-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
Tackling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Entertainment Facilities A study of Qwest Field and Events Center
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2009
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Stewart, Jeremy
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
Tackling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Entertainment Facilities
A study of Qwest Field and Events Center
By
Jeremy Stewart
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
June 2009
2009 by Jeremy Stewart. All rights reserved.
Page ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Jeremy Stewart
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Robert Knapp
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Lawrence Geri
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Charlie Cunniff
The Seattle Climate Partnership
________________________
Date
Page iii
ABSTRACT
Tackling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Entertainment Facilities
A study of Qwest Field and Events Center
Jeremy Stewart
Growing environmental concerns about rising greenhouse gas emissions are
compelling political, environmental, and business groups to work together to find
solutions. Practical solutions must address environmental concerns while acknowledging
the needs of businesses. Every year large events, such as sports events, trade shows, and
public expositions, draw millions of participants to individual facilities for entertainment,
education, and career advancement. These events are housed in large energy-intensive
commercial buildings, require participants to transport themselves to and from events,
and produce large volumes of waste - all of which contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions.
To put these emissions in context with the needs of the large entertainment
industry, environmental challenges, and public policy, this study will conduct a
greenhouse gas inventory of Qwest Field and Events Center. This inventory finds
emissions from event attendee transportation represents a significant portion of
greenhouse gas emissions, followed by facility energy use.
These emissions, caused by operating the facility to meet business needs, intersect
with policy changes recommended by Washington State's Climate Action Team and the
City of Seattle Climate Action Agenda. Analysis of the greenhouse gas inventory
discusses how potential regulation could challenge large entertainment facilities and
examines methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, facility location
has a major impact on facility emissions due to variations in the local electrical mix and
regional transportation options.
Finally, this study examines methods to reduce emissions from Qwest Field.
Analysis studies past environmental initiatives, such as improving solid waste collection
and investing in energy efficiency, and explores alternate practices to reduce emissions.
Page iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
The Large Events Industry ............................................................................................................... 2
Large Events Business Needs ...................................................................................................... 2
Energy and Environmental Challenges faced by the Large Public Entertainment Industry ........ 6
Climate Change ....................................................................................................................... 6
Peak Oil ................................................................................................................................... 9
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ............................................................................................................. 12
The Importance of a Greenhouse Gas Inventory ....................................................................... 12
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology .................................................................................. 19
Scope 1 Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 21
Stationary Combustion........................................................................................................... 22
Mobile Combustion ................................................................................................................ 23
Manufacturing Processes and Agricultural Emissions .......................................................... 24
Fugitive Emissions ................................................................................................................. 24
Scope 2 Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 25
Electricity ............................................................................................................................... 26
Scope 3 Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 27
Solid Waste............................................................................................................................. 30
Water ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Event Attendee Transportation .............................................................................................. 31
Office Paper ........................................................................................................................... 32
First and Goal Funded Airline Travel ................................................................................... 33
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Results Overview ....................................................................................................................... 35
Energy Emissions – Scope 1 and 2 ............................................................................................ 36
Upstream and Downstream Emissions – Scope 3 ...................................................................... 39
Page v
Regulation .................................................................................................................................. 41
Energy Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 43
Solid Waste............................................................................................................................. 44
SEPA Process......................................................................................................................... 45
Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 45
Regional and Federal Reporting Requirements ......................................................................... 49
Meeting Kyoto and Seattle’s Climate Goals .............................................................................. 50
Reduction Strategies .................................................................................................................. 51
Energy Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 51
Solid Waste............................................................................................................................. 58
Attendee Transportation ........................................................................................................ 60
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Works Cited.................................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix A: Emissions from mobile sources................................................................................ 76
Appendix B: Emissions from Fugitive Sources ............................................................................. 79
Appendix C: Emissions from Solid Waste .................................................................................... 80
Appendix D: Emissions from water consumption and liquid waste .............................................. 83
Appendix E: Emissions from Fan Transportation.......................................................................... 84
Appendix F: Office Paper .............................................................................................................. 93
Appendix G: Emissions from First and Goal Funded Airline Travel ............................................ 94
Page vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Global Average Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Concentration.................. 8
Figure 2 – Oil Supply and Demand in the 21st Century ................................................... 10
Figure 3 - World Energy Production ................................................................................ 11
Figure 4 - Total Emissions by Year & Source .................................................................. 35
Figure 5 - Energy Emissions 2007 & 2008 ...................................................................... 36
Figure 6 - MTC02e of Electricity by Geography .............................................................. 38
Figure 7 - Scope 3 Emissions 2007 & 2008 ..................................................................... 39
Figure 8 - Historical Natural Gas Consumption .............................................................. 52
Figure 9 - Historical Electricity Consumption ................................................................. 53
Figure 10 - Historical Energy Usage ............................................................................... 54
Figure 11 - Historic Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................. 55
Figure 12 - Total Waste .................................................................................................... 59
Figure 13 - Map of Seahawk Season Ticket Holders ........................................................ 84
Page vii
List of Tables
Table 1 - Scope 1 Emissions ............................................................................................. 25
Table 2 - Scope 2 Emissions ............................................................................................. 27
Table 3 - Scope 3 Emissions ............................................................................................. 34
Table 4 - All Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... 34
Table 5 - Reduction Strategy 1 - Energy Efficiency .......................................................... 57
Table 6 - Attendee Emissions ............................................................................................ 61
Table 7 - Reduction Strategy 2 - Rural Transportation .................................................... 63
Table 8 - Reduction Strategy 3 - Increase Local Transit .................................................. 64
Table 9 - Mobile Combustion Calculations ...................................................................... 78
Table 10 - Fugitive Emission Calculations....................................................................... 79
Table 11 - Solid Waste Emissions Calculations ............................................................... 82
Table 12 - Water and Liquid Waste Emissions Calculations ........................................... 83
Table 13 - Average Miles for King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties ................. 86
Table 14 - County Distance to Qwest Field ...................................................................... 87
Table 15 - Seahawks Transportation Patterns.................................................................. 88
Table 16 - Event Attendee Transportation Emissions....................................................... 89
Table 17 - Event Attendee Transportation Emissions - Mass Transit .............................. 91
Table 18 - Event Attendee Transportation - Final Results ............................................... 92
Table 19 - Office Paper..................................................................................................... 93
Table 20 - Airline Emissions ............................................................................................. 94
Page viii
Acknowledgements
It is important to acknowledge the help of Mike McFaul at First and Goal, Inc.
Without his help and assistance, this project would not have been possible. Additionally,
I would like to thank Jerry Wright at Seattle City Light for help examining energy
records and understanding future energy efficiency upgrades at Qwest Field, and Doug
Dickson at PSE for allowing me to be present at the commercial kitchen energy audit at
Qwest Field. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Rob Knapp, Dr. Lawrence Geri, and
Charlie Cunniff at the Seattle Climate Partnership for their help reading and guiding this
research.
Page ix
Introduction
Growing environmental concerns about rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are
compelling political, environmental, and business groups to work together to find
solutions. As CO2 emissions become a focus of regulatory policy, it is important to
understand how these emissions are generated and what solutions exist to mitigate them.
On a macro-level, these solutions must not only reduce CO2 levels, but allow for
economic growth. On the micro-level, public policy must work with the business
community to enact policies that acknowledge business needs and allow businesses to be
profitable.
This thesis will examine greenhouse gas emissions from the large events (LE)
industry. While not the largest industry, the LE industry is highly visible. During the
1990’s, over $21 billion was spent on new stadium construction (Siegfried & Zimbalist,
2000, p. 95). In 2009 the most expensive stadium ever built, the new Yankee Stadium,
was constructed. This 1.5 billion dollar facility boasts a sports bar, a steak house, and
expensive club seats(Casselman, 2009). While there has been significant study of the
economic and social effects of LE facilities, there has been surprising little study on the
environmental impact of individual facilities (Becken & Simmons, 2002, pp. 343, 344).
To provide context, Qwest Field and Events Center located in Seattle Washington, will
be used as a case study to better understand the environmental challenges and
opportunities faced by LE facilities.
First, it is necessary to examine the LE industry. This examination will define the
LE industry, examine where LE business needs intersect with climate issues, and explore
environmental challenges facing the LE industry. This analysis will put Qwest Field’s
Page 1
greenhouse gas inventory in context and provide a platform to examine specific
challenges and opportunities faced by the LE industry.
Second, this study will use the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol to
conduct a greenhouse gas inventory of Qwest Field. This inventory will not only address
site facility emissions, such as natural gas and electricity, but will include several
categories up and down the supply chain, including solid waste, attendee transportation,
emissions from office paper, and emissions from water consumption. This inventory is
important to understand how LE facilities generate greenhouse gas emissions and will
provide a context for understanding the weaknesses and opportunities a LE facility faces
with climate regulation and energy shortages.
Third, a brief climate action plan will offer emission reduction strategies that
work with LE business needs. This climate action plan will not only examine a technical
solution, but offer solutions that rely on customer participation. In addition, government
policies that enhance or hinder these strategies will be discussed. The goal of this study
is to better understand environmental challenges faced by the LE industry and provide a
starting point to address those challenges.
The Large Events Industry
Large Events Business Needs
Before conducting an analysis of Qwest Field and Events Center (Qwest Field), it
is important to understand how Large Events (LE) businesses operate. First, an analysis
of the LE industry will examine current business needs. Analyzing these needs in the
context of environmental regulation and constrained energy supplies can be used to
understand potential challenges and make investments that minimize risks and take
Page 2
advantage of opportunities. Understanding business needs allow solutions to work with
business practices, creating policies that benefit the environment and the organization’s
bottom line (Commonwealth of Austrailia, 2001, pp. 6-8). Without understanding
business needs, it is not possible to work with management to create a strategy that
benefits the company and the environment.
The business model for LE facilities incorporates aspects from the amusement,
hospitality, commercial real estate, and retail industries. The facility itself may be owned
by a professional sports team, a municipality, an economic investment council, or by a
public-private partnership. Day-to-day operations are typically overseen by a
professional management company. This company is also responsible for maximizing
revenue generated by renting the facility; contracts range from long-term leases to
accommodate professional sports teams to one- or two-day leases to host public
expositions and trade shows.
The more diverse the facility, the greater number and type of events may be
hosted. Diversity allows the facility to be used more often, not only increasing income
derived from groups renting space, such as trade show exhibitors, but increasing income
from concessions and facility services as well. To be successful, a LE facility must:
•
Draw visitors to the facility
•
Accommodate the number of anticipated participants
•
Facilitate high-tech broadcasting, marketing, and technical needs of
tenants
•
Provide retail products and food
•
Provide a safe environment for attendees to participate in events
Page 3
•
Deal with waste from event attendees and tenants
First, a LE facility must draw visitors (Schaff, 2004, p. 209; Hamilton, 2004, p.
85). Historic facilities, such as Fenway Park, can create such a draw they become top
tourist attractions (Schaff, 2004, p. 227). Strong traditions, fan loyalty, and team success
also increase attendance at sporting events. In contrast, stadiums that do not cater to
traditions or have their own architectural identity, such as Comiskey Stadium in Chicago,
may leave much to be desired in the minds of sports fans (Schaff, 2004, p. 209;
Westerbeek, Smith, Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 102). LE facilities
must not only be able to physically accommodate fans and participants, but give fans and
participants a reason to attend events instead of watch them on TV or the internet.
Stadiums that lack a historical legacy must provide additional services that draw fans to
events. This can be accomplished through luxury boxes, enhanced retail facilities, and
creative marketing options (Schaff, 2004, pp. 213-217). Failure to do so can render a
facility obsolete and lead to replacement, as occurred with the Kingdome in Seattle
(Ballparks of Baseball, 2009).
Once the LE facility becomes a destination, the facility must be able to
accommodate the number of participants an event will draw (Westerbeek, Smith, Turner,
Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 86). Facility size is important; if the facility is
too small ticket sales will be constrained and maximum profit will not be recognized, if
the facility is too large it may be too costly to maintain and out of scale for tenants’
needs. Accommodation not only refers to the number of seats, toilets, and retail facilities,
but local infrastructure’s ability to handle the needs of fans and support the LE facility.
Page 4
Transportation is a key component of this equation – if fans and participants have trouble
getting to the facility, attendance is likely to be compromised (Westerbeek, Smith,
Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 62; Schaff, 2004, p. 48).
After fans are drawn to a LE facility and able to get to the facility, the facility
must be able to support the technical and marketing needs of facility tenants (Westerbeek,
Smith, Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, pp. 99, 100; Schaff, 2004, pp. 173178). Facilitating these needs requires energy intensive infrastructure, such as high
powered lighting, computer facilities, and broadcasting stages (Westerbeek, Smith,
Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 98). Because these needs are critical to
a tenant’s financial performance, LE facilities must work to accommodate these needs or
risk becoming obsolete.
Finally, LE facilities act as retail centers for the duration of the event
(Westerbeek, Smith, Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, pp. 101-102; Garber,
2004, p. 112). Retail operations offer food and beverage services, merchandise sales, and
high-end seating options. Retail facilities not only cater to the regular fan base, but
frequently offer additional services to high income fans such as luxury boxes and club
seats. Failure to provide services that generate additional cash flow from high-income
fans can render a LE facility obsolete (Siegfried & Zimbalist, 2000, p. 98). Some of
these retail spaces are operated by the professional management company or primary
tenants, such as the team store, while most are leased to external food and beverage
companies. While most retail facilities are not directly operated by LE management
companies, LE facility managers must accommodate solid waste generated by retail
operations and offer energy related services to keep tenants profitable.
Page 5
As illustrated above, a LE facility must fill a variety of needs to be successful. A
good summary of the LE business model is: to rent or lease real estate that draws
customers to events by providing unique facilities that accommodate participant needs
while offering business opportunities necessary for the tenant’s financial success.
