HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreenhouse Gas Emissions InventoryTown of Ithaca
2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Government Operations
Adopted May 2021
Town of Ithaca
2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Government Operations
Adopted May 2021
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Town Board
Rod Howe, Town Supervisor
Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor
Rich DePaolo
Pamela Bleiwas
Tee-Ann Hunter
Pat Leary
Eric Levine
Report Authors
Terry Carroll, Clean Energy Communities Coordinator, Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Tompkins County
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner, Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca
Brian Toy, Climate Smart Communities Outreach Specialist, Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Tompkins County
Gretchen Worth, Project Director, Susan Christopherson Center for Community Planning
Report Design
Theodora Weatherby, Clean Energy Communities Content, Media, and Outreach Manager,
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County
The Town thanks the following individuals who provided data, reviewed drafts, or otherwise
contributed to this document. All individuals are affiliated with the Town of Ithaca unless
otherwise noted.
Robert Howarth, Cornell University
Debby Kelley
Darby Kiley, Tompkins County
Carl (CJ) Kilgore, Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
Laura Pastore
Glenn Ratacjzak, Bolton Point
Steve Riddle, Bolton Point
Donna Shaw
Mike Smith
Gregg Weatherby, Bolton Point
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES..........................................................................................................v
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................3
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................5
Buildings...............................................................................................................................6
Streetlights and Traffic Signals.............................................................................................7
Water Delivery Facilities.......................................................................................................7
Wastewater Facilities...........................................................................................................7
Vehicle Fleet.........................................................................................................................8
Employee Commute.............................................................................................................8
Urban Forestry......................................................................................................................9
RESULTS..........................................................................................................................................10
Buildings.............................................................................................................................12
Streetlights and Traffic Signals...........................................................................................12
Water Delivery Facilities.....................................................................................................12
Wastewater Facilities.........................................................................................................13
Employee Commute...........................................................................................................13
COMPARISON OF 2009, 2017, & 2019..........................................................................................15
Probable Reasons for Emissions Changes Between 2009 and 2019.................................17
Buildings............................................................................................................................19
Streetlights and Traffic Signals...........................................................................................19
Water Delivery Facilities.....................................................................................................20
Wastewater Facilities.........................................................................................................20
Vehicle Fleet.......................................................................................................................21
Employee Commute...........................................................................................................21
RESULTS USING ADVANCED METHANE ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGY........................................23
GHG Equivalents.................................................................................................................25
Buildings.............................................................................................................................27
Streetlights and Traffic Signals...........................................................................................27
Water Delivery Facilities.....................................................................................................27
Wastewater Facilities.........................................................................................................27
Vehicle Fleet.......................................................................................................................27
Employee Commute...........................................................................................................27
CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS..........................................................................................................30
APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................................32
v
Table 1: Sector Details for 2019 Inventory........................................................................................6
Table 2: Gross GHG Emissions vs. Net GHG Emissions...................................................................11
Table 3: GHG Emissions by Sector (gross emissions)......................................................................12
Table 4: GHG Emissions by Source (gross emissions).....................................................................13
Table 5: Comparison of 2009, 2017, and 2019 Gross Emissions and Energy Use..........................16
Table 6: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Buildings, 2009 vs. 2019.............................................19
Table 7: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Streetlights and Traffic Signals, 2009 vs. 2019............19
Table 8: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Water Delivery Facilities1, 2009 vs. 2019....................20
Table 9: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Wastewater Facilities, 2009 vs. 2019..........................20
Table 10: Comparison of GHG Emissions in the Vehicle Fleet, 2009 vs. 2019................................21
Table 11: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Employee Commutes, 2009 vs. 2019.........................21
Table 12: Town of Ithaca Gross GHG Emissions by Source, 2009 vs. 2019....................................22
Table 13: Gross GHG Emissions vs. Net GHG Emissions (both using AMAM)................................25
Table 14: GHG Emissions by Sector (gross emissions) using AMAM.............................................25
Table 15: Comparison of Gross GHG Emissions by Sector using LGOP and AMAM.......................26
Table 16: GHG Emissions by Source (gross emissions) using AMAM.............................................28
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Percent of Gross GHG Emissions by Sector......................................................................11
Figure 2: Percentage of Total Cost by Sector..................................................................................12
Figure 3: Percent of Gross GHG Emissions by Source.....................................................................13
Figure 4: Comparison of 2009, 2017, and 2019 Gross Total Emissions (MTCO2e).........................16
Figure 5: Comparison of 2009, 2017, 2019 Gross Emissions by Sector (MTCO2e).........................16
Figure 6: Comparison of 2009, 2017, 2019 Gross Emissions by Source (MTCO2e)........................17
Figure 7: GHG Emissions by Sector (percent of gross emissions) using AMAM.............................26
Figure 8: Comparison of 2019 Gross Emissions by Sector (MTCO2e) using LGOP versus AMAM...26
Figure 9: GHG Emissions by Source (percent of gross emissions) using AMAM............................28
vi
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A - Glossary....................................................................................................................33
Appendix B - Data Sources and Contacts......................................................................................35
Appendix C - Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Emissions...............................37
Appendix D - Employee Commute Survey Questions and Results................................................38
Appendix E - EPA GHG Inventory Tool Employee Commute Calculation Results..........................58
Appendix F - 2009/2019 Commuter GHG Emissions Summary Chart by Methodology...............59
Appendix G - Advanced Methane Accounting Methodology (AMAM)........................................60
Appendix H - 2017 GHG Inventory Calculations and Results........................................................63
Appendix I - Additional Graphs and Charts...................................................................................65
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2019 Town of Ithaca Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Government Operations provides an
update to the Town’s 2009 inventory. Data from 2017 is also referenced; the full 2017 results are
included under Appendix H – 2017 GHG Inventory Calculations and Results. The scope of the
inventory includes emissions from areas under the Town’s financial control, such as the Town
of Ithaca buildings, streetlights and traffic signals, water delivery facilities, wastewater facilities,
vehicle fleet, and employee commutes.
When viewed by sector, wastewater facilities produced the greatest share of Town emissions
in 2019 at 35%. This was followed by the vehicle fleet, water delivery facilities, employee
commute, buildings, and finally streetlights and traffic signals. Each sector can have multiple
sources of emissions, and the greatest share of emissions by source was gasoline, contributing
25% of overall Town emissions, followed by electricity and natural gas. The inventory also
accounts for carbon sequestered by urban forestry. In 2019, tree cover on Town-managed land
sequestered 603 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, enough to offset 29% of Town emissions.
Methods of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions are currently undergoing a paradigm
shift; thus the 2019 greenhouse gas inventory includes calculations using two different
methodologies. The traditional methodology as outlined by the Local Government Operations
Protocol (LGOP) allows comparison to the Town’s 2009 greenhouse gas inventory. Results using
the traditional methodology to compare to past results show the Town emitted 2,085 metric
tons of CO2 equivalent in 2019 as compared to 3,928 metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2009, a
decrease of 1,843 metric tons of CO2 equivalent or a 47% decrease. These results indicate the
Town met its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from 2009 levels by 2020. See
pages 11-14 for more information.
A new methodology described here as the Advanced Methane Accounting Method (AMAM)
was also used; it accounts for methane leakage and uses a 20-year global warming potential
for methane. Language in the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection
Act (CLCPA) indicates that this emerging methodology may become the standard for future
greenhouse gas inventories. Incorporating this methodology in the 2019 inventory enables
the Town to look toward the future and provides a useful baseline for the next inventory. The
results using this methodology paint a different picture than results from the traditional LGOP
methodology, with the Town emitting 3,944 metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2019. While it
is not possible to compare to the 2009 inventory due to methodological differences, these
results indicate there is still much work to be done to reduce Town emissions, especially when
accounting for methane leakage. See pages 24-29 for more information.
Comparing the results from the 2009 inventory to the 2019 inventory provides insights about
trends in Town emissions, which decreased over the past decade. Factors identified as the
causes for the decrease in emissions include:
• An increased mix of renewables in the Upstate New York Electric Grid, which contributed
to decreased emissions from Town buildings, streetlights and traffic signals, water
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONTINUED
delivery facilities, and wastewater facilities, all of which are major users of electricity
• Changes in Town operations, such as the percentage of the Town’s use of the Ithaca Area
Waste Water Treatment Facility (IAWWTF)
• Differences in methodology; for example, the 2009 inventory attributed 100% of
emissions from Bolton Point to the Town of Ithaca, even though it is jointly owned
and operated by multiple municipalities, while the 2019 inventory accounts for 51% of
emissions from Bolton Point, which is the Town’s ownership share of the plant
• Sustainability efforts of the Town and its partner agencies.
See pages 16-22 for more information.
Moving forward, the Town should plan to update its GHG inventories more often, which will
allow the Town to better track progress and adjust planning and resource allocation accordingly.
Through an iterative process of measurement, planning, and action, the Town will be well-poised
to meet its ambitious Green New Deal (GND) goal of achieving an equitable transition to carbon
neutrality by 2030.
3
INTRODUCTION
4
Even amidst a worldwide pandemic, climate change may be the most urgent, pressing issue
faced by the global community. Although the Earth’s climate has changed throughout history,
never before have we seen such rapid, significant disruptions to the systems that make life
on this planet possible. Human-caused climate change is resulting in an increase in extreme
weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure.
The 2016 Paris Agreement, joined by most countries in the world, including the United States,
set the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius maximum, with a strong preference
not to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, the Trump Administration withdrew the U.S. from
the Paris Agreement and removed many of the environmental protections put in place by
presidents of both political parties dating back to the 1960s. At the State, County, and local level,
efforts have been made to fill the vacancy in climate leadership left by the federal government.
(As of January 20, 2021, the U.S. has re-entered the Paris Agreement.)
New York State has committed to working aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and becoming a hub of the new clean energy economy. The Climate Leadership and
Community Protection Act (CLCPA), adopted in 2019, mandated several state goals, including
one to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and several local
municipalities have adopted goals and taken climate action. The Town of Ithaca adopted a Green
New Deal (GND) in early 2020 calling for an equitable transition to carbon neutrality by 2030.
