing VMT by [z] miles ([y] percent of baseline use) compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Overall, the most significant factor driving changes in emissions from employee commute appears to be [programs implemented, change in emissions factor, etc].


4. Moving Forward[Jurisdiction] has made considerable progress in implementing the Climate Action Plan. Despite the challenges posed by [describe obstacles], [%] percent of the actions propsed in the plan have been fully implemented, and an additional [%] percent have been partially implemented. The implemented projects are saving [Jurisdiction] government $[$] per year in energy costs. The programs implemented have improved quality of life in the community by [explain]. In addition, these programs are estimated to have created [#] local jobs.

Re-write the following section according to your acutal observed emissions changes

Progress Toward Meeting Community TargetAs Figure x shows, community-wide GHG emissions decreased slightly from [baseline year] to [re-inventory year], however they did not decrease as much as would be needed for a linear path toward the goal of reducing emissions [%] percent below [base year] emissions by [target year].

Figure x: Actual Community Emissions Compared to Target Path

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Business-as-usual

TargetActual

Observed reductions in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions were driven mainly by a decrease in the [sector] sector. A slight decrease in emissions in the [sector] sector also contributed. However, emissions in the [sector] sector continued to increase from [base year] to [re-inventory year], partially ofsetting reductions in the other sectors.

Implementation thus far of the Climate Action Plan has created significant momentum in emissions reductions. Reaching the emissions reduction goal will require continued implementation and monitoring of the actions proposed in the plan. In addition, [Jurisdiction] has identified new actions that can be implemented to help met the target.

Proposed New and Expanded Community Programs

Because the [proposed program] proposed in the Climate Action Plan was determined to not be feasible, [jurisdiction] is exploring alternative ways to achieve similar results. The most promising option appears to be [describe].

Based on the results of this evaluation, [program] has been particularly effective in reducing emissions. We have identified ways to expand this program by [describe changes, and plan for implemenation]. It is estimated that these changes will result in an additional [#] metric tons of CO2e reductions by [year].

In addition, in order to address the continued increase of emissions in [sector] sector, [Jurisdiction] will take additional programs to reduce emissions in that sector by [describe program and plans for implementation]. It is estimated that these new programs will result in an additional [#] metric tons of CO2e reductions by [year]. In addition, these programs will [describe other benefits].

Finally, it will not be possible to meet the [target year] goal for community emissions, unless local actions are accompanied by action at the [state/federal] level to [describe actions needed].

Progress Toward Meeting Government Operations TargetAs Figure x shows, government operations GHG emissions decreased slightly from [baseline year] to [re-inventory year], however they did not decrease as much as would be needed for a linear path toward the goal of reducing emissions [%] percent below [base year] emissions by [target year].

Figure x: Actual Government Operations Emissions Compared to Target Path

Observed reductions in government operations greenhouse gas emissions were driven mainly by a decrease in the [sector] sector. A slight decrease in emissions in the [sector] sector also contributed. However, emissions in the [sector] sector continued to increase from [base year] to [re-inventory year], partially ofsetting reductions in the other sectors.

Emissions reductions in the facilities, public lighting, water and wastewater sectors were the result of both decreased electricity use because of projects undertaken through the Climate Action Plan, and a decrease in the electricity emissions factor because of increased renewable generation. It was anticipated as part of the Climate Action Plan that both factors would be important in reaching the reduction goal.

Proposed New and Expanded Government Operations Projects

Because the [proposed program] proposed in the Climate Action Plan was determined to not be feasible, [jurisdiction] is exploring alternative ways to achieve similar results. The most promising option appears to be [describe].

Based on the results of this evaluation, [program] has been particularly effective in reducing emissions. We have identified ways to expand this program by [describe changes, and plan for implemenation]. It is estimated that these changes will result in an additional [#] metric tons of CO2e reductions by [year].

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Business-as-usualTargetActual

In addition, in order to address the continued increase of emissions in [sector] sector, [Jurisdiction] will take additional programs to reduce emissions in that sector by [describe program and plans for implementation]. It is estimated that these new programs will result in an additional [#] metric tons of CO2e reductions by [year]. In addition, these programs will [describe other benefits].

Appendix A: Methodology for Project-based Emissions Reductions Describe each method used for calculating project-based emissions reductions. Include source data used in each calculation, and notes on the data source.

Appendix B: Re-inventory and Baseline Update MethodologyDescribe any areas where re-inventory methodology differed from that used in the original inventory, and the methods used update the baseline to be consistent with the re-inventory.

seec cap template€¦ · web viewa product of the statewide energy efficiency collaborative...

Documents