Energy and Environmental Challenges faced by the Large Public Entertainment
Industry
Synthesizing the above business needs illustrates three energy and environmental
challenges faced by the LE industry:
•
Energy needed to power the amenities and technological needs of the
facility.
•
Disposal of solid and liquid waste generated by facility attendees.
•
Energy needed to transport participants to and from the LE facility.
Until recently, environmental challenges have been associated with toxic
materials. Therefore, relatively clean businesses, such as LE facilities, did not concern
themselves with most environmental issues. New environmental issues, such as climate
change and peak oil, will challenge the LE industry in new ways. To understand how
these issues will affect the LE industry, it is necessary to understand climate change and
peak oil.
Climate Change
Climate change is caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases that cause the earth
to warm. This warming is causing climate patterns to alter at radical speeds from historic
patterns. While the popular press in the United States portrays climate change as an on-
Page 6
going controversy (Friedman, 2008, p. 115), there is general consensus in academia and
the international community that climate change is real and a threat to human civilization
(Houghton, 2007; Friedman, 2008, p. 115; Pumilio, 2007, p. 2; Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2007, p. 30).
Prior to 1700 the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the primary indicator of
greenhouse gas emissions, measured 280 parts per million (ppm) (Houghton, 2007, p.
31). The industrial revolution, powered by fossil fuel and deforestation, enabled human
civilization to emit CO2 faster than natural systems could absorb it (Hopkins, 2008, p. 32;
Houghton, 2007, p. 9). Current CO2 levels have increased to 380 ppm (Houghton, 2007,
p. 31). This type of environmental challenge, where the atmosphere is unable to absorb
CO2 at the current rate of emission, is referred to as a fund-services problem. Once
natural systems are unable to absorb emissions, additional emissions begin to affect the
ecosystem in negative ways (Daly & Farley, 2004, p. 107).
One of these negative effects is increased global temperatures. Figure 1 illustrates
the correlation between CO2 levels and average temperature (Ernst M. , 2008).
Page 7
Figure 1 – Global Average Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Concentration
These temperature increases cause weather patterns to change away from historic
norms (Hopkins, 2008, p. 33; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, p. 30).
In some locations, the effects of climate change may mean warmer weather with longer
growing seasons (Houghton, 2007, p. 143), while other regions may experience
catastrophic sea-level rise that displaces millions of people (Houghton, 2007, p. 150).
The study of climate change is challenged by the fact that we are simply not certain what
the outcomes will be and who will be effected (Friedman, 2008, pp. 122, 123). The one
certain element is that the climate is changing and it will affect us.
To avoid potential catastrophic effects of climate change, the global community
must take drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – with G8 leaders calling for
an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by developed countries by 2050 (Newton, 2009).
Page 8
Reductions of this magnitude will not be made by voluntary cuts in consumption, but will
be made through public policy that internalizes the cost of emitting greenhouse gases.
These policies will disrupt and change the way all businesses operate, altering existing
business models and threatening businesses who do not work to become viable within the
new regulatory framework.
Peak Oil
Climate change is not the only environmental problem faced by the LE industry.
While climate change is a fund services challenge, peak oil is a stock-flow resource
challenge. As fossil fuel energy stocks decline, energy resources such as oil become
increasingly expensive. While mostly ignored, peak oil drew significant attention during
the summer of 2008 when fuel prices spiked to record highs (Energy Information
Administration, 2009).
Peak oil refers to the peak of an oil supply curve over time. The peak is the top of
the production curve, after which point oil production begins to decline. Although
production is in decline, modern economic systems need and require additional energy.
Advances made in the 20th century, such as personal transportation, unprecedented levels
of affluence, and instant communication would not be possible without energy from
fossil fuels (Smil, 2008, p. 380). Further compounding the peak oil problem is increased
energy demand from the developing world as these countries try to achieve a Western
lifestyle (Friedman, 2008, p. 29). Figure 2 illustrates that oil demand will outstrip oil
supply in the near future (Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, 2008). The
result will be a rapid increase in oil prices as demand outpaces supply.
Page 9
Figure 2 – Oil Supply and Demand in the 21st Century
In addition, the oil that is available will become more expensive to extract
(Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, 2008, p. 3). This expense can be
explained by the wide variation in energy required to extract oil. Conventional oil in
Saudi Arabia delivers an energy return on investment (EROI) up to 1000, while energy
intensive unconventional oil in Canadian tar sands that yield an EROI of 6 (Smil, 2008,
pp. 276, 277). When extracting a resource, the easy-high EROI resources are extracted
first (Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 40), and more difficult-low EROI resources are extracted
later. Although oil supplies will be more expensive to extract, the extra expense required
to recover unconventional oil supplies will be met as demand outstrips supply. The result
is higher oil prices.
Problems associated with peak oil are not limited to petroleum, but are associated
with other forms of fossil energy; such as natural gas. These energy sources follow a
Page 10
similar depletion time as oil (Shafiee & Topal, 2009, p. 181). As price increases make
one form of energy unaffordable, another form with a lower EROI will act as a substitute
good, and gain market share. Figure 3(Clugston, 2007) (below) illustrates how current
forms of energy may be replaced with alternatives, as petroleum and natural gas are
replaced with a mix of renewable energy sources.
Figure 3 - World Energy Production
Figure 3 also illustrates what should be a big concern to energy users; while
renewable and alternative energy sources come into play as substitutes, overall energy
available is in decline. This is because alternative goods are more expensive than
existing resources. Less energy available at higher prices will challenge existing business
needs as assumptions that used to be taken for granted change and eliminate businesses
that do not monitor trends and plan ahead.
One could look at peak oil as a means of solving the climate change problem –
limits on stock-flow resources will force consumers to use less, thus releasing pressures
Page 11
on fund-services resources. This assumption, however, would lead to a failed public
policy that would not address climate change and causes profound economic problems
for businesses caused by run-away energy prices (Hopkins, 2008, p. 38). As a result,
businesses should keep an eye on both environmental challenges; potential regulation to
mitigate climate change and increased energy prices caused by peak oil.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The Importance of a Greenhouse Gas Inventory
A greenhouse gas inventory is an accounting tool that seeks to quantify
greenhouse gas emissions from business activities. It is important to understand how a
business operates and where its emissions come from to understand how a business could
be at risk from climate change and peak oil. The results of the inventory will reveal the
largest sources of emissions (Eagan, Keniry, Schott, Dayanada, Jones, & Madry, 2008, p.
20). Contrasting these results with LE business needs will provide an insight to future
risk and allow companies to develop plans that minimize risk by reducing emissions
(Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 18; Eagan, Keniry, Schott, Dayanada, Jones, & Madry, 2008,
p. 20) or investing in alternative infrastructure. Daniel Esty (p. 116) from Yale
University describes four categories of risk businesses face from environmental
challenges:
•
Financial
•
Strategic
•
Operational
•
Hazard
Page 12
Financial risks are associated with the ability to borrow money. Banks and
financial institutions are beginning to add exposure to environmental threats to their
review process before they lend money (Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 95). Financial
institutions do this review because their calculations show investment in companies that
fail to plan for environmental challenges are poor investments (Esty & Winston, 2009, p.
95). As a result, banks and shareholders have begun asking businesses how they are
planning to meet future environmental challenges.
Strategic risk relates to structural needs of business models that directly conflict
with new environmental problems. Simply, the goal of a LE facility is to maximize
revenue for its tenants, thus allowing the facility to charge tenants additional rent.
Historic properties such as Wrigley Field and Fenway Park do this through filling seats to
maximizing game day revenue (Schaff, 2004, pp. 225, 226). The historic status of these
facilities makes them difficult to update, thus they rely on a stable fan base to support the
business. Modern facilities, however, require energy intensive services to make them a
destination and support modern broadcasting and marketing needs (Schaff, 2004, pp. 216,
217). All facilities, regardless of age or stature, must provide a draw strong enough to
compel fans to attend events. Without fans attending events, there is no reason for the LE
facility to exist. Climate change and peak oil put pressure on the ability of LE facilities
to draw attendees and provide energy intensive services. As a result, these environmental
challenges pose a strategic risk to the structural needs of the LE industry.
Operational risk can directly affect LE businesses or indirectly affect them
through the supply chain (Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 116). Regulations designed to
mitigate climate change can dramatically change the cost of services such as solid waste,
Page 13
while increased energy prices could make current processes unaffordable. A greenhouse
gas inventory examines where the emissions come from and illuminates the biggest
opportunities for reduction (Eagan, Keniry, Schott, Dayanada, Jones, & Madry, 2008, p.
20). Large companies, such as 3M and Wal-Mart, have credited their sustainability
programs with saving enough money to mitigate sales declines during the 2008 economic
downturn (Olson, 2008).
Finally, hazards caused by climate change and peak oil refer to wild card events
that are unplanned (Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 116). Using a greenhouse gas inventory to
address the greatest opportunities assists in reducing vulnerability to unexpected events,
such as energy price spikes (Putman & Philips, 2006, p. 2) and natural events (Esty &
Winston, 2009, p. 116). Identifying current weaknesses allow resources to be invested
that improve overall stability and the ability of the business to withstand hazards.
As seen, it is important for businesses to complete a greenhouse gas inventory to
develop a strategy for avoiding risks and identifying weaknesses. If the business needs
show potential conflict caused by increased regulation, energy price increases, water
shortages, or climate change, knowing how these challenges affect the business’s
strategic and operational needs is important.
Combining this knowledge with a greenhouse gas inventory can help to manage
downside risks and potentially turn them into a competitive advantage (Esty & Winston,
2009, pp. 11-13). Action does not have to be limited to managing the downsides of
environmental challenges, but can be used to improve business operations and create
upside benefits (Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 11). When striving to manage risks and
complying with new environmental regulations, businesses can benefit from the results of
Page 14
innovation and investment. These upsides come from the innovation released when
businesses rethink production processes (Claussen & Peace, 2007, p. 314) and business
strategy (Esty & Winston, 2009, p. 12). Additionally, many businesses are examining
how promotion of environmentally positive business policies can increase efficiency and
win customer loyalty (Esty & Winston, 2009, pp. 11-14).
Ultimately, the company
benefits from a competitive advantage with environmentally-friendly products and
services (Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, pp. 1-2).
Historical and Regulatory Context
After discussing LE business needs in general, it is necessary to identify specifics
relating to Qwest Field and the regulatory climate of Seattle, Washington. This
information will frame the greenhouse gas study and provide context to the results of the
greenhouse gas inventory.
Qwest Field is located south of downtown in Seattle, Washington and was
constructed in 2002 to replace the Kingdome (Washington State Public Stadium
Authority, 2004; King County, 2000). The Kingdome, a large concrete stadium
constructed in 1976, did not endear itself to fans (Ballparks of Baseball, 2009) and failed
to provide the ambiance necessary for a modern LE facility. Because of this failure,
Washington State voters passed referendum 48 in 1997 to build a new facility to
accommodate professional sports teams, specifically the Seattle Sounders Football Club
(soccer) and Seattle Seahawks (football), and other large entertainment events.
Referendum 48 provided 300 million dollars of public funds to assist in construction of
the 430 million dollar facility (Washington State Public Stadium Authority, 2004).
Page 15
Because construction of Qwest Field was a joint public/private venture, the actual
facility is owned by the Washington State Public Stadium Authority (PSA). The PSA
works to protect the public’s interest, keep Qwest Field accessible, and ensure Qwest
Field provides economic and social benefits to the people of Washington State
(Washington State Public Stadium Authority, 2004). First & Goal, Inc (FGI) leases
Qwest Field from The PSA (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008) as the primary tenant, and
is responsible for all aspects of stadium operation (Washington State Public Stadium
Authority, 2004).
Geographically, Qwest Field was built near the location of the old Kingdome,
south of Seattle’s downtown core. Being located in Seattle, Qwest Field is subject to four
sets of regulations; the City of Seattle, King County, State of Washington, and Federal.
While these governing bodies currently do not have a requirement for reporting
greenhouse gas emissions, both Seattle and Washington State are actively developing
climate policy and have recognized the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Seattle is a national leader in confronting climate change. Greg Nickels, mayor
from 2002 – 2010, was the founding member of the US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement. Under this agreement, over 965 Mayors from the United States have agreed
to use their influence to meet or exceed the Kyoto protocol in their communities by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 (City of Seattle,
2009). Climate action has been led by Seattle City Light, which distributes electricity at
“net zero emissions” (City of Seattle, 2006, p. 1). In addition, Seattle created the Seattle
Climate Partnership, a voluntary organization to band businesses together with the goal
of meeting the Kyoto challenge.
Page 16
The State of Washington is addressing climate change through membership in the
Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The WCI, a coalition of Western States and Canadian
Provinces, seeks to address climate change through a market-based cap and trade system
(Western Climate Initiative, 2009). The WCI uses a tonnage emitted threshold to
determine if a facility is large enough to fall within its regulatory boundary. To ensure all
facilities are inventoried using similar methods, the WCI uses the Climate Registry’s
General Reporting Protocol. These guidelines determine what emissions are counted and
how they are counted. While the WCI’s cap and trade system is not yet in effect, a
greenhouse gas inventory will reveal if Qwest Field falls within the proposed regulatory
framework. It should also be noted that while the Western Climate Initiative has not been
ratified in Washington or California as of August 2009, it represents a similar regulatory
framework proposed by the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill passed by the
U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009.
In addition, Washington State has formed a Climate Action Team (CAT) to
identify the most promising methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (2008
Washington Climate Action Team, 2008). The CAT has identified the following as
“Most Promising Actions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the State.
•
Energy Efficiency and Green Building – reduce emissions through
adoption of energy efficient equipment that reduces the need for fossil fuel
and substitution of products that are greenhouse gas intensive to produce.