Carbon neutrality means that at least as many GHG emissions are sequestered or removed from
the atmosphere as are emitted into the atmosphere.
A GHG emissions inventory is an assessment of the activities that cause or release greenhouse
gases. Many inventories, like this one, also contain information about energy usage – the
main driver of GHG emissions – and energy costs. It is recommended that GHG inventories be
conducted every few years to allow tracking of these data points.
The Town’s first GHG inventory for government operations provided baseline data from 2009.
This inventory, which covers the years 2017 and 2019, allows the Town to:
• Track progress toward Town GND goals and other climate-related goals
• Monitor the impact of past sustainability initiatives
• Identify and prioritize areas for reducing GHG emissions, energy use, and energy cost
• Guide planning and policy decisions in a quantifiable and transparent way
• Recognize and build public support for its sustainability initiatives.
5
METHODOLOGY
6
The calculations in this report were performed using the Local Government Greenhouse Gas
Accounting Tool, provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The tool is based
on the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), which serves as a national standard
for municipal greenhouse gas inventories across the country. The LGOP was developed by the
California Climate Action Registry, the California Air Resources Board, ICLEI Local Governments
for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry.1
Data for this government operations emissions inventory was collected from all sectors and
sources of emissions within the Town’s organizational and geopolitical boundaries, as detailed
in Table 1. Emissions to be inventoried were determined based on financial control. For facilities
solely owned and operated by the Town of Ithaca, 100% of emissions were accounted for. For
facilities jointly-owned and controlled, emissions were prorated based on the percentage of
operational costs contributed to the facility or, for the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment
Facility (IAWWTF), based on usage.
Table 1: Sector Details for 2019 Inventory
Sectors 2019 Details Emission Source
Buildings Town Hall Natural Gas and Electricity
Public Works (Office Building, Town
Barn, Salt Shed)
Streetlights and Traf-
fic Signals
10 Lighting Districts Electricity
2 School Crossing Lights
Water Delivery Facilities Bolton Point Facility (51.9% share) Natural Gas and Electricity
4 Pump Stations
17 Pump Houses and Tanks
Wastewater Facilities Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Facility (37.3% share)
Natural Gas, Electricity, and
Methane
15 Pump Houses
Vehicle Fleet 86 Vehicles and Equipment Gasoline, Diesel, Nitrous
Oxide, and Methane 13 Bolton Point Vehicles
Employee Commute 83 Employee Vehicles from Town
Hall, Public Works, and Bolton Point
Gasoline and Diesel
Buildings
Building energy usage data was collected from the accounting department of the Town of
Ithaca. The data on the spreadsheets provided by the accounting department was subjected to
random checks with the Town’s New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG) Energy
Service Company (ESCO) portal. Building emissions were derived from electricity and natural gas
usage for each individual building. In total, the Buildings entry for the Town of Ithaca consists of
four accounts using natural gas and five accounts using electricity.
1 You can read more about the LGOP here: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/tools-resources/reporting-proto-
cols/local-goverment-operations-protocol/ and download the EPA’s tool here: https://www.epa.gov/statelocalen-
ergy/local-greenhouse-gas-inventory-tool.
7
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
Streetlight and Traffic Signal energy usage data was collected from the accounting department
of the Town of Ithaca. In total, there were 10 different entries under streetlights: nine lighting
districts and one category of “streetlights at large” that captured individual lights and traffic
signals. Additionally, there were two accounts for school crossing lights included in this sector.
Water Delivery Facilities
Utility information was collected via a spreadsheet from Bolton Point staff for the plant itself and
the Town of Ithaca accounting department for the Town’s pump stations and pump houses and
then compiled for a total in metric tons. The Town of Ithaca is part of the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission, which operates the Bolton Point water treatment plant. The
Bolton Point plant is jointly owned by five municipalities in Tompkins County. In 2019, the Town
of Ithaca had a 51.9% ownership share of the plant. Because the Town of Ithaca is only partly
responsible for the emissions from Bolton Point, this inventory calculated the total emissions
from Bolton Point and then prorated that total to account for the Town’s ownership share. This
is a marked departure from the Town’s 2009 GHG inventory report where 100% of Bolton Point’s
emissions were attributed to the Town of Ithaca.
Bolton Point’s emissions are from stationary combustion (natural gas) and electricity. In addition
to the water treatment plant, the Town has four pump stations and 17 pump houses and tanks
to deliver water to residents. Total energy usage was adjusted to reflect the Town’s ownership
share of 51.9% of Bolton Point to arrive at greenhouse gas emissions from Water Delivery
Facilities.
Wastewater Facilities
Utility information was collected for the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF)
and the pump houses via the Town of Ithaca accounting department and compiled together
for emissions in metric tons. Like Bolton Point, the IAWWTF is a shared resource that provides
wastewater treatment services to three municipalities, including the Town of Ithaca. IAWWTF
is jointly owned by these three municipalities, and the Town of Ithaca usage share in 2019 was
37.3%. Therefore, this inventory accounts for the Town’s 37.3% share of IAWWTF emissions. In
addition to the IAWWTF itself, the Town owns and operates 15 pump houses for wastewater
services. This inventory accounts for 100% of emissions from these Town-owned pump houses.
Emissions from the IAWWTF come from stationary combustion (natural gas), electricity, and
process emissions from the facility’s activities. Process emissions include methane emissions
from the incomplete combustion of digester gas, methane emissions from anaerobic and
facultative waste water treatment lagoons, and nitrogen oxide emissions associated with
nitrification and denitrification.
As stated above, a 37.3% share of emissions from the IAWWTF was combined with emissions
from Town-owned pump houses for wastewater services to calculate the final energy emissions
total for Wastewater Facilities. For process emissions, site-specific data was collected via
conversations with IAWWTF managers. The information collected can be found in Appendix C -
Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Emissions. The information was entered into
the Local Government Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tool and the total emissions calculated by
8
that tool were again broken out to account for the Town’s 37.3% ownership share of emissions.
Vehicle Fleet
Vehicle data was collected through municipal gas consumption logs, fuel deliveries, and annual
vehicle tracking lists for both the Town of Ithaca’s fleet and the Bolton Point fleet. The Town of
Ithaca 2019 fleet consists of 86 vehicles and associated equipment. Bolton Point’s 2019 fleet
accounts for 13 vehicles. The Town of Ithaca has an ownership share of 51.9% of Bolton Point,
thus vehicle emissions from its fleet were adjusted accordingly.
Separate entries were created for each of the Town’s vehicles and pieces of equipment utilizing
data fields of vehicle type, model year, fuel consumption, and vehicle miles traveled for
emissions calculations. For Bolton Point, a single entry titled “Bolton Point Vehicles” was created
using a single vehicle type selection (Light Truck) and a 51.9% share of the gasoline to reflect the
Town’s ownership share of Bolton Point.
Employee Commute
To better understand commuting patterns and account for emissions derived from employee
commuting, a survey was conducted of employees at Town Hall, Public Works, and Bolton
Point. The survey of 83 employees across the three sites included questions about mode of
commute, distance traveled to work, and vehicle make and model. A copy of the survey is
included in Appendix D – Employee Commute Survey Questions and Results. Of the Town’s and
Bolton Point’s 83 employees, a total of 57 employees responded to the survey for a 69% survey
response rate.
Responses were broken down by work location: Bolton Point, Public Works, and Town Hall. Each
response was synthesized to reflect modes of transportation, days per week using each mode of
transportation, miles traveled for commute, vehicle utilized, average vehicle mileage, and fuel
source for primary commute. Each survey entry was then adjusted to account for total vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) for each vehicle mode of transportation.2 Utilizing VMT and fuel type, the
data was then entered into a tool in development by New York’s Department of Environmental
Conservation for its Climate Smart Communities program, which allowed for a more detailed
calculation of employee commute emissions for the survey entries.
For each work location, an “average emissions” per employee was calculated. The average
emissions of each work location were then multiplied by the respective number of employees
that did not respond to the survey. This allowed the inventory to extrapolate survey responses
to cover the Town’s entire employee base and not just survey respondents.
This methodology was a departure from the method and calculations utilized by the EPA’s
Local Government Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tool. It was decided to deviate from the
Tool’s methodology in hopes of creating a more accurate and granular representation of the
Town’s employee commute emissions. The emissions for employee commute calculated by
the Local Government Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tool were calculated as a comparison for
2 An assumption of 48 working weeks was utilized for two reasons. First, to match the 2009 inventory to allow
for better comparison, and, second, to reflect the Town’s two-week annual vacation policy and the two weeks of
federal/state holidays each employee receives per year.
9
quality control and can be found in Appendix E – EPA GHG Inventory Tool Employee Commute
Calculation Results.
Urban Forestry
The Town land use cover dataset was provided by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department and
used to calculate areas with tree cover on Town-managed property. Land use forest categories
of deciduous, coniferous, forest plantation, and mixed forest were included in the tree cover
calculations. There were 153 acres of forest on Town-managed land in 2017 and 183 acres of
forest on Town-managed land in 2019. Final carbon sequestration calculations were completed
using the EPA’s Local Government GHG Accounting Tool.
10
RESULTS
11
Between mid-2020 and early 2021, the Town of Ithaca, with generous guidance and assistance
from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County and the Susan Christopherson Center
for Community Planning, completed an inventory to measure greenhouse gas emissions from
government operations for the year 2019. This inventory is an update to the Town’s greenhouse
gas emissions inventory for 2009. The following section provides the findings of the 2019
emissions inventory by sector and source. In 2019, the Town of Ithaca emitted approximately
2,085 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). The gross emissions are partially offset
by 603 metric tons of CO2e due to forest land cover within the Town. Net emissions in the
year 2019 equal 1,482 metric tons of CO2e. The Town met its goal of a 30% reduction in GHG
emissions from 2009 levels by 2020.
Table 2: Gross GHG Emissions vs. Net GHG Emissions
Metric Tons of CO2e
Gross Emissions 2,085
Urban Forestry Carbon Sequestration -6031
Net Emissions 1,482
1 Urban forestry sequesters carbon, represented here as negative emissions.
Figure 1: Percent of Gross GHG Emissions by Sector
12
Figure 2: Percentage of Total Cost by Sector
Buildings
The Town of Ithaca’s buildings (see Table 3) were responsible for 8.9% of overall emissions.
