Q: How is building area defined in the CCM? Is this consistent internationally?

A: There are currently several different definitions for how to measure building area, each formulated with a different objective and application. For the purposes of this pilot test, UNEP-SBCI has used a definition of Gross Floor Area (GFA) measured from the exterior perimeter of the building envelope, including areas of internal walls & structure, shafts, elevators, and stairways. After feedback from the pilot test we will clarify that GFA is to be measured from the inside face of exterior perimeter wall, also including areas of sloping surfaces such as staircases, galleries, raked auditoria, and tiered terraces, but excluding open floors and exterior covered ways and balconies.

Q: How are building types defined in the CCM? Is this consistent internationally?

A: Because this tool is designed emphasizing the Top-Down approach, supported by measured data from the Bottom-Up approach, the list of building type choices initially only covered broad categories. Other building rating systems or government policy programs may provide more detailed sub-categories within the two main categories of “Residential” and “Non-Residential.” After feedback from the pilot test we will work to further define more specific, internationally-accepted sub-categories of residential and non-residential building types and add to the current list in the tool to support more accurate Bottom-Up reporting.

Q: What year of construction should we use if the original building has undergone a major renovation?

A: For the purposes of the pilot test, enter the year the building was first built. Future version of the tool will include a second field to capture the year of most recent major renovation/retrofit, building system upgrade, or addition.

Q: Does the tool allow for distinguishing energy usage by specific end-uses or pieces of equipment, such as heating/cooling/ventilation, hot water, lighting, etc.?

A: No, all power used by the building is included in the total and not broken down by specific end-uses or equipment, either through metering or estimating particular systems or areas. The user may add comments to clarify “process loads” that would skew the results, such as data centers, kitchen equipment, incinerators, etc. Significant process loads, such as those from manufacturing, should be reported separately as they would be included in “Industrial” building sector. Users should not include energy used outside the building site perimeter.

Q: What if I have electricity emission factors which are more precise (state/regional) than the country averages used in the tool?

A: The tool is currently designed to calculate emissions from building electricity consumption through using country average factors supplied by the International Energy Agency, and consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is currently no mechanism for users to manually input custom emission factors, such as those for their state/region. After feedback from the pilot test, we will also allow user(s) to enter more bespoke country specific emissions factors, while maintaining the default for reference and use by reporters without state/regional information on emissions.

Q: How does the tool address on-site renewable energy generation? Particularly if a portion of the energy is fed back to the grid?

A: The tool does not currently allow users to designate whether, and what, portion of on-site renewable energy is used or exported to the grid. Buildings that consume primarily on-site renewable electricity will have fewer emissions associated with their electricity consumption than those consuming energy from a largely fossil-fueled electricity grid. After feedback from the pilot test, we will provide a method for reporters to make note of how much on-site renewable energy is used by building operations and how much is returned to the grid for a more comprehensive understanding of the building’s operational emissions, but only the building’s electricity consumption figure is used in the calculations for energy intensity.

Q: How does the tool address green pricing program arrangements that buildings may have with a local utility, which promise a certain percentage of the electricity comes from a renewable source?

A: Green pricing programs (such as green tariffs or premiums for renewable electricity) differ across and within countries in terms of what the additional funds “buy,” and what can be claimed in terms of the emissions profile of the consumed electricity. The tool is currently designed to calculate emissions from building electricity consumption through using country average factors, and there is not a mechanism for users to input an adjusted emission factor supplied by their utility.

Q: Why are emissions from refrigerants used in heating/cooling systems not calculated in this tool?

A: As noted in the CCM, emissions from refrigerants were not included in the calculation functionalities of this tool due to the complex and unwieldy nature of structuring these calculations within an Excel based format. But, because refrigerants do constitute a source of GHG emissions from building operations, this calculation will be considered for inclusion in future versions of the tool.

A: The ratio of people-to-building-area differs greatly depending on building type, function, and country. Some countries have developed standard occupancy defaults for specific building types. In addition, there are a variety of ways to calculate and estimate building occupancy, including ways to incorporate the hours of building operation. One general rule is that for the bottom-up approach, non-residential buildings typically use a “full-time equivalent” (FTE) concept, which requires the user to estimate how many people occupy the building for approximately 8 hours, and visitors/part-time staff can be totaled up and divided by 8 hours and added to the total as FTEs. It is not appropriate to use data on the intended occupancy of buildings (as opposed to actual occupancy). This is because the intent of the CCM is to assess the actual energy and emissions performance of buildings.

The Calculation Tool & Reporting Template does not provide a single definition for occupancy estimations at this time, nor does it provide any country or building-type defaults. User feedback from the pilot test is encouraged in defining the internationally best-practices in calculating and/or estimating occupancy.