•
Transportation – reduce transportation emissions through a reduction in
vehicle miles traveled.
Page 17
•
Beyond Waste – reduce emission by improving recycling and waste
management techniques.
•
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) – include greenhouse gas
emissions in the SEPA process to improve mitigation activities in large
projects.
To gain an increased understanding of risks and opportunities, this greenhouse gas
inventory will pay special attention to measures identified by Washington’s CAT. In
addition, it is important to conduct the inventory using methodology similar to that
required under the WCI. While there are several methodologies and tools available to
complete a greenhouse gas inventory, this study will follow guidelines established by The
Climate Registry because the WCI is promoting use of the Climate Registry’s
methodologies (Western Climate Initiative, 2009, p. 13). Maintaining consistency with
procedures identified in the Climate Registry is important to increase external validity
when comparing results from one inventory to the next and maintaining internal validity
when analyzing results with WCI reporting requirements.
The Climate Registry identifies three types of emissions, referred to as “Scopes”.
Scope 1 emissions are caused by equipment under the direct control of FGI: combustion
in boilers, fuel burned by mobile sources, application of fertilizer, or leaking HVAC
chemicals (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 32). Scope 2 emissions are emitted by outside
firms that generate the energy purchased by FGI: electricity, purchased steam, or
purchased heat (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 33). Scope 3 emissions are generated
through upstream and downstream activities of the organization: employee commuting,
employee air travel, solid waste disposal, transportation of products and services, and
Page 18
upstream extraction of materials (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 34). Scope 3 emissions
can be modified and expanded based on relevant business needs or activities, such as
attendee transportation or water consumption.
Reporting Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are required under the guidelines of the
Climate Registry, while reporting Scope 3 emissions are optional (The Climate Registry,
2008, p. 34). There is a high degree of judgment required in determining how far
upstream and downstream to calculate scope 3 emissions. This study will use the
business needs described above to determine relevant Scope 3 categories; transportation,
solid waste, water, and supply chain. While Scope 3 emissions would not necessarily be
reported to the Climate Registry, understanding their contribution to Qwest’s overall
greenhouse gas inventory is important to identify financial risks and opportunities, reveal
potential cost effective methods of reduction, and highlight opportunities to work with
upstream and downstream partners.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology
As stated above, this report will use the methods outlined by the Climate Registry
to conduct a greenhouse gas inventory of Qwest Field. Each scope will be broken down
into individual sources as identified by the Climate Registry. The Control Approach, a
method of drawing organizational boundaries under the Climate Registry, will be used
inventory FGI’s emissions from facilities and vehicles. This approach counts emissions
released under the operational control of FGI (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 13).
While there are many “plug and chug” tools to conduct a greenhouse gas
inventory, none are specifically designed to inventory a LE facility. As a result, each
Page 19
emission source will be calculated using the format below (Pumilio, 2007). Most of the
coefficients used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions were borrowed from the Seattle
Climate Partnership’s CO2 calculator (City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and
Environment, 2009), as this calculator uses conversion factors specific to Seattle and
Qwest Field.
•
Emission Source – Each emission source is identified, with a brief
description of the source and what practice emits it.
•
Data Requested – The most granular and accurate quantification was
requested from Mike McFaul, facility director at Qwest Field.
•
Data Received – While most data sources had rigorous data, some were
estimated due to incomplete record keeping; accounting for a greenhouse
gas inventory requires tracking different pieces of information than
traditional accounting. When necessary, emissions were estimated using
the most accurate method described by the Climate Registry. The Western
Climate Initiative requires estimated Scope 1 and 2 emissions to be below
5% of total emissions (Western Climate Initiative, 2009, p. 60).
•
Metric Tons CO2 equivalent – Measurements will be reported in Metric
Tons CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e), an internationally recognized method of
measuring greenhouse gas emissions (Pumilio, 2007, p. 67). MTCO2e
represents the total impact of a specific greenhouse gas relative to the
impact of carbon dioxide (Pumilio, 2007, pp. 67, 68).
Page 20
•
Calculation Method – There are three methods for calculating emissions
in this report: direct calculation, indirect calculation, and estimated
indirect calculation.
o Direct Calculation – Converts a measured unit of energy or
volume of fuel into MTCO2e.
o Indirect Calculation – Converts a measured value into a unit of
energy or volume of fuel, then converts the value into MTCO2e.
o Estimated Indirect Calculation – Utilizes data to estimate a
measurement, converts the calculated measurement into a unit of
energy or volume of fuel, then converts the value into MTCO2e.
Formulas and emission coefficients are described within this text. Complicated
calculations involving multiple variables or conversions are detailed in the appropriate
appendix.
Scope 1 Emissions
The Climate Registry defines Scope 1 emissions as direct emissions created by
the organization within the organizational boundaries (The Climate Registry, 2008, p.
32). This analysis evaluates four types of emissions:
•
Stationary Combustion – Fuel burned onsite for generation of electricity,
heating applications, or to power stationary equipment.
•
Mobile Combustion – Fuel burned in mobile equipment, ranging from
large ships and trucks to forklifts and landscaping equipment.
Page 21
•
Physical and Chemical Process – Emissions directly from manufacturing
or chemical processes, such as manufacturing cement or smelting
aluminum.
•
Fugitive Sources – Unintentional release of chemicals from equipment,
such as heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) refrigerant
Stationary Combustion
Qwest field uses natural gas, provided by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), in
stationary combustion applications. PSE purchases natural gas from suppliers in Canada
and the Western United States and has it transferred to their local pipeline network via
interstate pipelines (Puget Sound Energy, 2009). Once in PSE’s local pipeline
distribution network, natural gas is piped to Qwest Field to fill demand as needed. Qwest
combusts natural gas for space heating, onsite commercial kitchen facilities, and
domestic hot water. The Climate Registry’s Tier B will be used to calculate stationary
combustion emissions. Tier B was selected because the amount of natural gas consumed
is known from utility records(McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008), but the coefficient value
for PSE’s natural gas is estimated using typical fuel characteristics (City of Seattle Office
of Sustainability and Environment, 2009; The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 67).
Data Requested: Natural gas consumption 2007 and 2008
Data Received: Natural gas consumption 2007 and 2008
Conversion Method: Direct Calculation
(1) annual therms consumed * coefficient = annual MTCO2e
(2) 0.005351 Metric Tons CO2e per Therm consumed
Page 22
(3) 147907.88 therms consumed 2007
(4) 144299.04 therms consumed 2008
2007 MTCO2e: 791.45
2008 MTCO2e: 772.15
Mobile Combustion
FGI uses gasoline, diesel, and propane to power a variety of equipment used for
transportation and facilities maintenance. Unfortunately, FGI’s current accounting
system does not track quantities of fuel purchased. As a result, emissions from mobile
combustion will be calculated using the Climate Registry’s Tier C calculation method
(The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 84), which estimates emissions based on vehicle usage.
In addition, there is only data available for 2008, therefore 2007 emissions will be
assumed to be equal to 2008. Improvements in accuracy can be increased by tracking the
actual quantity of fuel purchased, which would allow The Climate Registry’s Tier A
method for mobile combustion to be used (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 84).
Data Requested: Quantities of gasoline, diesel, and propane used for mobile
combustion
Data Received: Hours of equipment operation from FGI maintenance staff (pulled
from equipment hour meters)
Conversion Method: Estimated Indirect Calculation – based on equipment
operating hours, fuel consumption, and type of fuel used (See APPENDIX A)
(1)
(Individual Equipment Operating Hours * Conversion Factor) =
Annual MTCO2e
Page 23
2007 MTCO2e: 38.96 estimated
2008 MTCO2e: 38.96 estimated
Manufacturing Processes and Agricultural Emissions
Due to the nature of the LE industry, FGI does not manufacture products. A LE
facility could have agricultural emissions from fertilizer used on a grass athletic field,
but Qwest’s stadium uses a state of the art artificial turf called FieldTurf for football and
soccer events (First and Goal Inc, 2008). As a result, Qwest Field does not purchase
fertilizer on a commercial basis. Therefore there are no emissions within this category.
Fugitive Emissions
The final Scope 1 category is fugitive emission sources. These are unintentional
releases of greenhouse gasses from pipes and equipment. FGI’s fugitive emissions
come from Qwest Field’s HVAC system. These systems commonly release small
quantities of refrigerant through leaking seals (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 121).
While the amounts of refrigerant are relatively small, these refrigerants are extremely
powerful greenhouse gasses compared with CO2 (Houghton, 2007, p. 247). Because
data regarding annual inventory levels is missing, the Climate Registry’s Tier B will be
used to guide calculating principles (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 127).
Data Requested: Quantities of HVAC refrigerant used 2007 and 2008
Data Received: Quantities of HVAC refrigerant purchased 2007 and 2008
Conversion Method: Direct Calculation – based on quantities of refrigerant
purchased and global warming potential (See APPENDIX B)
Page 24
(1)
(annual refrigerant purchases * global warming potential) = annual
MTCO2e
2007 MTCO2e: 297.92
2008 MTCO2e: 397.63
First and Goal, Inc
Scope 1 Emissions
Category
Stationary Combustion
Mobile Combustion
Fugitive Emissions
TOTAL SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS
2007
2008
791.45 MTCO2e
38.96 MTCO2e
297.92 MTCO2e
1128.33 MTCO2e
772.15 MTCO2e
38.96 MTCO2e
397.63 MTCO2e
1208.74 MTCO2e
Table 1 - Scope 1 Emissions
Combined Scope 1 emissions: including stationary combustion, mobile
combustion, and fugitive emissions, total 1128.33 MTCO2e for 2007 and 1208.74
MTCO2e for 2008. Table 1 above illustrates the distribution of Scope 1 emissions
across categories.
Scope 2 Emissions
The Climate Registry defines Scope 2 emissions as indirect emissions created by
the use of energy generated by other organizations (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 33).
Typically included under Scope 2 are:
•
Electricity – Purchased electrical energy used onsite but generated by a
utility or other company.
Page 25
•
Steam – Purchase steam energy used onsite but created and transported by
another company.
•
Heat or Cooling – Heated or cooled air purchased from another company.
Electricity
Qwest Field’s only Scope 2 emission is purchased electrical energy. Electricity is
used at Qwest Field for lighting, to run motors and pumps, and to power electronic
equipment. Electricity is purchased and transmitted to Qwest Field from Seattle City
Light. While some greenhouse gas inventories group electrical transmission and
distribution losses with Scope 2 emissions, The Climate Registry categorizes these
emissions as Scope 3. Calculations for electricity use the Climate Registry’s Tier A
reporting method for Scope 2 because electricity consumption and Seattle City Light’s
specific greenhouse gas coefficient for electricity production is known (City of Seattle
Office of Sustainability and Environment, 2009).
Data Requested: Electricity consumption 2007 and 2008
Data Received: Electricity consumption 2007 and 2008
Conversion Method: Direct Calculation
(1) annual kWh consumed * coefficient = annual MTCO2e
(2) 0.0081 kgCO2e kWh consumed
(3) 20,865,900 kWh consumed 2007
(4) 20,326,600 kWh consumed 2008
2007 MTCO2e: 169.01
2008 MTCO2e: 164.64
Page 26
First and Goal, Inc
Scope 2 Emissions
Category
Electricity
TOTAL SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS
2007
169.01 MTCO2e
169.01 MTCO2e
2008
164.65 MTCO2e
164.65 MTCO2e
Table 2 - Scope 2 Emissions
Scope 3 Emissions
Scope 3 emissions represent emissions associated with upstream or downstream
activities which FGI does not directly control (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 34).
Reporting Scope 3 emissions are optional, and the Climate Registry does not have
specific tiers or preferred calculation methods for calculating Scope 3 emissions; simply
the methods must be “transparent”(The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 34). While reporting
these emissions is optional, examination of Scope 3 not only allows creative
opportunities for greenhouse gas management(The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 34), but
allows examination of how future regulation or energy shortages may impact LE
Facilities.
The following Scope 3 emission sources intersect with “most promising actions”
identified by Washington’s Climate Action Team and Large Event business needs, and
therefore will be included in this thesis:
•
Solid Waste – LE facilities must accommodate large quantities of solid
waste generated by event attendees and facility tenants. Detailed
examination of solid waste practices is necessary to evaluate program
effectiveness and evaluate regulatory threats.
•
Water and Liquid Waste – LE facilities use water to accommodate fans
and tenant needs and dispose of this waste through the sewer system.
Page 27
Water is also used for cleaning, maintenance, and grounds keeping.
Knowing how much water is used can help LE facilities examine their
water consumption and liquid waste policies and evaluate regulatory
threats.
•
Event Attendee Transportation – The ability of attendees to get to and
from events is critical for the financial success of a LE facility. While not
typically calculated, event attendee transportation highlights risks
associated with regulatory policies that reduce vehicle miles and allows
evaluation of FGI facilitated attendee transportation programs.
•
Office Paper – While office paper is not the only purchasing decision that
effects Scope 3 emissions, office paper is a good indicator of how
sustainable values affect the supply chain.
•
FGI Funded Airline Transportation – Business transportation from air
travel emits large quantities of MTCO2e per trip and must be put in
context with emissions from the entire facility.
The following Scope 3 emissions will NOT be examined due to time constraints,
limited data, and lack of topicality;
•
Team, Tenant, and Employee transportation – Travel of individual
professional athletes is confidential, and tracking how exhibitors, FGI
employees, and tenant’s employees transport themselves to and from
Qwest Field would be difficult within the bounds of this study. Accurate
data could be obtained by conducting an employee survey, requiring
tenants to survey their employees and report that data, and recording start
Page 28
and end points for exhibitors and sports teams using Qwest Field. This
data, as well as methods and tools required to gather this data, were
unavailable for this project. However, FGI’s exposure to these challenges
can be extrapolated by examining the impact of event attendee
transportation in relationship to Qwest Field’s overall greenhouse gas
inventory.