Emissions totaled 186 metric tons of CO2e and the buildings used 3,845 MMBtu of energy. This
3,845 MMBtu of energy used can be broken down into 2,928 MMBtu from natural gas and
268,806 kwh from electricity.
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
The Town of Ithaca’s streetlights and traffic signals (see Table 3) were responsible for 1.3% of
overall emissions, emitting 28 metric tons of CO2e. Streetlights and traffic signals in the Town
also used 814 MMBtu of energy, which equates to 238,511 kwh of electricity.
Water Delivery Facilities
Emissions from water delivery facilities (see Table 3) were 354 metric tons of CO2e, making up
17% of the Town’s total emissions. Water delivery facilities also used 10,029 MMBtu of energy,
made up of 806 MMBtu of natural gas and 2,703,161 kwh of electricity.
Table 3: GHG Emissions by Sector (gross emissions)
Sectors Percent of
Total
Metric Tons
of CO2e
Energy
(MMBtu)
Cost ($)
Buildings 8.90%186 3,845 52,739.13
Streetlights and Traffic Signals 1.30%28 814 48,313.85
Water Delivery Facilities 17.00%354 10,029 210,589.07
Wastewater Facilities 35.20%734 75,48112 69,340.67
Vehicle Fleet 25.20%526 7,286 113,286.52
Employee Commute 12.30%257 2,133 46,924.6323
Gross Total 100%2,085 31,655 541,193.87
1 Energy from Wastewater Facilities includes only natural gas and electricity, and does not include process emissions
from the IAWWTF.
2 Cost of Employee Commute calculated using New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA)
monthly average motor gasoline prices for 2019.
13
Figure 3: Percent of Gross GHG Emissions by Source
Wastewater Facilities
Emissions from wastewater facilities (see Table 3) were 35.2% of total emissions, equating to
734 metric tons of CO2e. Wastewater facilities also used 7,548 MMBtu of energy consisting
of 4,887 MMBtu of natural gas and 779,864 kwh of electricity. Process emissions consist of
methane and nitrous oxide released during the wastewater treatment process. Emissions
from the wastewater treatment process total 385 metric tons of CO2e while emissions from
electricity and natural gas equate to 349 metric tons of CO2e.
Vehicle Fleet
Emissions from the Town and Bolton Point fleets (see Table 3) account for 25.2% of the Town’s
total emissions which are 526 metric tons of CO2e and 7,286 MMBtus of energy. The Vehicle
Fleet used 31,683 gallons of gasoline and 24,079 gallons of diesel fuel.
Employee Commute
Emissions from employee commutes (see Table 3) were 12.3% of total Town emissions. This
equates to 257 metric tons of CO2e and 2,222 MMBtu of energy usage.
Table 4: GHG Emissions by Source (gross emissions)
Source Percent of Total Metric Tons of CO2e
Diesel 12.70%265
Electricity 22.10%460
Gasoline 24.70%516
Methane 16.40%341
Natural Gas 21.90%457
Nitrous Oxide 2.20%46
Total 100%2,085
Looking at emissions by source, gasoline is the biggest driver of Town carbon emissions at
24.8%. This is closely followed by emissions from the electricity grid, at 22.1%, and natural gas,
at 21.9%. Altogether these three sources make up 1,433 metric tons of CO2e and almost 70%
of the Town’s emissions. Other sources include methane that is mostly derived from process
14
emissions at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility at 16.4% of the Town’s emissions,
diesel used by the vehicle fleet, at 12.7%, and nitrous oxide mostly derived from tailpipe
emissions at 2.2%.
15
COMPARISON OF 2009,
2017, & 2019
16
Figure 4: Comparison of 2009, 2017, and 2019 Gross Total Emissions (MTCO2e)
Gross total emissions from the Town of Ithaca decreased from 2009 to 2019. Including
emissions from 2017 provides an extra check that emissions from the Town of Ithaca are
decreasing. Gross emissions decreased from 3,928 MTCO2e in 2009 to 2,225 MTCO2e in 2017 to
the current level of 2,085 MTCO2e in 2019 (see Figure 4 and Table 5).
Table 5: Comparison of 2009, 2017, and 2019 Gross Emissions and Energy Use
2009 2017 2019 Absolute Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Gross Emissions (MTCO2e)3,928 2,225 2,085 ↓1,843 ↓46.9%
Energy Use (MMBtu)46,548 32,604 31,655 ↓14,893 ↓32%
Figure 5: Comparison of 2009, 2017, 2019 Gross Emissions by Sector (MTCO2e)
17
Probable Reasons for Emissions Changes Between 2009 and
2019
Gross emissions for the Town of Ithaca decreased from 3,928 Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent to
2,085 MTCO2e from 2009 to 2019. This difference of 1,843 metric tons is equivalent to a 46.9%
decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from government operations. Some probable reasons for
the decrease in emissions include:
Increased Share of Renewables on the Upstate New York Electric Grid
The 2009 Upstate New York Electric Grid was comprised of 36.3% combustion-based generators
and 63.7% non-combustion-based generators. In contrast, the 2019 Upstate New York Electric
Grid was comprised of 29.2% combustion-based generators and 70.8% non-combustion-based
generators.3 Furthermore, in 2009 coal and oil made up 15.4% of the grid’s resource mix, while in
2019 that percentage had fallen to 1.4%. The vast majority of that usage had been converted to
natural gas, increasing from 18.9% in 2009 to 25.9% in 2019. Natural gas, while still a fossil fuel,
emits fewer greenhouse gas emissions during electricity generation than coal and oil.4 These
changes resulted in a 2019 grid that produced less greenhouse gas emissions than the 2009 grid
for the same amount of electricity used. Graphs showing changes in the Upstate NY Electric Grid
mix can be found in Appendix I – Additional Graphs and Charts.
This “greening” of the electricity grid meant that major users of electricity, including the Town’s
Water Delivery Facilities, Streetlights and Traffic Signals, and Buildings, saw decreased emissions
from their electricity usage beyond what would be expected from simple efficiency improvements
between 2009 and 2019. As an example, in 2009 Streetlights and Traffic Signals used 254,176 kWh
and emitted 92 MTCO2e. In 2019, this sector used 238,511 kWh, a decrease of 6.2% in electricity
usage. However, emissions for 2019 were only 28 MTCO2e – a decrease of almost 70%.
It’s clear that one of the major probable causes for the decrease in GHG emissions for the Town’s
3 These numbers are based on figures from the EPA eGrid data tables published in 2009 for the 2009 inventory year
and 2018, representing the 2019 inventory. Combustion-based generation is primarily derived from fossil fuels,
including coal, natural gas and oil. Non-combustion includes hydropower, nuclear and other renewables like solar and
wind.
4 This changes dramatically when accounting for the lifecycle emissions of natural gas, as discussed in our Advanced
Methane Accounting Method (AMAM) below.
Figure 6: Comparison of 2009, 2017, 2019 Gross Emissions by Source (MTCO2e)
18
operations comes in large part from the closing of coal power plants coupled with the growth of
renewable generators in the Upstate New York Electric Grid from 2009 to 2019.
Changes in Town Operations
Differences in results between the 2009 GHG Inventory and 2019 GHG Inventory can partially
be attributed to changes in Town operations. Significant changes include the percentage of
the IAWWTF used by the Town of Ithaca, the fleet size, and workforce size. In 2009, the Town
accounted for 42% of emissions from the IAWWTF, while in 2019 it accounted for 37% of
emissions from the IAWWTF due to changes in usage. This operational change is reflected in
the number of gallons treated (see Table 9), which nearly equates to the difference in emissions
from 2009 to 2019.
The fleet size increased from 73 vehicles and pieces of equipment in 2009 to 86 vehicles and
pieces of equipment in 2019. Although methodology changes produced a counterintuitive
decrease in emissions, the increase in fleet size is reflected by the increase in gasoline and diesel
gallons of fuel consumed from 2009 to 2019. There is no specific indicator in the comparison
tables reflecting the increase in workforce due to methodology questions, but it should be noted
the workforce increased from 72 employees across Town Hall, Public Works, and Bolton Point in
2009 to 83 employees across these three locations in 2019.
Sustainability Efforts Since 2010
Since 2010, the Town’s sustainability efforts have included energy improvements to facilities
under its full- or partial-control, including Town Hall and the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Facility. For example, some efforts are still in progress, such as the LED streetlight upgrade.
Others involve the Ithaca community rather than government operations, such as the adoption
of solar energy regulations to facilitate development and operation of solar systems. Finally,
some are planning related, such as the inclusion of a chapter on energy and climate protection
in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan, and so do not result in direct emissions reductions.
Another sustainability initiative is the Town’s purchase of renewable energy certificates (RECs)
to offset emissions from electricity use in select years; however, no RECs were purchased in
2017 or 2019, the years inventoried in this report. Nonetheless, the Town’s current electricity
contract, which started in late 2019, includes bundled RECs, meaning that emissions will
decrease significantly starting in 2020.
Changes in GHG Inventory Methodology
Greenhouse gas inventories are largely comprised of estimations. While exact figures can
be captured for the gallons of gas Town vehicles used, or the amount of electricity street
lights used, some data points are harder to measure. A good example of this is the employee
commute. There is no way to quantify exactly how many gallons of gas and diesel, or electrons
to power EVs, were used by employees as they drove to their Town jobs. However, it is still
important to acknowledge that emissions from employee commutes occur and that a figure is
ascribed to that sector so that comparisons from previous, and to future, inventories can be
made.
In 2019, the Town worked with CCE-Tompkins to use a methodology for calculating employee
commute emissions that differs from that used in 2009. We believe that this new method yields
19
a more accurate figure because it uses more individual data than the 2009 method and avoids
the generalizations of the EPA Local Government Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tool that was
used. Results utilizing other methods for both the 2009 and 2019 inventories can be found
in Appendix F – 2009/2019 Commuter GHG Emissions Summary Chart by Methodology. We
believe this new methodology, while providing more accurate results, has led to an increase in
emissions from employee commutes.