Q: Does the tool allow for leased buildings to separate information into tenant/base energy figures?

A: At this point in time, the Calculation Tool & Reporting Template do not provide for this kind of separation. This type of calculation requires that a landlord has energy use separately metered within a building so that each tenant’s energy consumption is clearly distinguished from the “base” energy consumption for common systems and spaces and that these different consumption figures are linked to the building area devoted to those uses.

Q: How does weather normalization work in the tool?

A: A building’s energy use related to heating and cooling is a function of both the efficiency of the building structure and heating/cooling equipment, but also of the climatic conditions of where the building is located. The process of “normalizing” energy use is based on how frequently the local weather surpassed certain temperature thresholds, calling forth energy consumption for heating or cooling. Weather normalization is carried out only for benchmarking purposes to compare energy use of different buildings located in different places, or the same building year after year.

The current version of the Calculation & Reporting tool does not incorporate a weather normalization calculation, but we will provide means for users to factor in this critical benchmarking metric. Weather normalization is only applied to the weather-dependent component of energy use, such as heating/cooling, and if space heating/cooling energy use is not measures separately, then overall energy consumption data should be available on a monthly or annual basis. See the following website for more information on weather normalization and degree days: http://www.energylens.com/articles/degree-days.

Q: Why does the CCM allow me to enter data on only one type of fuel for individual buildings?

A: The current version of the CCM allows users to input data on the consumption of electricity and one type of fuel for any one building in the bottom-up approach. However, UNEP-SBCI realizes that buildings will often use multiple fuels over the course of a year. Future versions of the CCM will allow multiple fuels to be included in the performance assessment.

Q: Should only measured data be used with the CCM?

A: For the bottom-up approach, only measured (metered) data should be used. Design calculated or modeled data should not be used because these are usually not the same as measured values. However, estimated or modeled data may be used for the top-down approach.

Q: Can I input data on a financial year basis?

A: Currently, the CCM only allows users to input data on a calendar year basis. The Excel tool is currently not configured to accept data on a financial year basis, as this would require adjustments to the default emission factors used in the tool. However, future iterations of the CCM will allow data to be input on either a calendar and/or financial year basis.

Food with a carbon footprint. Photo credit: Otarian Restaurant

Update from the star-studded launch of a new chain of sustainable restaurants.

On the evening of April 14th, WRI filled a role not normally reserved for environmental think tanks: VIP guest at a high-profile New York restaurant opening. Otarian, now open in New York City’s West Village, is a new boutique fast-casual restaurant chain based on the principles of sustainability and vegetarianism. Otarian is also the first global restaurant chain to track the carbon footprint of all of its menu items.

“I am putting myself out there and standing behind my statement that Otarian is the world’s most sustainable chain of restaurants,” said Radhika Oswal, owner and creator of Otarian. “The sustainability of Otarian comes from all aspects of the restaurant, from the way we have decorated, to the ingredients, and much much more.”

WRI Managing Director Manish Bapna, Otarian Owner Radhika Oswal, and WRI Board Member Todd Thomson

Otarian is one of over seventy organizations road testing WRI and WBSCD’s new GHG Protocol standard on Product Life Cycle accounting. This participation will help diners better understand the environmental impact of their food choices in a highly measureable and quantifiable way. The product standard measures the emissions from all parts of a product’s lifecycle. For example, an Otarian VegO burger represents 1.32kg of CO2-equivalent, taking into account the growing, harvesting, and processing of all the ingredients, as well as transportation, packaging, sale and waste disposal.

Around 60 people were in attendance at the Otarian launch. The vibe was intimate and buzzing, the small space packed with a crowd including celebrities, media, influencers and owner Radhika Oswal accompanied by her husband Pankaj Oswal.

The menu at Otarian

Manish Bapna, Managing Director of WRI, attended the event alongside WRI Director Todd Thomson. Manish was invited by Mrs. Oswal to give the only speech of the night after she delivered her welcome and thanks. “We are delighted that Otarian is so dedicated to the cause of measuring the footprint of its food products. A lot of big companies recognize the business case behind measuring and managing emissions, they see that it can improve their profitability,” said Manish. “There are a few organizations, however, that also recognize the need to make a low carbon economy a reality. Otarian is in this category.”

Celebrity guests included Mary Kate Olsen, a regular on the New York scene and star of many movies and TV shows alongside her twin sister Ashley Olsen. Vanessa Williams and Mark Indelicato from the ABC TV show ‘Ugly Betty’ attended along with Judah Friedlander from the popular NBC TV show ‘30 Rock’.