•
Emissions from Onsite Activities of Foodservice, Concessions, and
Outside Contractors – Emissions from cooking activities and retail
operations are already counted within Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, as
Qwest does not meter individual concession stations and kiosks. As
mentioned above, emissions resulting from the transport of food and
products to Qwest Field are outside the scope of this study.
•
Electrical transmission and distribution losses – these losses do not
influence LE business needs and are not required by the Climate Registry.
Their potential impact can be evaluated by examining electricity’s share of
overall emissions.
In many cases, Scope 3 emissions were estimated using very limited data. The
purpose of including these emissions is to gauge financial risk of new regulations or
energy shortage, evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Qwest
Field. In all cases, methods for estimation are clearly outlined in the appendix section of
this report.
Page 29
Solid Waste
First and Goal is a leader in solid waste management, winning the 2009
Washington State Recycling Association “Recycler of the Year” award (Johnson S. ,
2009). To maximize the reduction of solid waste, FGI works with a variety of
downstream recycling partners (Escalante, 2009). These efforts have allowed Qwest to
divert almost 35% of solid waste from the landfill to local recyclers (Johnson S. , 2009).
There are two key components necessary to identify emissions from solid waste.
First, it is necessary to calculate fuel used to transport solid waste from Qwest Field to
recycling centers and landfills. Second, it is important to examine emission reductions
that result from processing recycled materials instead of harvesting and processing virgin
material.
Data Requested: Garbage and recycling information 2007 - 2008
Data Received: Garbage and recycling information 2007 - 2008
Conversion Method: Indirect Calculations (APPENDIX C)
(1)
solid waste transport +
solid waste life cycle reductions = annual
MTCO2e
2007 MTCO2e: -268.05 estimated
2008 MTCO2e: -268.21 estimated
Water
While water consumption itself does not emit greenhouse gas emissions, each
gallon of water used by Qwest Field requires energy. Energy is needed to pump water to
Qwest field and treat wastewater after it has been returned to the sewer. In addition,
Page 30
water is a valuable resource. Recent droughts and increased population have stressed
water resources, making this once abundant resource valuable, and requiring new rules
and regulations regarding water conservation (The Municipal Research and Services
Center, 2008). In addition, water is typically heated for domestic water purposes – and
inefficient equipment that waste water in these applications also waste natural gas used to
heat the water (Dickson, 2009)
Data Requested: Water consumption 2007 - 2008
Data Received: Water consumption 2007 – 2008
Conversion Method: Indirect Calculation (APPENDIX D)
(1) (water used * energy for transport) + (water returned * energy for
treatment) = electricity used
(2) Electricity used * greenhouse gas coefficient for generation =
MTCO2e
2007 MTCO2e: 0.51
2008 MTCO2e: 0.44
Event Attendee Transportation
Attendee transportation is an important part of a successful LE facility. During
2007 and 2008 over 2,800,000 people visited Qwest Field to attend sporting events and
expositions. If fans are unable to get to and from events, the LE facility has no reason to
exist. Organized transportation is critical to sporting events (Schaff, 2004, p. 46), trade
shows, and exhibitions. While FGI is not directly responsible for carbon emissions from
event attendees transporting themselves to Qwest Field, FGI does have the ability to
Page 31
organize fan transportation and reduce these emissions. In addition, FGI would be
harmed if regulations or taxes aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled limited the ability
of attendees to travel to and from events.
Data Requested: Average miles a Qwest Field attendee travels
Data Received: Marketing chart of Seahawks season ticket holders
Conversion Method: Estimated Indirect Calculation (See APPENDIX E)
(1) (distance average fan travels * (number of fans driving per year /
average carpool number)) + (emissions created through FGI funded
transportation initiaves) = Annual Metric Tons CO2e
2007 MTCO2e: 10,654.91 estimated
2008 MTCO2e: 10,194.35 estimated
Office Paper
FGI has a small office staff, and similar to the way that solid waste decisions
affect greenhouse gas emissions, purchasing decisions are an important method to reduce
Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Offices use office paper in a variety of ways, and can
make decisions on what type of paper to purchase and how often to print. The amount of
paper used and the recycled content of paper determine the greenhouse gas impact of
office paper (City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment, 2009).
Data Requested: Office paper consumption 2007 - 2008
Data Received: Office paper purchased 2007 – 2008
Conversion Method: Estimated Indirect Calculation (SEE APPENDIX F)
(1) weight of paper * coefficient = MTCO2e
2008 Metric Tons CO2e: -2.35 estimated
Page 32
2007 Metric Tons CO2e: -2.35 estimated
First and Goal Funded Airline Travel
The final Scope 3 emission will address FGI funded airline travel. Airline travel
emits a significant amount of CO2, and is specifically suggested as a Scope 3 emission to
count by The Climate Registry (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 35). While some airline
travel is unavoidable, many greenhouse gas inventories include airline travel to gauge
their risk of exposure to price increases and make investments to avoid costs associated
with these emissions in the future.
Data Requested: FGI funded airline trips 2007 - 2008
Data Received: FGI funded airline trips 2008
Conversion Method: Estimated Indirect Calculation (APPENDIX G)
(1)
individual short trips +
individual medium trips +
individual long trips = Total Metric Tons CO2e
2007 Metric Tons CO2e: 5.30 estimated
2008 Metric Tons CO2e: 5.30
Total Scope 3 emissions; including solid waste, water, event attendee
transportation, office paper, and airline travel totals 10390.32 MTCO2e for 2007 and
9928.52 MTCO2e for 2008. There is similarity between 2007 and 2008 because many
Scope 3 emissions were estimated with data available for only one year. The chart below
illustrates the distribution of Scope 3 emissions across categories.
Page 33
First and Goal, Inc
Scope 3 Emissions
Category
Solid Waste
Water
Event Attendee Transportation
Office Paper
FGI funded Airline Travel
TOTAL SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS
2007
-268.05 MTCO2e
0.51 MTCO2e
10983.47 MTCO2e
-2.35 MTCO2e
5.3 MTCO2e
10718.88 MTCO2e
2008
-268.21 MTCO2e
0.44 MTCO2e
10490.20 MTCO2e
-2.35 MTCO2e
5.3 MTCO2e
10225.38 MTCO2e
Table 3 - Scope 3 Emissions
The table below illustrates all scopes of emissions counted in this greenhouse gas
inventory.
First and Goal, Inc
Scope I Emissions
Category
Stationary Combustion
Mobile Combustion
Fugitive Emissions
TOTAL SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS
2007
791.45
38.96
297.92
1128.33
MTCO2e
MTCO2e
MTCO2e
MTCO2e
2008
772.15
38.96
397.63
1208.74
MTCO2e
MTCO2e
MTCO2e
MTCO2e
Scope II Emissions
Category
Electricity
TOTAL SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS
2007
169.01 MTCO2e
169.01 MTCO2e
2008
164.65 MTCO2e
164.65 MTCO2e
Scope III Emissions
Category
Solid Waste
Water
Event Attendee Transportation
Office Paper
FGI funded Airline Travel
TOTAL SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS
TOTAL EMISSIONS
2007
-268.05 MTCO2e
2008
-268.21 MTCO2e
0.51 MTCO2e
10983.47 MTCO2e
-2.35 MTCO2e
0.44 MTCO2e
10490.20 MTCO2e
-2.35 MTCO2e
5.3 MTCO2e
5.3 MTCO2e
10718.88 MTCO2e
10225.38 MTCO2e
12016.22 MTCO2e
11598.77 MTCO2e
Table 4 - All Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Page 34
Discussion
Results Overview
This discussion will focus on the results of Qwest Field’s greenhouse gas
inventory, assess how the results intersect with LE business needs and potential
regulation, and discuss three reduction scenarios. First, it is important to understand the
results of the inventory by analyzing results between scopes and within scopes. The chart
below illustrates the contribution of each scope to total greenhouse gas emissions
Figure 4 - Total Emissions by Year & Source
Page 35
• Scope 1 emissions are colored in shades of red and represent about 10% of
overall emissions
• Scope 2, colored green, represents less than 2% of greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Scope 3, represented by shades of blue, represent between 88% total
emissions, with event attendee transportation being single the largest
contributor.
Energy Emissions – Scope 1 and 2
Figure 5 - Energy Emissions 2007 & 2008
Scopes 1 and 2 represent energy-related emissions directly controlled by FGI.
The majority of these emissions are related to stationary combustion. A surprising source
of emissions was fugitive emissions, which represented approximately 30% of Scope 1
emissions. Although emissions data for mobile combustion is incomplete, mobile
combustion is estimated to contribute less than 5% to total Scope 1 emissions. Qwest
Page 36
Field has kept these numbers low by using a considerable amount of electric equipment
and tools (Mike McFaul), which use purchased electrical energy instead of fossil fuel
energy.
Electricity, the only source of Scope 2 emissions, accounts for a very small
portion of total greenhouse gas emissions. This can be directly attributed to Seattle City
Light’s electricity mix, which is mostly hydroelectric power and produces only 0.0081
kgCO2e per kWh of energy generated (City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and
Environment, 2009), compared to the national average of 0.613 kgCO2e per kWh of
energy (Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). In this
case, Qwest’s location is a clear benefit to its overall greenhouse gas inventory because it
is able to purchase electricity with very low greenhouse gas content. Even small changes
in geography can result in large changes in emissions based on the local electric utility.
Below is a graph that illustrates the difference in overall emissions based on local
electricity fuel mix.
Page 37
Figure 6 - MTC02e of Electricity by Geography
Seattle and Bellevue’s MTCO2e content numbers are specific to their municipality
as calculated using the Seattle Climate Partnership’s emission factor’s, while the regional
numbers are averages from the U.S. Department of Energy (Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection Agency, 2003; City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and
Environment, 2009)
Page 38
Upstream and Downstream Emissions – Scope 3
Figure 7 - Scope 3 Emissions 2007 & 2008
Scope 3 emissions, while not reported to the Climate Registry, provide an
overview of Qwest’s risk to upstream and downstream regulation and market changes.
The largest greenhouse gas contributor is event attendee transportation. Although there
was no data available to calculate employee or vendor transportation emissions, if
calculated, these emissions would further increase the transportation category’s share of
emissions; therefore, these numbers are underrepresented and carry an even greater
proportion than shown. This information confirms claims made in the CAT, which states
half of Washington’s emissions come from transportation sources. Clearly this inventory
further supports this analysis.
Because the Puget Sound region surrounding Seattle is less densely developed
than Boston or Philadelphia, event attendees must travel further to participate in events at
Qwest Field. This problem is further compounded because low density development
Page 39
makes public transit services more difficult to coordinate. In this case, Qwest’s
geographic location contributes to increased emission levels.
Qwest’s progressive recycling practices actually net a greenhouse gas reduction
when lifecycle costs are calculated into solid waste and office paper’s contribution to
greenhouse gas totals. However, while these calculations give credit to companies who
are leading the way in solid waste management, it also provides a reverse incentive –
eliminating office paper completely would eliminate the reduction credit calculated by
this methodology. This provides no incentive to truly eliminate paper or reduce the
amount of waste.
Water, due to the low carbon content of Seattle City Light’s electricity and
Seattle’s gravity fed surface water origins, contributes very little to Qwest Field’s
greenhouse gas inventory. Because the greenhouse gas content of water is very low, and
the electricity used to power facilities that treat liquid waste is very low, a greenhouse gas
inventory is a poor tool to judge water usage. There may be occasions when high
pressure cleaning systems, such as those used at Qwest Field (McFaul, Facilities
Director, 2008), exchange small energy inputs to greatly reduce water needs. Finally,
FGI funded airline travel contributes very little to the overall greenhouse gas picture.
As discussed above, scope 3 emissions represent the Qwest’s largest share of
greenhouse gas emissions. While these emissions are typically associated with upstream
and downstream activities, examining them allows LE facilities to see potential
vulnerability and create internal policies to avoid future problems.
Page 40
Regulation
It is important to put the results of any greenhouse gas inventory in the context
of businesses needs and potential regulation. While there is no crystal ball to determine
future regulation, it is possible to examine relevant reports concerning greenhouse gas
emissions and make educated guesses about future policy shifts. Policies affecting Qwest
Field are being created on four levels.
1. Locally – there is pressure for overall greenhouse gas reductions from the
City of Seattle. Currently these pressures take the form of voluntary
agreements.
2. State – Washington’s Climate Action Team (CAT) is developing
approaches to guide legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
3. Regional – the Western Climate Initiative will require reporting
greenhouse gas emissions and mandatory participation for facilities that
emit large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
4. Federal – the EPA is proposing requiring large emitters to annually report
greenhouse gas emissions.
As noted above, Seattle has positioned itself as a leader in reducing greenhouse
gases. While there is no greenhouse gas regulation specific to Seattle, there is pressure to
join the Seattle Climate Partnership, which seeks to inventory greenhouse gas emissions
from Seattle businesses and work towards reducing these emissions through businessfriendly initiatives. These voluntary agreements are part of Seattle’s plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels in accordance with the Kyoto protocol.
Page 41
While there is little regulatory threat from local policies that intersect with LE business
needs, it can be assumed that political leaders in Seattle will encourage regulations at the
State, Regional, and National levels.
Washington State has an official goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50%
of 1990 levels by 2050. This goal, as articulated by the governor in executive order 0702 (State of Washington; office of the Governor, 2007) and the legislature in ESSHB
2815, requires Washington State to reduce greenhouse gasses through “most promising”
methods (2008 Washington Climate Action Team, 2008, p. 2). Washington’s Climate
Action Team (CAT) has identified four measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
Washington State.