Finally, a major difference between the 2009 and 2019 inventories is within the accounting
method utilized for calculating emissions from Bolton Point. The 2009 inventory attributed 100%
of the emissions from Bolton Point to the Town of Ithaca. This inventory attributes only 51.87%
of Bolton Point emissions to the Town of Ithaca, which is equivalent to the Town’s ownership
share of the plant. Emissions from water delivery facilities decreased significantly as a result of
this methodological change.
Buildings
Table 6: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Buildings, 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Nominal Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Emissions (MTCO2E)229 186 ↓43 ↓18.8%
Electricity Use (kwh)278,276 268,806 ↓9,470 ↓3.4%
Natural Gas Use (MMBtu)2,183 2,928 ↑745 ↑34.1%
Total Energy Use (MMBtu) 3,133 3,845 ↑712 ↑22.7%
Buildings in the Town of Ithaca used 712 MMBtu more energy in 2019 than in 2009. There is
not a clear explanation for this difference, as the Town accounted for the same buildings in the
2009 inventory as the 2019 inventory. Emissions from buildings decreased by 43 MTCO2e from
2009 to 2019. These emissions from buildings come solely from natural gas and electricity,
and the grid providing these energy sources has become more efficient and uses an increased
percentage of renewable energy. This may explain the discrepancy between increased energy
usage and decreased emissions.
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
Table 7: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Streetlights and Traffic Signals, 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Nominal Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Emissions (MTCO2E)92 28 ↓65 ↓69.6%
Electricity Use (kwh)254,176 238,511 ↓15,665 ↓6.2%
Total Energy Use (MMBtu)867 814 ↓53 ↓6.1%
Streetlights and traffic signals in the Town of Ithaca used 15,665 less kwh of energy in 2019 than
in 2009. There does not appear to be a particular reason to which this slight decrease can be
attributed. As expected, the decrease in energy usage from 2009 to 2019 by streetlights and
traffic signals resulted in a decrease in emissions as well. However, the decrease in emissions is
much larger than the decrease in energy usage (a 6.1% decrease in energy usage versus a 69.6%
20
The decrease in energy usage by water delivery facilities from 2009 to 2019 is significant at
7,271 MMBtu. A large part of the explanation for this is the difference in methodologies used in
2009 and 2019. The Town of Ithaca accounted for 100% of the energy usage and emissions from
Bolton Point in 2009, assuming that other municipalities would not incorporate Bolton Point
into their potential GHG inventories. To more accurately reflect Bolton Point’s energy usage and
emissions attributable to the Town of Ithaca, this inventory accounts for 51.9% of energy use
and emissions, which is equivalent to the Town’s ownership share. This explains the dramatic
decrease in energy use seen in the Water Delivery Facilities (Table 8). However, energy use
dropped only 42%, which is less than the approximately 49% drop in energy usage expected.
This could indicate that Bolton Point is using more energy in 2019 than in 2009 even though the
portion of energy and emissions attributed to the Town of Ithaca is less.
Emissions from water delivery facilities decreased 1,420 MTCO2e, or 80%, from 2009 to 2019.
A large portion of this decrease can be attributed to the different methodologies, with the
additional decrease possibly explained by the increased share of renewables in the grid, as
water delivery facilities used only energy from natural gas and electricity.
Wastewater Facilities
Table 9: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Wastewater Facilities, 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Nominal Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Emissions (MTCO2E)784 734 ↓50 ↓6.5%
Gallons of Water Treated (MG)934 866 ↓68 ↓7.3%
Process Emissions1 (MTCO2E)N/A 385 N/A N/A
Electricity (kwh)1,263,073 779,864 ↓483,209 ↓38.3%
Natural Gas (MMBtu)3,938 4,887 ↑949 ↑24.1%
Total Energy Use (MMBtu)8,249 7,548 ↓701 ↓8.5%
1 Process emissions are methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the wastewater treatment process.
decrease in emissions). Streetlights and traffic signals use only electricity, so this large decrease
can again be attributed to the increased mix of renewables in the grid.
Water Delivery Facilities
Table 8: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Water Delivery Facilities1 , 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Nominal Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Emissions (MTCO2E) 1,774 354 ↓1,420 ↓80%
Gallons of Water Treated (MG)922 489 ↓433 ↓47%
Electricity Use (kwh)4,648,883 2,703,161 ↓1,945,722 ↓41.9%
Natural Gas Use (MMBtu)1,433 806 ↓627 ↓43.8%
Total Energy Use (MMBtu)17,300 10,029 ↓7,271 ↓42%
1 Water delivery facilities include only the share of Bolton Point attributed to the Town of Ithaca for 2019 data,
which is 51.9%
21
Energy use from electricity decreased by 483,209 kwh while energy use from natural gas in-
creased by 949 MMBtu for a net decrease of 701 MMBtu of energy. While there is no immedi-
ate explanation for the reason electricity usage decreased and natural gas usage increased, one
possible reason for the slight net decrease is the percent of energy use and emissions attributed
to the Town of Ithaca from the IAWWTF. In 2009, the Town of Ithaca usage share of the IAW-
WTF was 42%, while in 2019 the Town usage share was 37.3%.
Similar to energy usage, emissions from wastewater facilities attributed to the Town of Ithaca
decreased slightly from 2009 to 2019, which can be expected due to the small drop in energy
usage. The increased share of renewables in the grid does not have as much effect on waste-
water facilities emissions, because the majority of these emissions come from the wastewater
treatment process in the form of methane and nitrous oxide.
Vehicle Fleet
Table 10: Comparison of GHG Emissions in the Vehicle Fleet, 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Nominal Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Emissions1 (MTCO2E)915 526 ↓389 ↓42.5%
Gasoline (gal)23,624 31,683 ↑8,059 ↑34.1%
Diesel (gal)20,316 24,079 ↑3,763 ↑18.5%
Total Energy Use (MMBtu)11,486 7,286 ↓4,200 ↓36.6%
1 Electric vehicle emissions are captured under the buildings sector and not under the vehicle fleet sector.
There are unexplained results relating to the vehicle fleet, whose energy usage comes from
gasoline and diesel fuels. Fleet energy usage decreased by 4,200 MMBtu from 2009 to 2019,
which equates to a 36.6% reduction. This contrasts with an 8,059-gallon increase in gasoline
consumption and a 3,763-gallon increase in diesel consumption from 2009 to 2019. Emissions
from the vehicle fleet decreased by 389 MTCO2e from 2009 to 2019.
The increase in gallons appears to be in direct contradiction with the decrease in energy usage.
Similarly, the increase in fleet size and equipment number runs contrary to the decrease in GHG
emissions. It’s possible both contradictions are a result in differences in methodology between
the 2009 and 2019 inventories.
Employee Commute
Table 11: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Employee Commutes, 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Nominal Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Emissions (MTCO2E)134 257 ↑123 ↑91.8%
Gasoline (gal)30,665 16,439 ↓14,226 ↓46.4%
Diesel (gal)1,429 1,136 ↓293 ↓20.5%
Total Energy Use (MMBtu)5,512 2,133 ↓3,379 ↓61.3%
Energy use from employee commutes decreased by 3,379 MMBtu, or 61.3%, from 2009 to
2019. This result is counterintuitive as the total number of employees working for the Town of
22
Ithaca increased from 2009 to 2019. Although energy use decreased, emissions from employee
commutes increased by 123 MTCO2e from 2009 to 2019. Methodological differences between
the 2009 and 2019 inventories appear to be the most likely reason for these counterintuitive
results.
Table 12: Town of Ithaca Gross GHG Emissions by Source, 2009 vs. 2019
2009 2019 Absolute Change
2009-2019
Percent Change
2009-2019
Gross Emissions (MTCO2E)3,928 2,085 ↓1,843 ↓46.9%
Diesel (MTCO2E)422 265 ↓157 ↓37.2%
Electricity (MTCO2E)2,342 460 ↓1,882 ↓80.4%
Gasoline (MTCO2E)627 516 ↓111 ↓17.7%
Methane (MTCO2E)94 341 ↑247 ↑262.8%
Natural Gas (MTCO2E)443 457 ↑14 ↑3.2%
Nitrous Oxide (MTCO2E)N/A 46 N/A N/A
23
RESULTS USING
ADVANCED METHANE
ACCOUNTING
METHODOLOGY
24
Due to a changing paradigm in how greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for, this
section looks at the Town’s emissions relating to methane through a new lens. New York’s
2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) requires New York State’s
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to publish a greenhouse gas inventory that
includes “information relating to fugitive and vented emissions from systems associated with
the production, processing, transport, distribution, storage, and consumption of fossil fuels,
including natural gas.” We anticipate that it may become the default standard for New York
State GHG inventories and want to ensure this inventory will be useful for comparison with
future inventories.
Because the State has not completed the new methodology regarding methane emissions, the
Town has decided to follow the protocol established by Tompkins County, with the assistance
of Cornell University Professor Dr. Robert Howarth, in its 2016 and 2019 inventories.5 The
resulting methodology, referred to here as the Advanced Methane Accounting Methodology
(AMAM), is different than the traditional LGOP methodology in two ways:
1. AMAM involves a new lifecycle method that accounts for methane leakage during
production and distribution.
2. AMAM uses the 20-year Global Warming Protocol (GWP)6 for methane in place of the
traditionally used 100-year GWP. The 20-year GWP for methane (86) is significantly
higher than the 100-year GWP (28), revealing the outsized, but often obscured, role of
methane in global warming.
We follow Tompkins County in utilizing a 3.6% leakage rate suggested by Professor Howarth
in order to calculate upstream methane emissions resulting from natural gas extraction,
transportation and distribution. For context, a 2019 MIT study found a range of leakage rates
ranging from 1.5% to 4.9%.7 Further information on the methodology used can be found in
Appendix G – Advanced Methane Accounting Methodology (AMAM).