WRI’s Laura Pocknell with 30 Rock’s Judah Friedlander

“I wanted to attend tonight to set precedence for others to uphold and follow suit. I’m very happy that restaurants like Otarian are the new trend.” said Vanessa Williams. Mark Indelicato added “my eyes were opened to vegetarianism and sustainability by Ana Ortiz, who plays my Mom on Ugly Betty. I was shocked to find out that the methane cows emit is a bigger polluter than emissions from planes or trains.” “I’m here tonight because it’s very important to protect the earth,” said Judah Friedlander about what the opening of Otarian means to him. “It is not only good, but important to eat tasty, sustainable food like Otarian is offering.”

For more information about the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the road-testing process, visit http://www.ghgprotocol.org.

WRI’s Greenhouse Gas Software Group will be comprised of leading carbon accounting software providers that are dedicated to using high quality and rigorous carbon accounting methods.

cforms contact form by delicious:days

Over the past 10 years, an increasing number of organizations have been measuring and tracking their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the Corporate Standard framework designed by GHG Protocol. Equipped with information about their GHG profile, companies have sought ways to reduce their emissions, including both internal reductions—making operational changes in equipment, fuel or behavior—and external reductions, including the purchasing or funding of quantified reduction projects outside of the company’s operations. The Corporate Standard provided a standardized means for tracking corporate GHG emissions, and companies have identified a need for similarly consistent and comparable methodologies and best practices in calculating, accounting and reporting these internal and external reductions.

Challenges in tracking corporate performance

Companies interested in purchasing or funding reduction projects outside of their inventory boundary are faced with a broad array of choices, including: emission allowances from voluntary or regulatory cap and trade schemes (e.g., CCX, RGGI, EU ETS), offset credits generated from GHG reduction projects (e.g., CDM), electricity green pricing products, and certificates intended to help track the generation of electricity from renewable energy installations (e.g., RECs, ROCs, etc).

Despite the range of available mitigation measures, companies face significant challenges in almost every phase in the design and implementation of reduction targets, posing risks to the integrity and credibility of their mitigation strategies. Among these challenges include:

• What types of targets?
• What types of reduction instruments?
• How to calculate reductions?
• How to account for reductions?
• How to report reductions?

The Performance Tracking Guidelines

In order to enhance the clarity, consistency and credibility of voluntary GHG reduction commitments, the GHG Protocol Initiative at the World Resources Institute (WRI) has begun a process to develop Performance Tracking Guidelines. These guidelines are intended for companies evaluating how they should structure and report on their mitigation strategies, as well as for GHG reporting programs and initiatives interested in designing program specifications on reduction targets. The guidelines aim to harmonize practices used by companies worldwide for setting and meeting reduction targets, and enable internal management and external stakeholders to make meaningful assessments of company performance.

Development Process

To develop these guidelines, the GHG Protocol will be assembling a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) composed of GHG reporting programs and other organizations with expertise in mitigation strategies and external reduction instruments. The TAG will help shape the Guidelines scope, comment on drafts of the Guidelines, and share best practices. The GHG Protocol will incorporate the TAG’s input while ensuring consistency with the GHG accounting principles previously established through the Corporate Standard and the Project Protocol. Broader stakeholder input will be solicited through an open comment period to be held later in the guidelines’ development, as well as stakeholder workshops in US and European cities.

Performance Tracking Documents

If you would like to be kept informed of this project, or recommend issues that these Guidelines should address, please fill out this contact form:

cforms contact form by delicious:days

cforms contact form by delicious:days

Stakeholders were encouraged to submit written comments to WRI and WBCSD on the first drafts of both standards. Written comments were accepted from November 11th to December 21st, 2009. Over 60 organizations and individuals submitted comments on the standards.

Scope 3 Standard Comments

Product Standard Comments

Developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the two new GHG Protocol standards – the Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard and the Scope 3 (Corporate Value Chain) Accounting and Reporting Standard – provide methods to account for emissions associated with individual products across their life-cycles and of corporations across their value chains.

Jonathan Lash, president of WRI, said, “We are encouraged by the overwhelming response from the private sector seeking to road test the new standards. There were more than 120 applications across a broad array of sectors and regions worldwide. The road testing will provide critical input in ensuring that the standards generate credible and meaningful data for business and government decision makers, while considering the practical challenges that businesses and programs will face during implementation.”

“Increasingly, companies are looking beyond their own boundaries and developing strategies to reduce GHG emissions in their supply chains and in the products they make and sell,” added Bjorn Stigson, president of WBCSD. “By taking a comprehensive approach to GHG measurement and management, businesses and policymakers can focus attention on the greatest opportunities to reduce emissions within the full value chain, leading to more sustainable decisions about the products companies buy, sell, and produce.”