1. Energy Efficiency and Green Building – reduce emissions through
adoption of energy efficient equipment that reduce the need for fossil fuel
and substitution of products that are greenhouse gas intensive to produce.
2. Beyond Waste – reduce emissions by improving recycling and waste
management techniques.
3. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) – include greenhouse gas
emissions in the SEPA process to improve mitigation activities in large
projects.
4. Transportation – reduce transportation emissions through a reduction in
vehicle miles traveled.
Page 42
Energy Efficiency
The first measure identified by the CAT is energy efficiency and green building.
The CAT (2008 Washington Climate Action Team, 2008, pp. 13-18) identified two
methods to reduce energy use in buildings that intersect with LE business needs.
•
Energy efficiency incentives
•
Increased efficiency required by code
The primary intersection of CAT recommendations with LE business needs is the
promotion of energy efficient technology, paid for by a public utility tax credit (2008
Washington Climate Action Team, 2008, p. 13). These promotions offer financial
incentives to encourage businesses to invest in energy efficiency. These measures, while
supporting energy efficiency, may result in increased utility rates to offset a drop in
revenue created by the tax credit. Other measures, such as Washington State’s I-937 that
requires utilities to purchase green power, will further increase the price of energy
(Myers, 2006). Additionally, fuel shortages caused by peak oil will put pressure on all
energy prices, as other resources are substituted for petroleum. As a result, it is very
likely energy prices will increase.
Energy is critical to maintain the high level of amenities and broadcast technology
required by a modern LE facility. Rules and regulations that affect energy prices will
affect profitability. The best solution is to maximize energy efficiency and reduce energy
usage. The challenge is to enact energy conservation measures that provide similar levels
of benefit while saving energy. Modern equipment, however, often conserves energy
while providing increased benefits, such as increased service life and better results.
Page 43
Even though Qwest Field is a fairly new structure, energy efficient upgrades are
available. Investments in energy efficiency act as a hedge against future price increases,
allowing energy savings to offset higher energy costs. Utilizing the financial incentives
from utilities and using financial services from energy service companies (ESCo) can
allow projects to be completed quicker, allowing FGI to realize energy savings at Qwest
sooner.
Solid Waste
The second measure identified is a reduction of emissions from solid waste. The
CAT identifies four methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste (CAT
p. 33-40):
•
Optimize collection of recycled materials
•
Product stewardship
•
Market development for diverted organic waste
•
Collaboration with retailers to reduce waste
Several of these measures point to new regulations regarding how solid waste is
collected and managed. LE facilities have to address waste from their tenants, fans, and
employees. Future regulations could increase the cost of handling solid waste, or impose
restrictions on the type of material used or services provided.
Qwest is already a leader in solid waste management, and has identified
opportunities on the purchasing and disposal side to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In
addition to reducing greenhouse gases, FGI has realized financial benefits from reducing
Page 44
garbage hauls and increasing the number of number of waste streams (McFaul, Case
Study of Qwest Field and Events Center, 2008).
SEPA Process
The CAT identified reduction possibilities from modifying the SEPA process.
Because Qwest Field is already built, it is unlikely modifications to the SEPA process
will affect Qwest Field directly. The main effect could be barriers to construct new LE
facilities, which will increase business at existing facilities. Recently, the Sounders
Football Club signed on as a tenant at Qwest Field. Sounders games will increase energy
usage, solid waste, and transportation emissions. While this is good for business and the
facility, it increases the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This means FGI
will need to work harder to increase efficiency, maximize solid waste disposal
opportunities, and coordinate fan transportation to keep emissions under control.
However, increased attendance will increase revenue, providing opportunities to adopt
new policies that benefit from economies of scale.
Transportation
Finally, the CAT recommends a reduction in transportation emissions. As
discussed above, it is critically important for fans to be able to travel to and from LE
facilities. Failure to plan for event attendee transportation in the past has lead to LE
facilities becoming obsolete and event failure (Schaff, 2004, p. 48). Because event
attendee transportation is the largest category, responsible for over 90% of Qwest’s
Page 45
greenhouse gas emissions, it is critical to understand how regulations seek to reduce these
emissions.
ESSHB 2815 calls for reducing vehicle miles traveled 50% by 2050. The CAT
seeks to reduce transportation emissions through the following methods (CAP p 19 – 32):
1. Expand and enhance commuter, transit, and rideshare options
2. Encourage compact and transit oriented development
3. Use greenhouse gas reductions as a criteria to make decisions regarding
transportation infrastructure
4. Use pricing as a mechanism to meet greenhouse gas goals
Since emissions from attendee travel is the largest share of Qwest’s greenhouse
gas emissions, it is important to view this as FGI’s greatest regulatory challenge. Each of
the methods above has a direct intersection with the need to transport attendees to and
from events. As discussed in Appendix E, fans traveling to events at Qwest Field using
mass transit produce fewer emissions than those using their own automobile. During
2007 and 2008, FGI partnered with King County Metro to provide additional bus service
to large events at Qwest Field, such as Seahawk Football games. This partnership
allowed Qwest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from attendees transporting
themselves to and from events while providing attendees with inexpensive transportation
options.
This partnership has been eliminated with Federal Transit Rule 49.CFR.604
(Gauthier, 2009). Known as the charter bus rule, 49.CFR.604 makes it illegal for
companies to contract with federally funded transit agencies to provide special event
service. Instead, the charter bus rule requires companies such as FGI to contract with
Page 46
individual charter bus companies. This creates problems because private charter
companies are not allowed to use public transit infrastructure (Gauthier, 2009). In
addition, the charter bus rule does not allow FGI to specify equipment, which results in
inappropriate equipment being used to provide service. The result is less service, with
the Seahawks seeing a 25% decline in transit ridership between 2007 and 2008 as the
charter bus rule became active.
Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners, is located one block south of Qwest
Field. Safeco, which historically partnered with Metro in the same manner as FGI, will
not offer bus service for the 2009 season because of the charter bus rule (Street, 2009).
The cost of transportation to and from baseball games rose from $3.00 in 2008 to a
proposed $20.00 per person in 2009 (Street, 2009). Additionally, the charter bus rule
requires LE facilities to take any bid from a charter bus company, regardless if the price
is higher than offered by public transportation agencies (Gauthier, 2009). Having the
Seahawks work with the National Football League (NFL) to pressure the federal
government to overturn the charter bus rule is necessary to create effective public
transportation solutions – and maintain football game attendance.
The CAT also seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled by increasing the cost of
personal vehicle transportation. This cost increase could have an adverse impact on event
attendee’s willingness to travel to Qwest Field. In a study of NFL games, it was found
that the cost of parking did not have a statistically significant (t=1.34) impact on event
attendance (Welki & Zlatoper, 1994, p. 492). The price of tickets, however, did have a
statistically significant impact (t=3.08) on attendance, with 640 less attendees for each
dollar ticket prices increased. It remains to be seen if a significant increase in fuel price
Page 47
would affect event attendance, if attendees mentally connect the cost of travel to the price
of admittance, or if the cost of travel remains an incidental expense. Because event
attendee transportation represents Qwest’s largest risk, careful attention must be paid to
how the price of fuel effects attendance in the future.
Finally, regulations regarding parking or requiring infrastructure changes could
make it more difficult for attendees to visit Qwest Field. While most infrastructure
changes, such as the opening of Link light-rail in 2009, will provide transportation
alternatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and soften the impact of future fuel
price increases, other changes such as new tolls could make it more difficult and
expensive to travel to Qwest. Finally, a reduction of automobiles leads to a reduction in
parking revenue, an important revenue stream for many LE facilities (Westerbeek, Smith,
Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 64). This loss of revenue could be
mitigated by using former real estate dedicated to parking to host additional retail or
exhibition space.
The high levels of greenhouse gas emissions associated with attendee
transportation, the CAT’s goal to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and high likelihood that
transportation prices will increase from peak oil, highlight the importance of addressing
with these emissions from a business survival standpoint. Working to create systems that
allow attendees to travel to events at Qwest Field, while reducing travel emissions and
cost, is critical to business survival. To this end, LE facilities need to work with their
tenants to remove barriers that prevent them from organizing transportation services to
and from events, and invest in coordinating transportation systems that bring attendees to
their facilities. The nature of the LE business creates a unique opportunity, as many
Page 48
events require attendees to come and go at roughly the same time. This creates a unique
opportunity for LE facilities to organize transportation options.
Regional and Federal Reporting Requirements
Regulations created at the regional and federal level could require FGI to report
emissions from Qwest Field and participate in a cap and trade system. The WCI requires
facilities that produce over 10,000 MTCO2e in Scope 1 and 2 emissions to annually to
register their emissions, and facilities that produce over 25,000 MTCO2e in Scope 1 and 2
emissions to participate in a cap and trade system (Western Climate Initiative, 2009, p.
5). In response to recent legislation (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161), the EPA is
proposing a rule that requires mandatory greenhouse gas inventories of facilities that emit
more than 10,000 MTCO2e (Environmental Protection Agency, 2009).
Qwest Field emitted 1297.34 MTCO2e in 2007 and 1373.39 MTCO2e in 2008
combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions. These emissions are under the 10,000 MTCO2e
reporting threshold set by the EPA and WCI. It is worth noting however, that legislation
and reporting requirements are changing rapidly, and significant new policies may be
developed. Future changes in reporting rules could require FGI to complete an annual
greenhouse gas inventory.
While Qwest Field would not be required to report emissions under current EPA
and WCI guidelines, other LE facilities could be required to report their emissions. One
major variable is the fuel mix of local electricity. As illustrated above, purchased
electricity from coal or natural gas powered electric plants could easily push emissions
beyond the 10,000 MTCO2e mark in similar facilities. If Qwest purchased electricity
Page 49
from a source that represented the average carbon content of US electricity (Department
of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, 2003), emissions from electricity alone
would have exceeded 12,400 MTCO2e in 2008. Based on this information, it would be
advisable for LE facilities to conduct their own greenhouse gas inventories, research
regulations, and contact their local electric utility to determine their energy fuel mix.
Meeting Kyoto and Seattle’s Climate Goals
Although there is no regulation forcing business to meet the Kyoto targets in
Seattle, it has been made a significant priority by the City. Determining a Kyoto target
number for an individual facility is extremely difficult. Kyoto numbers look at regional
emissions, not emissions from a specific facility. Additionally, because Qwest Field was
built in 2002 to replace the Kingdome, accurate emissions comparisons would need to
examine current Qwest emissions to former Kingdome emissions. Further complicating
this analysis is changes in the energy supply between 1990 and 2009. During this time
frame Seattle City Light, which provides electricity to Qwest Field, reduced it’s
generating greenhouse gas emissions by 64% by disinvesting in coal generation and
increasing conservation and renewable energy (Drury, 2002, p. 6; City of Seattle, 2006).
Similarly, all work done to reduce emissions at the state and federal level, such as
increasing vehicle efficiency standards, would need to be credited towards Qwest’s
individual facility goal.
To simplify this analysis, it is possible to examine greenhouse gas emissions
between 1990 and 2012 and estimate a general reduction target. City wide emissions are
expected to reach 6,557,000 MTCO2e in 2012, 11.6% above the established City of
Page 50
Seattle Kyoto goal of 5,873,000 MTCO2e (City of Seattle, 2006). Under this analysis,
FGI would need to reduce emissions from Qwest Field by 1,300 MTCO2e to meet the
Kyoto targets.
Because most of Qwest’s emissions are from attendee transportation, Qwest’s
ability to meet these targets through facility actions alone is very difficult. Meeting these
targets requires government to eliminate counter-productive rules, such as the charter bus
rule, and work to improve local infrastructure that encourages public transportation.
Reduction Strategies
After conducting the greenhouse inventory and examining where policy and
business needs intersect, this study will now examine methods to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. This analysis will examine emissions from facility energy use, solid waste,
and attendee transportation. Each category will consider how previous FGI programs
have reduced emissions, how current programs are running, and what future opportunities
exist. Finally, three reduction scenarios, one for energy efficiency and two for attendee
transportation, will detail the costs and benefits of potential reduction strategies.
Energy Efficiency
The key to reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions is increasing energy efficiency
while maintaining a similar level of energy services. Historically, Qwest Field has
worked to reduce energy usage and is currently examining several proposals to further
reduce energy consumption. To evaluate past efforts, it is important to assess historical
emissions associated with natural gas and electricity and normalize the results within the
Page 51
context of the LE business. All statistical analysis was done on a TI-83 Plus statistical
calculator and graphed in Microsoft Excel 2007.
Examination of natural gas consumption shows an overall increase between 2003
and 2007. When Qwest Field was built there were no conservation incentives paid by
Puget Sound Energy for natural gas conservation relative to code (Helmer, 2009). The
graph below illustrates natural gas consumption and attendance – note the scale of event
attendance has been changed to provide a clear graph.
Figure 8 - Historical Natural Gas Consumption
Surprisingly, there is no statistical relationship between the number of attendees
and the amount of natural gas used to at Qwest Field (R2 = 0.0168). Attendance has
ranged between 1,350,000 and 1,600,000, while natural gas consumption shows an
increase over time.
FGI secured conservation incentives from Seattle City Light to increase efficiency
over code when Qwest was constructed. This money was used to improve the efficiency
of the lighting and HVAC systems. These upgrades save over 2,300,000 kWh per year
Page 52
compared to a similar structure built to code (Seattle City Light, 2009), and reduce annual
greenhouse gas emissions by 18.63 MTCO2e annually. Electrical consumption shows the
opposite trend of natural gas, with consumption steadily falling between 2003 and 2006,
and remaining relatively level thereafter.