Because the 2019 GHG inventory was completed in the middle of the development of a new
protocol at global, national and state levels, it includes results from both the traditional LGOP
methodology and the new AMAM methodology. The traditional methodology enables a
comparison to the previous 2009 Town of Ithaca Greenhouse Gas Inventory while the inclusion
of AMAM calculations will enable the Town to compare this inventory to future inventories that
use the updated methane accounting.
Emissions from the Town of Ithaca are significantly different using the Advanced Methane
Accounting Methodology (AMAM). Using this new methodology, in 2019, the Town of Ithaca
emitted approximately 3,944 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). This emissions
5 The Tompkins County 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory uses a different method for calculating upstream lifecycle
emissions of methane versus the 2016 inventory. For this inventory, we utilized the 2019 inventory method.
6 According to the EPA, “Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warm-
ing impacts of different gases.” Carbon Dioxide is used as the baseline, with a GWP of 1. Methane, by contrast, is
a more potent greenhouse gas - meaning it traps heat in the atmosphere more effectively - and thus has a higher
GWP. Using the 20-year GWP, methane is considered 86 times more potent than a similar amount of carbon diox-
ide.
7 Magdalena M Klemun and Jessika E Trancik 2019 Environ. Res. Lett. 14 124069 https://iopscience.iop.org/arti-
cle/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2577/pdf
25
total is partially offset by 603 metric tons of CO2e due to forest land cover within the Town. Net
emissions in the year 2019 equal 3,341 metric tons of CO2e.
GHG Equivalents
Table 14: GHG Emissions by Sector (gross emissions) using AMAM
Sectors Percent of
Total1
Metric Tons
of CO2e
Energy (MMBtu)Cost ($)
Buildings 10.30%404 3,845 52,739.13
Streetlights and Traffic
Signals
1.50%60 814 48,313.85
Water Delivery Facilities 19.50%768 10,029 210,589.07
Wastewater Facilities 48.90%1,928 75,481 69,340.67
Vehicle Fleet 13.40%527 7,286 113,286.52
Employee Commute 6.50%257 2,133 46,924.632
Gross Total 100%3,944 31,655 541,193.87
1 Energy from Wastewater Facilities only includes natural gas and electricity and does not include process emis-
sions from the IAWWTF.
2 Cost of employee commute calculated using NYSERDA monthly average motor gasoline prices for 2019.
Table 13: Gross GHG Emissions vs. Net GHG Emissions (both using AMAM)
Metric Tons of CO2e
Gross Emissions 3,944
Urban Forestry Carbon Sequestration - 60311
Net Emissions 3,341
1 Urban forestry sequesters carbon, represented here as negative emissions.
26
Table 15: Comparison of Gross GHG Emissions by Sector using LGOP and AMAM
Sectors Local Government Oper-
ations Protocol (LGOP)
(MTCO2e)
Advanced Methane Account-
ing Methodology (AMAM)
(MTCO2e)
Buildings 186 404
Streetlights and Traffic Signals 28 60
Water Delivery Facilities 354 768
Wastewater Facilities 734 1,928
Vehicle Fleet 526 527
Employee Commute 257 257
Total 2,085 3,944
Figure 8: Comparison of 2019 Gross Emissions by Sector (MTCO2e) using LGOP versus AMAM
Figure 7: GHG Emissions by Sector (percent of gross emissions) using AMAM
27
Buildings
Buildings owned and operated by the Town were responsible for 8.9% of overall emissions
using the LGOP methodology, while they were responsible for 10.3% of overall emissions
using the AMAM methodology. Emissions totaled 186 metric tons of CO2e under the LGOP
methodology as compared to 404 metric tons of CO2e using the AMAM methodology. The
AMAM methodology resulted in increased emissions from both building electricity and natural
gas, leading to a higher overall emissions number.
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
Lighting districts and school crossing lights under the jurisdiction of the Town of Ithaca were
responsible for 1.3% of the Town’s overall emissions using the LGOP methodology and 1.5% of
emissions using the AMAM methodology. While the percentages are similar, Town streetlights
and traffic signals emitted 28 metric tons of CO2e under the LGOP methodology versus 60
metric tons of CO2e under the AMAM methodology.
Water Delivery Facilities
Emissions from water delivery facilities were 354 metric tons of CO2e using the LGOP
methodology versus 768 metric tons of CO2e using the AMAM methodology. The LGOP
methodology results in water delivery facilities accounting for 17.0% of the Town’s total
emissions while the AMAM methodology results in water delivery facilities accounting for
19.5% of the Town’s total emissions.
Wastewater Facilities
Emissions from wastewater facilities were 35.2% of total emissions using the LGOP
methodology as compared to 48.9% of total emissions using the AMAM methodology. This
equates to 734 metric tons of CO2e under the LGOP methodology and 1,928 metric tons of
CO2e under the AMAM methodology. The reason for this significant increase is likely due to
the increased global warming potential of methane under the AMAM methodology. Most
wastewater treatment process emissions come from methane, resulting in increased emissions
using this higher global warming potential number. Furthermore, wastewater facilities also have
emissions from natural gas and electricity, both of which have increased due to accounting for
methane leakage.
Vehicle Fleet
Emissions from the Town and Bolton Point fleets account for 25.2% of the Town’s total
emissions under the LGOP methodology versus 13.4% of total emissions under the AMAM
methodology. The results in absolute metric tons of CO2e are similar using both methodologies,
with 526 metric tons of CO2e under the LGOP methodology and 527 metric tons of CO2e under
the AMAM methodology. The decrease in the vehicle fleet’s total emissions percentages is due
to significant increases in emissions in other sectors using the AMAM methodology.
Employee Commute
From the data collected through the employee commute survey, greenhouse gas emissions
from employee commutes were 12.3% of total Town emissions in 2019 using the LGOP
28
methodology versus 6.5% of total emissions using the AMAM methodology even though there
was no change in the absolute value of metric tons of CO2e at 257. Like the vehicle fleet, the
employee commute percentage decreased due to increases in other sectors.
Table 16: GHG Emissions by Source (gross emissions) using AMAM1
Source Percent of Total Metric Tons of CO2e
Diesel 6.70%265
Electricity 25.30%996
Gasoline 13.10%516
Methane 29.80%1,174
Natural Gas 24%947
Nitrous Oxide 1.20%46
Total 100%3,944
1 Upstream methane leakage from electricity generation and natural gas production and distribution is included in
the electricity and natural gas categories. The methane category includes process emissions from the IAWWTF.
Figure 9: GHG Emissions by Source (percent of gross emissions) using AMAM
The emissions by source under the AMAM are drastically different than those under more
traditional methodologies. Now, methane is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions,
contributing 1,174 tons of CO2e and almost 30% of the Town’s total emissions. This is a direct
result of the methodology using the 20-year global warming potential of methane versus the
100-year global warming potential used in the conventional inventory and demonstrates the
potency of methane as a greenhouse gas in the short-term.
Electricity and natural gas are once again the second- and third-highest sources of GHG
emissions while gasoline is now the fourth-highest greenhouse gas emissions source. While
electricity and natural gas remain in their respective spots, both emissions sources have
dramatically increased compared to the conventional inventory methodology. Electricity
contributes 460 metric tons of CO2e in the conventional methodology but increases to 996
29
metric tons CO2e under the advanced methane accounting methodology. Similarly,
natural gas emissions increase from 257 metric tons CO2e to 947 metric tons CO2e. This
has a dramatic impact on the inventory overall, as previously discussed, but also could
point to specific areas of priority when considering future actions.
Finally, because the vehicle fleet is mainly comprised of gasoline and diesel vehicles, the
increased impact of methane via AMAM has a minimal impact on both of those sources
of emissions as well as on nitrous oxide.
30
CONCLUSION &
NEXT STEPS
31
This inventory accounts for 2017 and 2019 GHG emissions from all sectors of Town of Ithaca
operations. The inventory uses the emerging best practice of accounting for carbon sequestered
by trees on Town-managed property. The results of the inventory were calculated in two
ways, one following the traditional LGOP methodology and one following the new Advanced
Methane Accounting Methodology, which reflects emerging global thinking. The results using
the LGOP methodology can be compared to the 2009 GHG inventory results, showing that the
Town met its goal of reducing emissions 30% by 2020 from 2009 levels. However, it should be
noted that emissions in 2019 are significantly higher using the AMAM methodology versus the
LGOP methodology. This is to be expected, and reflects the importance of considering the true
contribution of methane to global warming, especially in the short term.
The inventory has identified the sectors of Town operations and the energy sources that
contribute the most to Town GHG emissions, highlighting opportunities to meet the GHG
emissions reduction goals of the Town’s Green New Deal and to reduce energy usage and cost.
Results from this inventory should be used to inform the Town’s Green New Deal action plan for
government operations and other planning processes.
Later in 2021, the Town plans to conduct a similar update to its GHG inventory for the
community; the Town’s first (and only) community inventory used 2010 data.
Moving forward, the Town should plan to update its GHG inventories more often. Many
municipalities provide annual or biennial updates. More frequent updates will allow the Town
to better track progress and adjust planning and resource allocation accordingly. Through an
iterative process of measurement planning, and action, the Town will be well-poised to meet its
ambitious goal of achieving an equitable transition to carbon neutrality by 2030.
32
APPENDIX
33
Appendix A - Glossary
AMAM – Advanced Methane Accounting Method
The Advanced Methane Accounting Method is the shorthand assigned to the methodology
used in this inventory that accounts for upstream leakage of natural gas and utilizes methane’s
20-year global warming potential value versus the more commonly used 100-year value to
account for the lifecycle emissions of methane. This method was developed to help examine the
outsized impact of methane due to the increasing body of evidence that inventories should use
the 20-year global warming potential for greenhouse gases which have a shorter lifespan in the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide. This methodology also aligns with that used in the Tompkins
County GHG inventory. More information on the parameters used by the advanced methane
accounting method can be found in APPENDIX G.
CLCPA – Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
A New York State legislative act mandating several state goals regarding climate change. These
goals include a formal commitment for the state to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The
Act also outlines a target of 40% emissions reduction in absolute terms from 1990 levels by
2030 and an 85% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. Carbon offsets may be used to net zero
emissions by 2050. (source: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/miles-farmer/unpacking-new-yorks-
big-new-climate-bill-primer-0).