An example of GHG emissions across a product’s life cycle

While many companies have been measuring the emissions from their own operations and electricity use, the Scope 3 Standard will, for the first time, allow companies to look comprehensively at the impact of their corporate value chains, including outsourced activities, supplier manufacturing, and the use of the products they sell. Road testers of the Product Standard will measure the climate change impact of products ranging from magazines, food and jeans to computers, wind turbines and steel.

Ashley Crepiat, environmental footprint and economics manager for road-testing company Airbus, said, “Managing the transition towards a low-carbon economy is now a true concern for corporations. Airbus understands that beyond reducing its direct GHG emissions from its operations, evaluating emissions throughout the whole value chain is also a major challenge. By road testing GHG Protocol’s Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard, we believe this will help establish harmonized international guidelines enabling a common and robust framework for Scope 3 accounting.”

Michael Kobori, Levi Strauss & Co.’s vice president of Social and Environmental Sustainability, said: “Levi Strauss & Co. is thrilled to be road-testing the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. If this method becomes widely accepted, it will enable us to better calculate and share the climate change impact of our products. Being able to credibly measure and communicate that product impact to consumers can unleash the power of the market to address climate change on a global scale.”

The draft standards were developed over the last year through a global, collaborative multi-stakeholder process, with participation from over 1,000 volunteer representatives from industry, government, academia and non-governmental organizations. The road testing process will provide real-world feedback to ensure the standards can be practically implemented by companies and organizations from a variety of sectors, sizes, and geographic areas around the world. The final standards are scheduled to be published in December 2010.

Companies participating in the road testing represent 17 countries from every continent and more than 20 industry sectors. The companies include: 3M Company; Acer Inc.; Airbus S.A.S.; AkzoNobel; Alcan Packaging; Alcoa; Anvil Knitwear, Inc; Autodesk, Inc.; Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.; BASF SE; Belkin International; Belron International; Bloomberg LP; BT Plc; CA, Inc.; Coca-Cola Erfrishungsgetränke AG; Colors Fruit SA (Pty) Ltd.; Deutsche Post DHL; DuPont; Eclipse Networks (Pty) Ltd.; Ecolab; The Estee Lauder Company; Ford Motor Company; General Electric; U.S. General Services Administration; Gold’n Plump Poultry LLC; Highways Agency (UK); Hydro Tasmania; IBM; IKEA; Italcementi Group; JohnsonDiversey, Inc.; Kraft Foods; Lenovo Corporation; Levi Strauss & Co.; Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation; National Grid; Natura Cosméticos; New Belgium Brewing Co.; Otarian; PepsiCo, Inc.; Pinchin Environmental Ltd.; PricewaterhouseCoopers (Hong Kong); Procter & Gamble Eurocor; Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.; Rogers Communications, Inc.; SAP AG; SC Johnson; Shanghai Zidan Food Packaging & Printing Co., Ltd.; Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd; Suzano Pulp and Paper; Swire Beverages (Coca-Cola Bottling Partner); TAL Apparel Limited; Tech-Front (Shanghai) Computer Co., Ltd./Quanta Shanghai Manufacturing City; Tennant Company; Veolia Water; Verso Paper Corp.; VT Group Plc; Webcor Builders; Weyerhaeuser Company and WorldAutoSteel.

Stakeholders discuss the Product Standard and Scope 3 Standard drafts at the Meeting in London, November 2009

The World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development held five stakeholder workshops between November 17 and December 1, 2009 to seek feedback on two new GHG Protocol standards:

• Scope 3 Accounting & Reporting Standard – Draft for Stakeholder Review
• Product Life Cycle Accounting & Reporting Standard – Draft for Stakeholder Review

The workshops were held in the following cities:

• Berlin, Germany (17 November 2009)
• Guangzhou, China (17 November 2009)
• Beijing, China (19 November 2009)
• London, UK (20 November 2009)
• Washington, DC, USA (1 December 2009)

Over 350 participants attended the workshops. Each workshop contained plenary discussions on each standard as well as several smaller interactive discussion sessions on key technical issues.

Click here for a summary of feedback received at the workshops.

Stakeholders were also encouraged to submit written comments to WRI and WBCSD on the draft standards. Written comments were accepted from November 11th to December 21st, 2009. Over 60 organizations and individuals submitted comments on the standards. Click here to read the written comments.

Feedback from the workshops and written comments will be submitted to the steering committee and technical working groups for consideration in the next revision process.

Click here to download the draft standards and the comment templates.