Beginning in 2003, FGI worked to reduce electrical energy consumption through
operational changes. By fine tuning operating procedures and maximizing control over
building systems, electrical consumption has dropped over time. The graph below
illustrates the relationship between electricity consumption and the number of fans – note
the scale of attendance and electricity has been changed to create a clear graph.
Figure 9 - Historical Electricity Consumption
Once again, there is no statistical relationship between electricity used and the
number of fans (R2 = 0.059). While attendance has remained steady, electricity shows a
constant drop from 2003 onwards. It is strange that electricity usage has decreased while
natural gas usage has increased. One explanation for this trend is fuel switching.
Beginning in 2003 electric resistance heat was removed and replaced by natural gas heat.
Page 53
This change in space heating was done to reduce energy costs and provide greater levels
of comfort (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008).
To further examine the relationship between energy consumption and attendance,
and the impact of fuel switching on greenhouse gas emissions, it is necessary to convert
electrical and natural gas consumption into raw energy numbers. Both consumption
numbers, therms and kilowatt hours, are converted into British Thermal Units
(unitconversion.org, 2007) in the graph below. This graph examines the relationship
between energy and attendance - note the scale of attendance and energy has been
changed to provide a clear graph.
Figure 10 - Historical Energy Usage
Again, there is no statistical relationship between attendance and energy usage,
but the results show electrical energy savings have outweighed natural gas energy
increases, lowering the energy intensity of Qwest Field. However, from a greenhouse gas
standpoint, this has actually increased greenhouse gas emissions. The chart below
illustrates the effect of lowering electricity emissions while increasing greenhouse gas
Page 54
emissions. It is important to note that at some locations, reducing electricity emissions
for natural gas emissions could decrease overall emissions; results are dependent on the
electricity’s generation source.
Figure 11 - Historic Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The results above indicate that shifts in attendance have less effect on greenhouse
gas emissions than management and facility equipment. However, further research is
needed to examine the impact of significantly increasing attendance and facility usage
above historic patterns on greenhouse gas emissions.
FGI is currently working to further reduce energy consumption at Qwest Field,
contacting Seattle City Light, Puget Sound Energy, and McKinstry (an ESCo) to
determine what opportunities exist to reduce energy usage, save money, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
During an energy audit with Puget Sound Energy, few cost effective natural gas
opportunities were found. The focus of this audit was to find quick, high payback
upgrades such as faucet aerators and dish cleaning attachments in Qwest Field’s
Page 55
commercial kitchens and restrooms. While there is always the possibility to upgrade
natural gas appliances to new, slightly more efficient units, appliances at Qwest Field
were determined to be fairly new and did not warrant an upgrade. Additionally, Qwest
had water saving devices installed on faucets that prevented wasteful hot water use. As a
result, it was determined there were few cost-effective conservation opportunities in these
areas to save natural gas at Qwest Field(Dickson, 2009). Puget Sound Energy’s
representative suggested to wait until existing equipment became obsolete before
replacing it with new and more efficient equipment.
It is possible a more detailed audit could reveal greater improvements to heating
and cooling systems. The Puget Sound Energy study was not a technical engineering
study of building systems, but simply a walk-through looking for easy, simple
conservation activities to install at the faucet. Future analysis could focus on space
heating and water heating at the boiler.
Despite the consistent downward trend for electrical usage, there is several energy
saving opportunities identified by Seattle City Light. A significant number of light
fixtures in the parking garage, concourse, stairwells, and stadium arch could be upgraded
to new equipment that provides superior service and reduces energy usage. There are
also opportunities to upgrade control systems on water condenser pumps and install
demand controlled CO2 sensors, which save electricity and natural gas (McKinstry,
2009).
To pursue these projects, FGI contracted with McKinstry to provide financial
assistance and engineering services. Contracting with an ESCo allows FGI to borrow
money from McKinstry to pay for the project, and pay the loan back with money from
Page 56
guaranteed energy savings. Additionally, Seattle City Light is providing over $500,000
in conservation incentives, reducing the cost of the project to $1,563,097 (McKinstry,
2009). These projects are currently under review by FGI management and the Public
Stadium Authority. This group of projects represents the first reduction strategy.
Qwest Field Reduction Strategy 1 - Improve Facility Efficiency
Project Type
Electricity Saved
(kWh)
Motor Controls
CO2 Sensors
Lighting Projects
Total
Natural Gas Saved
(Therms)
846,047
2,573
1,490,437
2,339,057
6,008
6,008
Annua
Savings
Cost
$
$
$
$
318,830
42,707
1,201,560
1,563,097
$
$
$
$
Annual Reduction
(MTCO2e)
43,229
7,148
67,117
117,494
6.85
32.17
12.07
51.10
Table 5 - Reduction Strategy 1 - Energy Efficiency
Not only does this project reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 51.10 MTCO2e
annually, a 3.8% reduction of averaged 2007 and 2008 emissions, but saves FGI
$117,000 per year in avoided energy purchases. These avoided energy purchases not
only save money in the short run, but act as a hedge against future price increases caused
by regulation and peak oil. Investment now allows Qwest to avoid harm from future
energy price increases, which according to the analysis presented above, is very likely for
a variety of reasons.
Maximizing energy efficiency is important for LE facilities. These projects not
only save money and directly increase revenue, but provide environmentally friendly
outcomes that add value to the facility and increase attendee comfort (Westerbeek, Smith,
Turner, Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 96). In addition, there is a public
relations benefit that can be used to brand large tenants, such as the Seahawks, as
environmentally friendly, adding value to their franchise. This value increases the
connection between the LE facility and key tenants.
Page 57
Solid Waste
Next, it is important to examine potential solid waste reductions. Qwest Field is
already a leader in solid waste planning. Scott Johnson, Account Representative at Fibres
International, described Qwest’s solid waste management as an example that other large
facilities should follow(2009). Beginning in 2006 Mike McFaul, facilities director at
Qwest Field, began to work on ways to increase recycling and reduce solid waste. To
meet this challenge Qwest has increased individual solid waste streams from two to 17
(McFaul, Case Study of Qwest Field and Events Center, 2008). Increased waste streams
allow more products to be recycled and reduce emissions caused by manufacturing
products from virgin material. In addition to increasing the number of waste streams,
Qwest increased the weight of each garbage haul and reduced the number of necessary
trips between Qwest and solid waste partners (McFaul, Case Study of Qwest Field and
Events Center, 2008).
In 2006, prior to a comprehensive solid waste policy, Qwest Field directed
1046.71 tons of trash to landfills. Adopting best practices have allowed this number to be
reduced to 558.7 tons in 2008 – a reduction of 46.6%. At the same time, Qwest has
reduced the overall amount of solid waste by 21.4%, reducing total waste from 1086.42
tons in 2006 to 853 tons in 2008 (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008). During 2006 each
event attendee produced an average of 1.5 pounds of trash per visit. In 2008 this number
was reduced to 1.2 pounds per visit, representing a reduction of waste per fan by almost
20% (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008).
Page 58
Figure 12 - Total Waste
One strategy FGI has used to reduce solid waste is to partner with local
companies to reuse products that were formerly regarded as waste. The first example is a
partnership with the Goodwill. Instead of removing the metal parts from cloth hangers in
the Seahawks Team Store, cloth hangers are donated to the local Goodwill (McFaul, Case
Study of Qwest Field and Events Center, 2008). The result is less material that needs to
be handled as waste, less energy required to transport and recycle the material, and a
labor savings for store staff responsible for removing the metal hook from the plastic
hanger.
The second example of reusing material is a partnership with Alchemy Goods, a
Seattle company that “upcycles” material into new consumer goods. Alchemy goods
uses discarded vinyl mesh advertising banners from Qwest Field to make wallets and
grocery bags. In this process, the material is used as fabric and cut into patterns to make
Page 59
new products (Ernst, 2009). This allows the raw material to be reused, skipping the
intermediate step of being processed into a recycled material for remanufacture.
Currently, Alchemy Goods takes in more material than it uses, storing material for
future use. One way to eliminate this problem and close the recycling loop would be for
FGI to work with large tenants, such as the Sounders and Seahawks, to include locally
upycled products, such as those made by Alchemy Goods, in team stores. This would
create a unique item for event attendees to purchase, provide a mechanism to use more
material, and create additional local jobs (Ernst, 2009).
Qwest’s solid waste policy illustrates how to reduce greenhouse gasses at a LE
facility through good solid waste management. Because Qwest is leading the industry in
best practices, there are few additional reduction possibilities to explore within the
context of this thesis.
Attendee Transportation
The final section will address how to reduce event attendee transportation
emissions. The 2008 Traffic Master Plan indicates Qwest has reduced the number of
automobiles attending Seahawks games by 20% over the amount estimated in the original
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Authority, First and Goal, & Seahawks, 2008).
Current practices have created an annual greenhouse gas reduction of 520 MTCO2e. This
illustrates that event attendee emissions can be reduced through good management, but
there is still a large opportunity to further reduce these emissions.
While emissions typically associated with customers visiting a business are not
counted, they are important for the following reasons;
Page 60
•
Attendee transportation is critical to LE business needs.
•
Peak oil and increased regulation will make automotive transport much
more expensive in the long term.
•
Previous greenhouse gas studies have not examined attendee
transportation, and this emission source is likely to be a large contributor
to overall greenhouse gas emissions.
•
It is unknown if attendees will decide NOT to visit Qwest Field if
transportation costs increase, and businesses should estimate and mitigate
that risk.
As demonstrated, it is possible for emissions to be reduced through partnership
with public transit authorities to provide local service. Repealing the charter bus rule is
critical to make this happen. Charter bus companies should be leveraged to provide long
distance service not typically provided by local transit authorities.
Transportation Emissions Per Fan
King, Kitsap, Piece, &
Snohomish Fans
Percentage of Fans
Percentage of GHG
Average Miles Traveled
Automobile Emissions
Bus Emissions
Train Emissions
82%
42%
18.9
0.0049
0.0019
0.0012
Rural Fans
18%
58%
207.5
0.0316
Table 6 - Attendee Emissions
As calculated in Appendix E, different forms of attendee transportation have
different greenhouse gas coefficient numbers. Bus and train transportation is much more
efficient because it is possible to have attendees gather at a start location, such as a park
and ride, and travel as a group. Because many events have a start and end time, this type
Page 61
of organization is much easier for a LE facility than most retail environments. The result
is transportation emissions that are 3 to 6 times less than if attendees carpooled to events.
While Qwest’s geography is beneficial in reducing emissions from electricity, it is
detrimental in reducing emission from attendee transportation. This is because the Puget
Sound region of Washington State is not developed as densely as Boston or Philadelphia,
which allows for more efficient application of mass transit. Table 6, created with data in
Appendix E, illustrates that fans from King, Kitsap, Snohomish, and Pierce counties
represent over 82% of event attendees, but only 42% of attendee transportation
emissions. This group would benefit the most from organized local transportation
options using local transit infrastructure, such as park and rides, rail, and increased bus
service. Because ridership is familiar with these systems, using these systems is easy for
the public, while developing new systems is challenging (Gauthier, 2009). Attendees
who come from outside King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties, represent only
18% of attendees, but 58% of emissions. These attendees offer a great potential for
reduction.
One method to reduce attendee transportation emissions is for FGI to coordinate
transportation options for rural attendees. While the charter bus rule puts charter bus
companies in the way of coordinating local transportation, these companies should be
used to provide long distance service. Examining the map in Appendix E, there are many
season ticket holders who live in rural counties. Organizing charter bus service for
Seahawk games would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with
transportation, but make it less likely fans would stop attending games due to high fuel
prices.
Page 62
Qwest Field Reduction Strategy 2 - Rural Transportation
County
Approx
Individuals per
Game
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Cowlizt
Franklin
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
Kittias
Lewis
Mason
Skagit
Spokane
Thurston
Whatcom
Yakima
Total Per Seahawks Game
Total for All Seahawks Games
208
228
300
1,003
300
109
165
251
366
172
135
845
244
650
660
1,871
1,030
713
MTCO2e per
Potential Riders Number of
individual
(25%
Buses
automobile
participation)
Required
user
0.05
52
2
0.04
57
2
0.02
75
2
0.04
251
7
0.03
75
2
0.06
27
1
0.05
41
1
0.03
63
2
0.02
92
3
0.02
43
1
0.03
34
1
0.02
211
6
0.02
61
2
0.02
163
5
0.07
165
5
0.02
468
12
0.02
257
7
0.04
178
5
2312
58
18500
464
MTCO2e
from Bus
Service
2.45
1.86
1.11
7.26
1.61
1.42
1.09
1.27
1.10
0.37
0.68
3.34
1.04
2.03
8.83
4.66
4.02
4.49
48.61
388.89
Auto
MTCO2e
emissions
Reduction
avoided
2.66
2.21
1.73
10.84
2.51
1.61
1.87
1.65
1.40
0.66
0.95
4.90
1.32
2.75
12.13
7.57
6.16
6.67
69.57
556.54
0.20
0.34
0.62
3.58
0.91
0.19
0.78
0.39
0.30
0.29
0.28
1.56
0.28
0.72
3.30
2.91
2.14
2.18
20.96
167.64
Table 7 - Reduction Strategy 2 - Rural Transportation
Reduction Strategy 2 assumes 25% of Seahawks fans would ride a charter bus
service to and from home games if offered, and FGI would organize service for counties
with enough population to fill one bus. While cost estimates are not available, organizing
this service for all Seahawk home games would reduce attendee transportation emissions
by 167 MTCO2e per year.
This type of service is not unprecedented. In 2008 Portland Motorcycle offered
bus service from Portland for those attending the 2008 International Motorcycle Show at
Qwest Field. While Portland Motorcycle does not have records of how many attended
the International Motorcycle Show, it is one example of how organizing transportation in
this manner can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and possibly increase event attendance.