CO2e – Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
A carbon dioxide equivalent is the unit used to report greenhouse gas emissions or reductions.
Greenhouse gases are converted to CO2e by multiplying emissions by their respective Global
Warming Potential (GWP, see below). The CO2e allows for reporting of overall greenhouse gas
emissions in one standardized value and aids in greenhouse gas emission comparisons. Every
greenhouse gas -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) -- has different physical properties.
For convenience and simplicity, it is conventional to express all gas emissions in “equivalent
amounts of carbon dioxide,” where “equivalent” means “having the same warming effect over a
period of 100 years.”
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. Comprised of a
group of scientists from around the world, it was formed in 1988 to provide policymakers with
objective information regarding climate change. The IPCC convenes approximately every five or
six years to update the science and recommendations.
GWP – Global Warming Potential
Each greenhouse gas has a different potential to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is the
measure of the heat trapping ability of a particular gas relative to CO2, typically reported over a
100-year period.
34
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
ICLEI is a membership association of local governments committed to advancing climate
protection and sustainable development. Since its inception in 1990, ICLEI has grown to include
over 1,100 cities in the world, more than 600 of which are in the U.S. ICLEI’s mission is to build,
serve, and drive a movement of local governments to advance deep reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions and achieve tangible improvements in local sustainability.
LGOP – Local Government Operations Protocol
The Local Government Operations Protocol (Protocol) is designed to provide a standardized set
of guidelines to assist local governments in quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions
associated with their government operations. The LGOP was used for this inventory and the
Town’s previous inventory.
Metric Ton -
The metric ton is the unit of measurement of emissions for greenhouse gas inventories and
carbon offset projects. One metric ton is equal to 1000 kilograms and to 1.102 short tons.
MMBtu - Million British Thermal Units (BTU)
MMBtu is a standard unit of measurement that denotes both the amount of heat energy in
fuels and the ability of appliances and air conditioning systems to produce heating or cooling.
A BTU is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a pint of water (which
weighs exactly 16 ounces) by one degree Fahrenheit. A wooden kitchen match produces
approximately 1 BTU, and air conditioners for household use typically produce between 5,000
and 15,000 BTU. MMBTU stands for one million BTUs.
35
Appendix B - Data Sources and Contacts
Buildings and Facilities
Natural gas and electricity consumption for the Town’s buildings and facilities is tracked and
maintained by the Town of Ithaca Accounting Department. Debby Kelley is the primary contact
for this data, as well as for Streetlights and Traffic Signals, and water and sewer pump stations.
Debby Kelley, Bookkeeper to the Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
607-273-1721 x114 dkelley@town.ithaca.ny.us
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
Electricity consumption for all streetlights and traffic signals is maintained by the Town of
Ithaca Accounting Department.
Debby Kelley, Bookkeeper to the Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
607-273-1721 x114 dkelley@town.ithaca.ny.us
Water Delivery Facilities
Bolton Point provided natural gas and electricity data for the main facility and the three main
pump stations, as well as gallons of water treated. The Town of Ithaca tracks the individual
pump stations, which use only electricity. Most of the energy consumption is the electricity
used to power the pumps. Natural gas is used for space heating in the main facility.
Debby Kelley, see above for contact (water pump station utility data)
Glenn Ratacjzak, Production Manager, Bolton Point (all other utility data)
607-277-0660 x241 gratajczak@boltonpoint.org
Steve Riddle, General Manager, Bolton Point (Bolton Point operational data)
607-277-0660 x229 sriddle@boltonpoint.org
Donna Shaw, Budget Officer, Town of Ithaca (Bolton Point ownership share data)
607-273-1721 x113 dshaw@town.ithaca.ny.us
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) provided data on natural gas and
electricity consumption from the plant, as well as operational characteristics like gallons
treated and process emissions data (see Appendix C – Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Facilities). The Town of Ithaca maintains the data for the sewer pumps in the Town.
Debby Kelley, see above for contact (sewer pump station data)
Carl (CJ) Kilgore, Chief Operator, IAWWTF (all other utility and operations data)
607-273-8381 CKilgore@cityofithaca.org
Donna Shaw, Budget Officer, Town of Ithaca (IAWWTF ownership share data)
607-273-1721 x113 dshaw@town.ithaca.ny.us
36
Vehicle Fleet
Laura Pastore provided data on Town vehicle/equipment model year and make, gasoline and
diesel fuel consumption, and overall spending on fleet fuel. Gregg Weatherby provided similar
information for Bolton Point.
Laura Pastore, Engineering Technician, Town of Ithaca Public Works
607-273-1656 x230 lpastore@town.ithaca.ny.us
Gregg Weatherby, Distribution Manager, Bolton Point
607-277-0660 gregg@boltonpoint.org
Employee Commute
A survey designed by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca
was distributed electronically and on paper to employees of the Town of Ithaca, Public Works,
and Bolton Point by Nick Goldsmith. The survey response rate was 69%, which was then scaled
to 100%.
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner, Town of Ithaca
607-273-1721 x136 ngoldsmith@town.ithaca.ny.us
Forestry
Mike Smith, Senior Planner, Town of Ithaca
607-273-1721 x123 msmith@town.ithaca.ny.us
Advanced Methane Accounting Methodology
Dr. Robert Howarth, David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology, Cornell
University
607-255-6175 howarth@cornell.edu
37
Appendix C - Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
Process Emissions
Below is the data entered in the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory tool to determine the process
emissions for the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) in 2019. It was based on
information collected from conversations with IAWWTF managers.
38
Appendix D - Employee Commute Survey Questions and
Results
Town of Ithaca 2019 Employee Commute Survey
39
40
41
42
43
44
Survey Results Summary
Town of Ithaca Employee Commute Survey Results
In August 2020, The Town of Ithaca conducted an employee commute survey for the year 2019,
as part of the Town’s greenhouse gas inventory update. Employees at Public Works, Town Hall,
and Bolton Point were surveyed. Below are some of the results.
We had an overall response rate of 62%. Thank you to all who participated!
Employee commute distances range from 0.4 miles to 52 miles, with an average of 14 miles.
45
Most employees drive alone to work. Very few employees take the bus (1%), bike (1%), or walk
(1%).
The types of vehicles that employees drive vary significantly by location. The first chart shows all
three locations combined. The following charts show the individual locations.
Employee vehicle types by location are shown in the next three charts.
46
Vehicle efficiency varies widely; each blue line in the chart below shows the efficiency of one
employee vehicle. The average efficiency is about 25 miles per gallon, the lowest is 10 MPG, and
the highest is 133 MPGe (MPG equivalent, the combined gas and electric efficiency of a plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV).
47
Two questions focused on employee ownership and use of electric vehicles (EV). About
three quarters of employees know that free EV charging is available at Town Hall for
employee vehicles.
Two employees drive personal EVs, and the Town fleet now includes EVs. However,
most employees said it was unlikely that their next vehicle purchase would be an EV.
Two reasons are mentioned in the survey comments: the purchase cost and the lack of
options for trucks, which are popular among Town employees.
Thanks for reading! Contact Sustainability Planner Nick Goldsmith with questions or
comments.
48
Survey Results
Town of Ithaca 2019 Employee Commute Survey
Q17 - In 2019, what was your primary work place?
#Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Variance Count
1 In 2019, what was your
primary work place?
1.00 4.00 1.91 0.96 0.92 53
#Answer %Count
1 Town Hall 45.28%24
2 Public Works 24.53%13
3 Bolton Point 24.53%13
4 I did not work for the Town of Ithaca or Bolton Point in 2019 5.66%3
Total 100%53
Q1 - In 2019, how many days per week did you work at your primary work location (Town
Hall, Public Works, Bolton Point)?
49
#Field Mini-
mum
Maxi-
mum
Mean Std
Deviation
Variance Count
1 In 2019, how many days per week did
you work at your primary work loca-
tion (Town Hall, Public Works, Bolton
Point)?
2.00 6.00 4.72 0.80 0.64 50
#Answer %Count
1 1 Day 0.00%0
2 2 Days 4.00%2
3 3 Days 8.00%4
4 4 Days 2.00%1
5 5 Days 84.00%42
6 6 Days 2.00%1
7 7 Days 0.00%0
Total 100%50
Q2 - What modes of transportation did you use for your commute in 2019?
#Answer %Count
1 Drive alone 75.41%46
2 Carpool 3.28%2
3 Motorcycle or Scooter 4.92%3
4 Transit Service (Bus)4.92%3
5 Bike 6.56%4
6 Walk 4.92%3
7 Work from home 0.00%0
Total 100%61
50
Q4 - In 2019, how many days per week did you commute using each of these modes of
transportation?
#Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Devia-
tion
Variance Count
1 Drive alone 1.00 6.00 4.65 0.96 0.92 46
2 Carpool 3.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2
3 Motorcycle or Scooter 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3
4 Transit Service (Bus)1.00 2.00 1.33 0.47 0.22 3
5 Bike 1.00 3.00 1.75 0.83 0.69 4
6 Walk 1.00 2.00 1.33 0.47 0.22 3
7 Work from home 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
51
#Ques-
tion
One Day Two
Days
Three
Days
Four
Days
Five
Days
Six
Days
Seven
Days
To -
tal
1 Drive
alone
2.17%1 4.35%2 6.52%3 2.17%1 82.61%38 2.17%1 0.00%0 46
2 Carpool 0.00%0 0.00%0 50.00%1 0.00%0 50.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 2
3 Motor-
cycle or
Scooter
100.00%3 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 3
4 Transit
Service
(Bus)
66.67%2 33.33%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 3
5 Bike 50.00%2 25.00%1 25.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 4
6 Walk 66.67%2 33.33%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 3
7 Work
from
home
0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0
Q5 - In 2019, how many miles did you commute (one-way) to your primary work-place? You
may use Google Maps to calculate this.
In 2019, how many miles did you commute (one-way) to your primary work-place? You may use
Google Maps to calculate this.