Additionally, these services can provide a platform to sell more products and services,
such as food and beverage, as add-on sales while attendees are using Qwest provided
Page 63
transportation services. This is an example of how a business can leverage attendee
transportation to increase event participation and increase profits. Additional research is
needed to determine if rural attendees would be willing to accept this type of service, and
if this service could be expanded beyond Seahawk games.
To further reduce emissions from event attendees, Scenario 3 examines possible
reductions if FGI doubled local transportation efforts, resulting in 30% of local attendees
taking the train or bus to events. The table below illustrates the potential cost and
greenhouse gas impact of pursing this aggressive goal. Since data for King County
Metro expenses was unavailable, Sound Transit Express bus service, which runs service
similar to Metro’s bus service will be used (Sound Transit, 2008)
Qwest Field Reduction Strategy 3 - Double Local Transit Opportunities
Type
# Passengers
MTCO2e reduced
$ per passenger
per passenger
Ticket Price
Net Cost
Program Cost
Total Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Current Transit Usage through FGI Paid Opportunities (average 2007 / 2008)
Bus
46000
0.0030 $
6.38 $
3.00 $
3.38 $ 155,480.00
Train
59549
0.0037 $
11.29 $
4.00 $
$
Current 2007/2008 Totals
$ 155,480.00
Double Transit Usage through FGI paid opportunities
Bus
92000
0.0030 $
6.38 $
3.00 $
3.38 $ 310,960.00
Train
120000
0.0037 $
11.29 $
4.00 $
7.29 $ 437,400.00
Totals under the Double Transit Scenario
$ 748,360.00
Potential Reduction from Doubling FGI Paid Transit Opportunities
* Currently Sound Transit has an agreement with FGI to exchange Sounder Commuter Rail service for publicity. This analysis
assumes if FGI doubled sounder trains, FGI would be responsible for the additional cost.
138.00
220.33
358.33
276.00
444.00
720.00
361.67
Table 8 - Reduction Strategy 3 - Increase Local Transit
As illustrated above, Reduction Strategy 3 could reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by 360 MTCO2e. From a greenhouse gas reduction standpoint, this strategy is very
expensive. However, the above analysis assumes FGI pays all the marginal cost above
regular ticket prices. Cost could be reduced by working with Metro and Sound Transit to
reduce prices for publicity, increasing ticket prices, or selling additional products to those
using transit services.
Page 64
What is difficult to estimate is the effect of improvements to local infrastructure.
Improvements not specific to Qwest Field, such as Link light-rail, will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions without cost to Qwest field. These reductions, however, are very difficult
to monitor and data to estimate the impact is not available at this time.
It is unlikely that Qwest would ever be directly responsible for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from attendee transportation. However, it can be seen that
attendee transportation is necessary for a LE facility to function, and that regulation and
peak oil will drive up the price of attendee transportation. Therefore, a forward thinking
LE facility will examine ways to reduce these emissions, since not doing so could
directly threaten the long-term financial outlook of the business. Turning increased
attendee costs from a negative to a positive that encourages attendance, enhances the
experience, and generates additional revenue, such as the organized transportation
example facilitated by Portland Motorcycle, adds value to the facility and allows FGI to
extract more from leases and rent for events.
Conclusion
This thesis has examined the relationship between greenhouse gas regulations,
peak oil, and the Large Event (LE) industry. This was accomplished by understanding
the intersection between LE business needs and the rising environmental concerns of
climate change and peak oil. To provide context and a better understand of these
relationships, a greenhouse gas inventory of Qwest Field and Events Center in Seattle,
WA was completed. Once completed, the greenhouse gas inventory highlighted three
Page 65
key intersections of LE business needs and climate policy – building energy
requirements, solid waste, and event attendee transportation.
Examination of building energy usage showed how rising energy prices, caused
by regulation intended to fight climate change and an increased demand for energy, could
threaten the profitability of these facilities. Emission levels will vary by facility and
region, as the fuel mix of local electricity supply plays a significant role in greenhouse
gas emissions and energy costs. In general, facility managers should work to improve
efficiency to maintain the high level of services fans expect while reducing energy needs.
These actions not only save money now, but act as a hedge against future price increases.
First and Goal, Inc (FGI), the management company that operates Qwest Field, has
worked to reduce these emissions through operational changes and investments in energy
efficiency. These investments have reduced not only greenhouse gas emissions, but
operating costs.
Emissions from solid waste can be reduced through practices that divert waste
from landfills and reduce the total amount of waste generated at the facility. Recycling
waste avoids emissions created from manufacturing base materials from virgin material.
Legislation and handling fees are forcing LE facility operators to examine their solid
waste practices to keep facilities profitable. Research highlighted that FGI is an industry
leader in solid waste management, not only increasing the percentage of material
recycled, but decreasing the total amount of solid waste generated at Qwest Field. Done
properly, these reductions can have a positive impact on overall facility emissions.
Event attendee transportation represented Qwest Field’s largest greenhouse gas
component. These emissions, caused by attendees transporting themselves to and from
Page 66
events, are difficult and costly to mitigate. While not counted in most reporting methods,
they represent an important emission source because they are critical to LE business
needs. The low density of development in the Puget Sound region where Qwest Field is
located presents additional complexity in organizing transportation for event attendees.
While current regulations hinder the ability of FGI to organize event attendee
transportation, opportunities to reduce emissions from this source do exist.
The results of the greenhouse gas inventory show that FGI is unlikely to be
required to report Qwest Field’s greenhouse gas emissions to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Because these agencies
only require scope 1 and 2 emissions to be reported, it is unlikely Qwest will be required
to do so since it falls below the regulatory threshold of the WCI and EPA. FGI has
worked to increase energy efficiency and is able to purchase electricity with very low
greenhouse gas content from Seattle City Light, which contributes to its low scope 1 and
2 emissions levels. Despite these efforts, it would be very difficult for Qwest to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by the 1300 MTCO2e needed to comply with Kyoto. The
suggested reduction scenarios, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 580
MTCO2e, only contribute 45% towards the Kyoto goal. Further research is needed to
determine if significant reductions in natural gas usage and additional transportation
reduction options could fill this gap.
Finally, each individual LE facility will need to examine its own operations and
local environment to best determine how to survive climate change regulations, peak oil
induced energy price increases, and an evolving business environment. While theories
Page 67
and processes presented in this analysis can be used to measure other facilities, each
facility will have a challenges and opportunities that require unique solutions.
Page 68
Works Cited
2008 Washington Climate Action Team. (2008). Leading the Way; Implementing
Practical Solutions to the. Olympia: State of Washington .
Allied Waste. (2004). Roosevelt Regional Landfill. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from
Rabanco Website: http://www.rabanco.com/regional_landfill/default.aspx
American-Rails.com. (2009). Sound Commuter Train. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
American-Rails: http://www.american-rails.com/sounder-commuter-rail.html
Authority, W. S., First and Goal, I., & Seahawks, T. S. (2008). Traffic Management Plan
2008 - 2009. Seattle, WA.
Ballparks of Baseball. (2009). Ball Parks of Baseball - Seattle Mariners - Kingdome.
Retrieved June 9, 2009, from ballparksofbaseball.com:
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/Kingdome.htm
Becken, S., & Simmons, D. G. (2002). Understanding energy consumption patterns of
tourist attractions and activities in New Zealand. Tourism Management , 23, 343-354.
Bingaman, J. (2009, May 27). Key Accounts Manager - Seattle Public Utilities. (J.
Stewart, Interviewer)
Casselman, B. (2009, March 6). Bad Timing for Luxary Arenas. Retrieved July 10, 2009,
from USA Today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630159510147111.html
Chandler, K., & Walkowicz, K. (2006). King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated
Buses: Final Evaluation Results. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment. (2009). Seattle Climate
Partnership Tools and Resources. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from City of Seattle:
http://www.seattle.gov/climate/docs/CO2_Tool_3.0.xls
City of Seattle. (2009). Seattle Mayor Nickels - US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from City of Seattle web site:
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/default.htm#what
City of Seattle. (2006). Seattle, a Climate of Change: Meeting the Kyoto Challenge.
Mayor Nickels’ Green Ribbon Commission. Seattle, WA: City of Seattle.
Page 69
Claussen, E., & Peace, J. (2007). Energy Myth Twelve - Climate Policy Will Bankrupt
the U.S. Economy. In B. K. Sovacool, & M. A. Brown (Eds.), Energy and American
Society - Thirteen Myths (pp. 311-340). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Clugston, C. (2007, September 10). When Is "Global Peak Energy?". Retrieved August
9, 2009, from The Oil Drum:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WorldEnergy_sma
ll.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2960&usg=__SiobEpgDRmXFa9iOv73Hmxgd0o=&h=355&w=600&sz=36&hl=en&start=2&um=1&t
bnid=Z_eVMvY-fSZ43M:&tbnh=80&tbnw=135&prev=/imag
Commonwealth of Austrailia. (2001). Product Innovation The Green Advantage.
Canberra, Austrailia.
Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2004). Ecological Economics. Washington: Island Press.
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. (2003, April 23). CO2
Emissions Report. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html
Dickson, D. (2009, May 22). Market Manager. (J. Stewart, Interviewer)
Drury, K. (2002). Inventory and Report: Seattle’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Seattle:
City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability and Environment:.
Eagan, D. J., Keniry, J., Schott, J., Dayanada, P., Jones, K. M., & Madry, L. (2008).
Higher Education in a Warming World. Reston: National Wildlife Federation.
Energy Information Administration. (2009, July 13). Official Energy Statistics from the
US Government. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/
Energy Information Administration. (2009, April 6). Weekly U.S. All Grades All
Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon). Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
Petroleum Navigator: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usw.htm
Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). An Introduction to Environmental Accounting
As A Business Management Tool. Washington DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2005, February). Emission Facts: Average Carbon
Dioxide Emissions from Diesel and Gasoline Fuel. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from
Overview: Pollutants and Programs: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm
Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Find a Car. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Fuel
Economy: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Page 70
Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, June 16). Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules.
Retrieved July 6, 2009, from Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, September 1). WAste Reduction Model.
Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Waste Home:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
Ernst. (2009, March 3). Recycling Coordinator. (J. Stewart, Interviewer)
Ernst, M. (2008). Evidence of a Warming Earth. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from Woods
Hole Research Center:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.ht
m
Escalante, J. G. (2009, Feburary 25). ARAMARK Facility Services at Qwest Field. (J.
Stewart, Interviewer)
Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2009). Green to Gold. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
First and Goal Inc. (2008, March 27). Stadium News. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Qwest
Field and Events Center: http://www.qwestfield.com/venue/stadiumNews.aspx?id=1500
Friedman, T. L. (2008). Hot, Flat, and Crowded. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gaines, L., Elgowainy, A., & MQ, W. (2008). Full Fuel-Cycle Comparison. Argonne
National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Research,. Chicago: Argonne National
Laboratory.
Garber, D. (2004). Major Leauge Soccer: Establishing the World's Sport in "A New
America". In L. Kearns (Ed.), The Business of Sports (pp. 109-129). Aspatore, Inc.
Gauthier, D. (2009, January 28). System Impacts & Event Coordinator. (J. Stewart,
Interviewer)
Google. (2009, June 16). Google Maps. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Google, Inc:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Hamilton, D. (2004). Building a Franchise for the Long Haul - Locally and Globally. In
L. Kearns (Ed.), The Business of Sports (pp. 81-108). Aspatore, Inc.
Hartwell, S. (2007). The Climate / Waste Connection. Environmental Protection Agency.
Helmer, P. C. (2009, May 29). Senior Account Manager. (J. Stewart, Interviewer)
Page 71
Hopkins, R. (2008). The Transition Handbook. Tones: Green Books Ltd.
Houghton, J. (2007). Global Warming, The Complete Briefing (3rd ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security. (2008). The Oil Crush: Securing the
UK's Energy Future. Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report. Valencia, Spain: United Nations.
Johnson, E. (2008). Disagreement over carbon footprints: A comparison of electric.
Energy Policy , 36, 1569-1573.
Johnson, S. (2009). Buyer/Account Representative, Fibres International. Everett, WA:
WSRA Recycler of the Year.
King County. (2000, March 27). Kingdome Facts. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from King
County Website: http://www.metrokc.gov/stadium/
Laird, K. (2009, Feburary 27). Amtrak Service. (J. Stewart, Interviewer)
Langer, T. (2004). Energy Savings Through Increased Fuel Economy for Heavy-Duty
Trucks. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
MapQuest. (2008, November). Driving Directions. Retrieved November 2008, from
MapQuest: www.mapquest.com
McFaul, M. (2008). Case Study of Qwest Field and Events Center. Seattle, WA.
McFaul, M. (2008, December - 2009, August). Facilities Director. (J. Stewart,
Interviewer)
McKinstry. (2009). Scenario D - Qwest Field. Seattle: McKinstry.
Myers, T. (2006). Guide to Initiative 937. Retrieved August 8, 2009, from Washington
Policy Center:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/environment/policynote/06_myers_i937.html
Newton, P. (2009, July 10). G8 Leaders have ambitious environmental goals. Retrieved
July 10, 2009, from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/08/g8.summit/index.html
Olson, E. (2008, October 16). Pursuing Climate Initiatives While Weathering Hard
Times. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ClimateBiz:
Page 72
http://www.climatebiz.com/blog/2008/10/16/pursuing-climate-initiatives-whileweathering-hard-times
Paschke, P. (2009, July 2). Conservation Manager, Seattle Public Utilities. (J. Stewart,
Interviewer)
Puget Sound Energy. (2009). Delivery. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from Puget Sound
Energy:
http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/energysupply/Pages/EnergySupply_NaturalGas
Transportation.aspx#
Puget Sound Regional Council. (2008). Population of Cities and Towns. Seattle: Puget
Sound Regional Council.