3.5 35 9 3000
10 miles 4.4 miles 6 miles 52
10 12 miles 18 5
25 21 28 18
4 15 miles 3 25
26 6 8 4,000 miles
5 12miles approx 6 31
7.5 10 5 10
3 16.9 25 14
3250 5.3 miles 18 15
2 16.1 miles 21.4 0.4 miles
10 miles 13.3 22 2
Q7 - What type of vehicle was your primary mode of transportation when commuting to work
in 2019?
52
#Field Mini-
mum
Maxi-
mum
Mean Std Devia-
tion
Variance Count
1 What type of vehicle was your pri-
mary mode of transportation when
commuting to work in 2019?
1.00 4.00 1.79 0.68 0.47 47
#Answer %Count
1 Passenger Vehicle (Sedan)31.91%15
2 Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) or Truck 61.70%29
3 Motorcycle or Scooter 2.13%1
4 Other *4.26%2
Total 100%47
*Other - Text: Mini-van; Passenger Van
Q8 - In 2019, what was the make, model, and model year of the primary vehicle you
commuted with? For example, a 2013 Honda Accord.
In 2019, what was the make, model, and model year of the primary vehicle you commuted
with? For example, a 2013 Honda Accord.
2018 Toyota Prius
Prime
2019 Ram 1500 2016 Dodge Ram 2010 Vespa GTS300
2019 Chevy Silverado 2019 Subaru Legacy 2011 ford f250 2006 BMW
2004 Honda Civic Nissan frontier 2020 Toyota Tundra 2013 Jeep Wrangler
2014 Subaru Legacy 2018 Chevrolet Silver-
ado
2015 Cadillac ATS
AWD
2011 kia sportage
30 mpg 08 Toyota Tacoma 2019 Chevy Silverado Ford F250
2017 Hyundai Sonata 2017 Toyota High-
lander
F-350 2018 Ford F350
2013 Mazda Mazda5 2015 Chevy Trax 2017 BMW X3 2016 Jeep Compass
2016 Subaru Forester 2012 ford f250 2017 Subaru Forester 2009 VW GLI
2014 Toyota Prius 2015 Chevy Equinox 2017 Chevrolet Sil-
verado 2500hd
Chevy 2500
2012 VW Jetta 2012 Town and Coun-
try
2018 Honda Civic 2019 chevy traverse
2013 Volkswagon
Passat
2018 Ford -150 Truck 2012 Nissan Frontier 2015 Ford Behemoth
2018 GMC Acadia 2015 Toyota Sienna
Van
2011 Dodge Dakota
53
Q13 - In 2019, what fuel type did your primary commuter vehicle use?
#Field Mini-
mum
Maxi-
mum
Mean Std De-
viation
Variance Count
1 In 2019, what fuel type did your primary
commuter vehicle use?
1.00 4.00 1.15 0.62 0.38 47
#Answer %Count
1 Gasoline 93.62%44
2 Diesel 2.13%1
3 Electricity - Battery-Electric Vehicle (BEV)0.00%0
4 Gasoline and Electricity - Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)4.26%2
5 Other/Not Sure 0.00%0
Total 100%47
Q14 - In 2019, what was the estimated miles per gallon (mpg) for your commute?
In 2019, what was the estimated miles per gallon (mpg) for your commute?
16 mpg 16 mpg 16 15 17
28 20 23.6 20 20
21 20 mpg 16 13 65
30 19 10 12.6 16
30 29+/-20 25 26
28 12 20 18 18
30 25 12 11.7 25 mpg
28 20 40 20 20
35 16 ?14 22
54
Q9 - In 2019, when you carpooled, how many other passengers were typically in the vehicle
with you?
#Field Mini-
mum
Maxi-
mum
Mean Std De-
viation
Variance Count
1 In 2019, when you carpooled, how many
other passengers were typically in the
vehicle with you?
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2
#Answer %Count
1 1 other passenger 100.00%2
2 2 other passengers 0.00%0
3 3 other passengers 0.00%0
4 4 other passengers 0.00%0
5 5 other passengers 0.00%0
6 6 other passengers 0.00%0
Total 100%2
55
Q19 - Did you know Town employees can charge their personal electric vehicle (EV) at Town
Hall for free?
#Field Mini-
mum
Maxi-
mum
Mean Std De-
viation
Variance Count
1 Did you know Town employees can
charge their personal electric vehicle (EV)
at Town Hall for free?
1.00 2.00 1.27 0.45 0.20 51
#Answer %Count
1 Yes 72.55%37
2 No 27.45%14
Total 100%51
Q16 - How likely is it that your next vehicle purchase will be an electric vehicle (EV)?
56
#Field Mini-
mum
Maxi-
mum
Mean Std De-
viation
Variance Count
1 How likely is it that your next vehicle
purchase will be an electric vehicle
(EV)?
1.00 5.00 3.90 1.27 1.62 51
#Answer %Count
1 Extremely likely 5.88%3
2 Somewhat likely 11.76%6
3 Neither likely nor unlikely 15.69%8
4 Somewhat unlikely 19.61%10
5 Extremely unlikely 47.06%24
Total 100%51
Q11 - Do you think your commute will change post-Covid-19 or when you return to working
at your office/work location? If so, how? (Optional)
Less often
No change
“No” – 30 respondents
Continued remote work is likely for at least a couple days/week.
might work from home 1 day week
If there's more work at home days for me and my wife, one of us may not always be working
on site during a certain day.
No - people need to be smart of surroundings
Possibly new vehicle
No still working 5 days a week
It has not changed.
potential to work from home a couple days per week
YES - I plan to work from home more, which means I won't use any vehicles at all.
I am now taking public transport
Q18 - Please share any additional information, questions, or concerns related to your com-
mute or the Town’s sustainability efforts. If you would like a response, please include your
name here. (Optional)
Me: lack of affordable (under $30K) AWD electric or hybrid vehicles, no hybrid/electric Subaru
models, one-time cost of installing charger, garage space likely to be occupued by (wife's) gas-
oline car. Other: cost of housing in Ithaca results in unavoidable long commutes, often from
areas where transit service is infrequent or unavailable. I feel lucky that I
Too expensive to move closer to work and electric vehicles are way overpriced
traffic lights and lanes
57
None
35.5 miles one-way in summer
I found it difficult to choose my mode of transport in this survey, as I don't always drive, bike
or walk. I use all of the services listed...
I ride share as much as possible
58
Appendix E - EPA GHG Inventory Tool Employee Commute
Calculation Results
1. Enter the Number of Employees
Number of Employees
Town 83
2. Enter the Proportion of Employees Traveling by Mode
Mode Employees who use mode (%)
Single Occupancy Vehicle 90.4%
Carpool 4.0%
Motorcycle 2.4%
Transit 1.2%
Bike 1.2%
Walk 0.8%
Total 100%
3. Enter Average One-Way Commute Length
Average One-Way Commute Length (miles)14
4. Enter Number of Workdays per Year
Workdays per Year 240
5. Emissions from Employee commute
Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent
Town 211.42
59
Appendix F - 2009/2019 Commuter GHG Emissions
Summary Chart by Methodology
Comparing commuter methods between 2009 and 2019 proved challenging due to
methodological differences between the inventories. The Town was unable to discern the exact
methodology utilized in the 2009 inventory compiled with the assistance of ICLEI software.
For 2019, the Town employed a new tool and method in development by Terry Carroll (Cornell
Cooperative Extension) and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation for use by
the Climate Smart Communities program. This methodology, combined with a comprehensive
commuter survey, allowed for a more granular calculation of emissions resulting from employee
commutes.
Although unsure of the exact methodology used to calculate 2009 commuter emissions,
we nonetheless wanted to compare commuting emissions in 2009 and 2019. The tables
below show the emissions results using the different methods: the 2009 Inventory using
ICLEI software; the 2009 and 2019 inventories using the EPA Local Government Operations
Greenhouse (LGOP) Gas Inventory tool; and the 2009 and 2019 inventories using the Climate
Smart Communities tool that was ultimately used for the 2019 inventory.
Commuter Emissions Summary by Methodology Method- Emissions in Metric Tons CO2e
2009 Inventory 2009 CSC Tool 2009 LGOP Tool 2019 CSC Tool 2019 EPA LGOP
134 296.201 178.56 257.29 211.42
2009 Inventory Method vs. 2019 CSC Inventory Method
2009 2019 Difference in MT % Difference
134 257.29 123.29 92%
2009 vs. 2019 EPA Local Government Operations Protocol Tool
2009 2019 Difference in MT % Difference
178.56 211.42 32.86 18%
2009 vs. 2019 CSC Tool
2009 2019 Difference in MT % Difference
296.201 257.29 -38.911 -13%
60
Appendix G - Advanced Methane Accounting Methodology
(AMAM)
Background on Method
The Advanced Methane Accounting Methodology (AMAM) was created to ensure that the
full lifecycle emissions from methane are accounted for. This is mainly accomplished by using
a generalized leakage rate that estimates the amount of methane (CH4) leaked into the
atmosphere from the production, distribution and combustion of natural gas. AMAM also
recognizes the outsized impact that methane as a greenhouse gas has in our atmosphere
compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). It does this by using a 20-year global
warming potential value of 84 versus the more traditionally utilized 100-year value of 25 used in
the EPA Local Government Operations Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Tool.
AMAM, although not referred to as such, was pioneered by Tompkins County and Professor
Bob Howarth (Cornell University) in Tompkins County’s 2014 GHG Inventory. Since that time, it
has undergone modifications to both methods and assumed values. Leakage rates utilized by
the County for the 2014 inventory are now seen as estimations and have changed as additional
research has pointed to a lower value than that used for the 2014 inventory. Professor Howarth
suggested they be revised to a leakage rate of 3.6% in the County’s 2019 GHG Inventory and we
have followed his advice for our version of AMAM.
Another major deviation from the County’s methodology is the treatment of methane leakage
from electricity emissions. The electricity grid generates power from a variety of different
energy sources. In the 2014 inventory, the County’s methodology took the percentage of
electricity generated by natural gas and applied the emissions factor to that number to
determine emissions from methane leakage. In consultation with Professor Howarth, however,
we were concerned that this was an inaccurate representation. In terms of combustion
resources, which are the sources of generation contributing to the Emissions & Generation
Resource Integrated Database (eGrid) emissions factor, natural gas makes up over 88% of
electricity generation. On consultation with Professor Howarth it was suggested that, rather
than applying the emissions factor to natural gas as a percentage of generation, we assume
natural gas is the sole source contributing to the eGrid emissions factor. Under this advice, the
entirety of emissions from the electric grid is utilized when calculating methane leakage from
electricity grid emissions.
Below is an example of how emissions are calculated using AMAM. We also include the tables
generated using an Excel calculator to apply methane leakage to the electric grid and natural
gas combustion sources in the 2019 inventory. The calculator can be made available by request
to the Town of Ithaca.
AMAM Examples
Electric Grid AMAM- Applying AMAM using the Town of Ithaca’s Building Sector 2019 usage as
an example.
• Determine electricity usage by sector or specific building; for the Town of Ithaca’s 2019
building sector electricity usage was 268,806 kWh or 268.81 MWh
• Apply the emissions factor (253.90 lb CO2e/MWh) to the usage and convert to metric tons:
61
268.81*253.90/2205 = 30.95 Metrics Tons CO2e (MTCO2e)
• Determine the amount of methane that was combusted in order to create that amount of
emissions by dividing the amount of emissions created from the electricity grid by the molar
mass of carbon dioxide (44 g/mol) and then multiplying by the molar mass of methane (16
g/mol):
(30.952/44)*16 = 11.26 MT
• Use the assumed leakage rate (3.6% or 1.037) to calculate how much methane was
produced upstream for the amount of methane that was ultimately combusted (11.26):
11.255*1.0366 = 11.67 MT
• Calculate the amount of methane that was leaked to the atmosphere between production
(11.67) and combustion (11.25):
0.42 tons
• Apply the 20-year global warming potential of methane (86) to the amount of methane
leaked (.42):
86*.42 = 36.15 MT
• Add the emissions from combustion (30.95) and the emissions from methane leakage
(36.15) for the total emissions from buildings using AMAM
67.10 MT CO2e
Natural Gas Combustion AMAM – Applying AMAM using the Town of Ithaca’s Building Sector
2019 usage as an example.
• Determine natural gas usage by sector or specific building; for the Town of Ithaca’s 2019
building sector natural gas usage was 29,280 therms or 2,928 MMBtus
• Apply the emissions factor (53.11 kg/MMBtu) to the usage and convert to metric tons:
2928*53.11/1000 = 155.51 Metrics Tons (MT)
• Determine the amount of methane that was combusted in order to create that amount of
emissions by dividing the amount of emissions created from the electricity grid divided by
the molar mass of carbon dioxide (44 g/mol) and then multiplying by the molar mass of
methane (16 g/mol):
(53.11/44)*16 = 56.55 MT
• Use the assumed leakage rate (3.6% or 1.037) to calculate how much methane was
produced upstream for the amount of methane that was ultimately combusted (56.55):
56.55 *1.0366 = 58.66 MT
• Calculate the amount of methane that was leaked to the atmosphere between production
(58.66) and combustion (56.55):
2.11 tons
• Apply the 20-year global warming potential of methane (86) to the amount of methane
leaked (.42):
86*2.11 = 181.61 MT
• Add the emissions from combustion (155.51) and the emissions from methane leakage
(181.61) for the total emissions from buildings using AMAM
337.12 MT CO2e
62
2019 GHG Inventory AMAM Calculator Results
Calculating GHG Emissions w/ Leakage for Buildings
Leakage Rate (as %)3.6%
"True" Production Rate 96.4%
eGrid region NYUP
2019 Electricity Grid AMAM Results
Building (Name)Electricity
Used
(kWh)
CO2 Emis-
sions (w/o
Leakage)
Metric Tons
CH4 Leaked
(from
Electricity
Generation)
CO2e
Emissions
(from
leaked
CH4)
CO2e Emis-
sions (w/
Leakage)
Buildings 268,806 30.952 0.420 36.15 67.100
Water Delivery Facilities 2,703,161 311.262 4.227 363.51 674.773
Wastewater Facilities 779,864 89.799 1.219 104.87 194.672
Streetlights and Traffic 238,511 27.464 0.373 32.07 59.538
kWh Metric Tons
CO2
Metric Tons
CH4
Metric
Tons CO2e
MT CO2e
Total 3,990,342.000 459.477 6.240 996.083
2019 Natural Gas Combustion AMAM Results
Building (Name)Natural
Gas Used
(MMBtu)
CO2 Emis-
sions (w/o
Leakage)
Metric Tons CH4
Leaked (from
Nat. Gas Pro-
duction and
Distribution)
CO2e Emis-
sions (from
leaked CH4)
Total
CO2e
Emissions
(including
Leakage)
Buildings 2,928 155.506 2.112 181.610 337.116
Water Delivery Facilities 806 42.807 0.581 49.992 92.799
Wastewater Facilities 4,487 238.305 3.236 278.307 516.611
Streetlights and Traffic - - - - -
MMBTU Metric Tons
CO2
Metric Tons CH4 Metric
Tons CO2e
MT CO2e
Total 8,221.000 436.617 5.929 509.908 946.526
63
Appendix H - 2017 GHG Inventory Calculations and Results
Between mid-2020 and early 2021, the Town of Ithaca, with generous guidance and assistance
from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County and the Susan Christopherson Center
for Community Planning, completed an inventory to measure greenhouse gas emissions from
government operations for the year 2017 to supplement the results of the 2019 inventory. This
appendix provides the findings of the 2017 emissions inventory by sector and source. In 2017,
the Town of Ithaca emitted approximately 2,225 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equiva-
lent). The total emissions are partially offset by 507 metric tons of CO2e due to forest land cover
within the Town. Net emissions in the year 2017 equal 1,718 metric tons of CO2e.
GHG Equivalents
2,225 metric tons of CO2e is equivalent to:
481 Passenger Vehicles Driven for One Year
257 Homes’ Energy Use for One Year
672 Acres of Forest Sequestering Carbon for One Year
GHG Emissions by Sector (gross emissions)
Sectors Percent of
Total1
Metric Tons of
CO2e
Energy
(MMBtu)
Cost ($)
Buildings 9.1%201 4,072 47,207.50
Streetlights and Traffic Signals 1.4%30 822 44,993.70
Water Delivery Facilities 16.9%377 9,930 248,388.21
Wastewater Facilities 37.3%830 8,2721 71,748.98
Vehicle Fleet 23.8%529 7,305 96,791.57
Employee Commute 11.6%257 2,133 43,059.182
Gross Total 100%2,225 32,534 552,188.14
1. Energy from Wastewater Facilities includes only natural gas and electricity and does not include process emissions
from the IAWWTF.
2. Cost of employee commute calculated using NYSERDA monthly average motor gasoline prices for 2017.
GHG Emissions by Source
Source Percent of Total Metric Tons of CO2e
Diesel 13.8%307
Electricity 22.3%496
Gasoline 21.5%477
Methane 17.4%387
Natural Gas 22.7%505
Nitrous Oxide 2.3%51
Total 100%2,2251
1 The total emissions number was manually modified from 2,223 MTCO2e to 2,225 MTCO2e to align with the total
emissions by sector table, the slight difference being due to rounding.
64
Gross GHG Emissions vs. Net GHG Emissions
Metric Tons of CO2e
Gross Emissions 2,225
Urban Forestry Carbon Sequestration -5071
Net Emissions 1,718
1. Urban forestry sequesters carbon, represented here as negative emissions.
Buildings
The Town of Ithaca owns and operates four buildings, which are Town Hall, Public Works,
Public Works Annex, and Salt Shed. These four buildings were responsible for 9.1% of overall
emissions. Emissions totaled 201 metric tons of CO2e and the buildings used 4,072 MMBtu of
energy in 2017. This 4,072 MMBtu of energy used can be broken down into 3,191 MMBtu from
natural gas and 258,083 kwh from electricity.
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
There are ten lighting districts and two school crossing lights under the jurisdiction of the Town
of Ithaca in 2017. These streetlights and school crossing lights were responsible for 1.4% of
the Town’s overall emissions, emitting 30 metric tons of CO2e. Streetlights and school crossing
lights in the Town also used 822 MMBtu of energy in 2019, which equates to 241,003 kwh of
electricity.
Water Delivery Facilities
Emissions from water delivery facilities in 2017 were 377 metric tons of CO2e, making up 16.9%
of the Town’s total emissions. Water delivery facilities also used 9,930 MMBtu of energy, made
up of 820 MMBtu of natural gas and 2,670,086 kwh of electricity.
Wastewater Facilities
Emissions from wastewater facilities in 2017 were 37.3% of total emissions, equating to 830
metric tons of CO2e. Wastewater facilities also used 8,272 MMBtu of energy consisting of 5,514
MMBtu of natural gas and 808,236 kwh of electricity. Process emissions consist of methane
and nitrous oxide released during the wastewater treatment process. Emissions from the
wastewater treatment process total 436 metric tons of CO2e while emissions from electricity
and natural gas equate to 394 metric tons of CO2e.
Vehicle Fleet
Emissions from the Town and Bolton Point fleets account for 23.8% of the Town’s total emissions
in 2017, which is 529 metric tons of CO2e and 7,305 MMBtus of energy. In 2017, the Vehicle
Fleet used 27,247 gallons of gasoline and 28,236 gallons of diesel fuel.
Employee Commute
To better understand commuting patterns and account for emissions derived from employee
commuting, a survey was conducted of employees at Town Hall, Public Works, and Bolton Point.
The survey of 83 employees across the three sites included questions about mode of commute,
distance traveled to work, and vehicle make and model. From the data collected through
this survey, greenhouse gas emissions from employee commutes were 11.6% of total Town
emissions in 2017. This equates to 257 metric tons of CO2e and 2,222 MMBtu of energy usage.
65
Appendix I - Additional Graphs and Charts
Energy Use Percentage vs. Cost Percentage (2019)
Upstate NY Electric Grid Resource Mix Chart