Pumilio, J. F. (2007). CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2020: The Evergreen State College's
Comprehensive Green House Gas Inventory. PhD Thesis, The Evergreen State College,
Masters of Environmental Studies, Olympia.
Putman, A., & Philips, M. (2006). The Business Case for Renewable Energy. Alexandria,
VA: APPA, NACUBO, and SCUP.
Sawyer, C., & Durst, L. (2008). King County Metro Transit 2007 Annual Management
Report. Seattle: King County Department of Transportation.
Schaff, P. (2004). Sports, Inc. 100 Years of Sports Business. Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books.
Seattle City Light. (2009, May 15). SOSO Customer Database. Seattle, WA.
Shafiee, S., & Topal, E. (2009). When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished. Energy
Policy , 39, 181-189.
Siegfried, J., & Zimbalist, A. (2000). The Economics of Sports Facilities and Their
Communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 14 (3), 95-114.
Smil, V. (2008). Energy in Nature and Society. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Smith, B. (2009, February 25). (J. Stewart, Interviewer)
Sound Transit. (2008). Service Delivery - Quarterly Performance Report to the CEO.
Seattle: Sound Transit.
State of Washington; office of the Governor. (2007, Feburary 7). Washington Climate
Change Challenge. Executive Order 07-02 . Olympia, WA.
Page 73
Street, J. (2009, April 12). Exciting home opener coming. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from
Official Site of the Seattle Mariners:
http://www.barrybonds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090412&content_id=4236626
&vkey=news_sea&fext=.jsp&c_id=sea
The Climate Registry. (2008). General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1. The Climate
Registry.
The Engineering Toolbox. (2005). Refrigerants - Environmental Properties. Retrieved
June 6, 2009, from The Engineering Toolbox:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/Refrigerants-Environment-Properties-d_1220.html
The Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Light-Duty Automotive Technology and
Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008. The Environmental Protection Agency.
The Municipal Research and Services Center. (2008, March). Water Conservation
Overview. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from MRSC Website:
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Environment/water/wc-conservgen.aspx#why
Union of Concerend Scientists. (2009). Fuel Economy Basics. Retrieved June 6, 2009,
from Untion of Concerned Scienctists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/fueleconomy-basics.html
unitconversion.org. (2007). Energy and Work Conversion. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from
unit conversion: http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/energy.html
Washington State Public Stadium Authority. (2004). Stadium.org - Public-Private
Partnership. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Washington State Public Stadium Authority:
http://www.stadium.org/constrPublicPrivate.asp
WebFlyer.com. (n.d.). Mileage Calculator. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from WebFlyer
Mileage Calculator: http://www.webflyer.com/travel/milemarker/
Welki, A. M., & Zlatoper, T. J. (1994). US Professional Football: The Demand for
Game-Day Attendancein 1991. Managerial and Decision Economics , 15, 489-495.
Westerbeek, H., Smith, A., Turner, P., Emery, P., Green, C., & van Leeuwen, L. (2006).
Managing Sport Facilities and Major Events (2 ed.). St Leonards, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
Western Climate Initiative. (2009, January 6). Background Document and Progress
Report for Essential Requirements of Mandatory Reporting for the Western Climate
Initiative, Third Draft. Retrieved April 6, 2009, from Western Climate Initiative:
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/WCI_Documents.cfm
Page 74
Western Climate Initiative. (2009). WCI: Western Climate Initiative. Retrieved May 26,
2009, from Western Climate Initiative:
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/index.cfm
Page 75
Appendix A: Emissions from mobile sources
The best method to track emissions from mobile sources is to use a direct
calculation that calculates greenhouse gas emissions based on measured volumes of fuel.
However, FGI does not track quantities of fuel purchased, so it is necessary to estimate
emissions based on hours of operation and fuel economy. The maintenance staff at FGI
intermittently tracked operating hours to schedule machine maintenance in 2008. This
estimate will assume hours from 2007 are equal to 2008 hours. In addition, there was no
data for December of 2008, and this estimate will assume December 2008 hours are equal
to the mean operating hours from January 2008 – November 2008.
The chart below was obtained from Mike McFaul at FGI (McFaul, Facilities
Director, 2008) and modified for this estimate. Missing entries were estimated (italicized
and highlighted in yellow) using mean averages from similar equipment. Obsolete
equipment and equipment that does not combust fuel were removed from this list.
To estimate vehicle fuel consumption data was gathered from a variety of sources.
The points below identify how emission coefficients for different vehicle types were
created
•
P – Medium sized propane vehicles, such as forklifts and man lifts. These
vehicles emit approximately 9.454kgCO2e / Hour of operation
o
(3.26 kg LPG/hr) * (2.9 kg CO2e / kg LPG) = 9.454 kgCO2e / Hour of
operation
(Johnson E. , 2008, p. 1571)
Page 76
•
SGA – Small gasoline appliances, such as pressure washers and floor sweepers
with engines smaller than 11 horsepower (below 8 kWh, calculating at 5 kWh).
These appliances emit approximately 6.16 kgCO2e / Hour of operation
o
5kWh * 0.14gal/kWh * 8.8kg/gal = 6.16 kgCO2e / Hour of operation
(Gaines, Elgowainy, & MQ, 2008, pp. 14, 17; Environmental Protection
Agency, 2005)
•
GT – Gasoline Trucks, identified specifically as ford F-150 pickups, emit
approximately 0.676 kgCO2e / mile
o
0.0796gal/mile * 8.8gal/kg = 0.676kg/mile
(Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Protection Agency,
2005)
•
D – Diesel equipment, such as the tractor and GATOR field equipment, emit
approximately 26.866 kg / hour of operation
o
19kWh * 0.14gal/kWh * 10.1kg/gal = 23.408 kgCO2e / Hour of
operation
(Gaines, Elgowainy, & MQ, 2008, pp. 14, 17; Environmental Protection
Agency, 2005)
Page 77
Mobile Combustion Emissions
2008 Monthly Readings from scheduled PM's
Unit Type
Description
J-08
F-08 M-08 A-08 M-08
J-08
J-08
A-08
S-08
O-08
N-08 D-08 OH*
FORK LIFTS
Total Fork Lift Hours
6
FORKLIFT V90 Clark
3263 3264 3265 3270 3271 3274 3277 3278 3312 3331 3331
17
FORKLIFT GCX25 Clark 3798 3814 3818 3823 3871 3877 3880 3882 3940 3965 3988
29
FORKLIFT Toyota
1678 1678 1754 1772 1777 1835 1844 1847 1946 1954 1998
10
74
FORKLIFT Toyota
1489
0
12
26
35
44
59
63
N/A
86
26
639
FORKLIFT Clark
373
394
402
414
417
433
442
446
612
660
31
901
FORKLIFT Clark
636
654
658
662
665
676
678
670
898
975
13
212
FORKLIFT Toyota
79
80
90
95
96
103
104
116
190
218
TRUCKS (values in miles)
Total Truck Miles
132
TRUCK P/U
64,070 64,444 64,468 64,706 64,709 65,003 65,107 65,200 65,303 65,487 65,523
377
TRUCK P/U
77,305 77,359 77,397 78,810 78,831 79,274 79,324 79,403 79,478 81,204 81,456
GROUNDS EQUIP.
Total Grounds Equipment Hours
1
532
TRACTOR John-Deere
521
522
522
523
525
530
530
531
532
533
8
528
Line scrubber
508
509
520
520
521
521
522
524
527
594
12
496
Field crew GATOR
479
481
462
470
472
487
489
490
493
616
8
Field crew TORO
2213 2224 2227 2227 2227 2228 2232 2238 2244 2256 2303
Total House Keeping Equipment Hours
HOUSE KEEPING
26
Floor scrubber
2409 2417 2417 2424 2424 2226 2231 2234 2652 2656 2698
Captor
665
675
10
753
676
677
680
686
696
699
726
780
15
24
39
157
Captor
97
103
111
124
132
134
146
277
36
Preasure Washer
1708 1787 1847 1866 1877 1890 1902 1916 2054 2056 2100
Preasure Washer*
NEW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*The above pressure washer is assumed to operate the same number of hours as the pressure washer with hour meter
Total General Equipment Hours
GENERAL USE
3
TUGGER
9726 9727 9728 9729 9730 9730 9730 9731 9731 9732 9760
2008
Total Hours Class
1561
74
P
207
P
349
P
96
P
313
P
370
P
152
P
6113
1585
GT
4528
GT
355
13
D
94
GA
149
D
98
D
1582
315
P
125
P
286
P
428
GA
428
GA
MTCO2e
0.701
1.960
3.300
0.903
2.960
3.496
1.434
1.072
3.061
0.352
0.578
4.015
2.638
2.981
1.186
2.702
2.634
2.636
37
37
P
Total Metric Tons CO2 E Per Year
0.351
38.96
P = Propane Machine, i.e. forklift size or manlift
GA = Small Gas Appliance i.e. pressure washer (around 8 horsepower)
GT = Gas Truck (2002 Ford F150 V8-AT)
D = Diesel Tractor (approx 25 horsepower)
All numbers highlighted in yellow and in italics are estimates based on averages
Table 9 - Mobile Combustion Calculations
Because emissions from mobile combustion represent under 5% of the total
emissions from FGI, this methodology is allowable under the Climate Registry’s
simplified methods (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 60). Modification of FGI’s
accounting system to include tracking quantities of fuel would allow future greenhouse
gas inventories to use the more accurate Tier A reporting system (The Climate Registry,
2008, p. 82).
Page 78
Appendix B: Emissions from Fugitive Sources
It is common for HVAC equipment to leak refrigerant from faulty seals (The
Climate Registry, 2008, p. 127). While the amount of refrigerant is relatively small,
these refrigerants are extremely powerful greenhouse gasses, with some gasses being up
to four orders of magnitude more powerful than carbon dioxide (Houghton, 2007, p.
247). The “global warming potential” of these gasses refers to the greenhouse gas impact
of a specific chemical compared to CO2.
To quantify the impact of these chemicals for FGI’s overall greenhouse gas
inventory, The Climate Registry requires the weight of refrigerants used to be multiplied
by their specific global warming potential (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 127; The
Engineering Toolbox, 2005). During 2007 and 2008 Qwest Field purchased R404A,
R134A, and R22 refrigerants. Because refrigerant inventories for 2007 and 2008 were
not kept, but records of refrigerant purchases were kept, it is possible to use the Climate
Registry’s mass balance approach (The Climate Registry, 2008, p. 123). To use this
methodology, it is necessary to assume the amount of refrigerant on-hand remained
constant during 2007 and 2008.
Fugitive Source Emissions
Chemical
Year
2007
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
Chemical
R404A
R134A
R22
Properties
Amount (kg)
43.55
0.00
90.72
co-efficient*
3300
1300
1700
87.09
13.61
54.43
3300
1300
1700
R404A
R134A
R22
Emissions
kgco2e
143,700.48
154,224.00
Total
287,400.96
17,690.40
92,534.40
Total
mtco2e
143.70
154.22
297.92
287.40
17.69
92.53
397.63
Table 10 - Fugitive Emission Calculations
Page 79
Appendix C: Emissions from Solid Waste
There are two factors used to calculate emissions from solid waste; transportation
of solid waste to the waste handling facility and CO2 reductions based on material
recycling from the EPA’s WARM model. Emissions are generated when trucks pick up
waste at Qwest Field. During 2007 and 2008 FGI used Allied Waste as their trash hauler
(Escalante, 2009). Allied waste picks up trash from Qwest field and delivers it to their
transfer station in south Seattle, 1.1 miles away (Google, 2009; Escalante, 2009). Once at
Allied Waste, trash is packaged and sent to the Roosevelt regional landfill in Klickitat
County (Allied Waste, 2004). The Roosevelt landfill uses methane recovery to power a
small electric power plant.
The bulk of recycled materials are sent to Fibres International, a recycling
company in Everett, WA. Fibres, located 26 miles from Qwest Field (Google, 2009), has
loaned FGI compactors to reduce the number of trips needed between their transfer
facility and Qwest field (Johnson S. , 2009). Shipments of trash and recyclables from
Qwest Field to Fibres and Allied waste represented over 80% of the weight of solid waste
in 2008 (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008). Smaller solid waste recyclers typically pick
up material as it accumulates, once or twice a year.
The EPA developed the WARM model to estimate greenhouse gas emission
reduction associated with recycling. These reductions occur because it typically takes
less energy to recycle materials into final products than to convert raw materials into final
products (Hartwell, 2007, p. 7). The WARM model incorporates a wide range of
lifecycle costs associated with recycling (Hartwell, 2007, p. 15).
Page 80
While the EPA provides the WARM model to estimate greenhouse gas emission
reductions, it also has a disclaimer on the website that the WARM model is not intended
for greenhouse gas inventories because it is not specific to any location or recycling
method. In addition, emission reductions associated with recycling can be claimed by a
variety of organizations along the solid waste supply chain. The Seattle Climate
Partnership’s carbon calculation tool recognizes these limitations and divides EPA life
cycle greenhouse gas reductions into three parts: one for the manufacture, one for the
waste generator who recycles the product, and one for the purchaser of raw recycled
materials from wholesalers (City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment,
2009). Following this lead, the recycling benefits calculated by the WARM model will
be divided by three. Calculating emission reductions associated with recycling is
important to judge the effectiveness of current solid waste practices and evaluate future
financial risk.
The table below examines emissions from solid waste transportation and emission
reductions from recycling efforts. There is only data available for transportation
emissions from Fibres and Allied Waste, but these two companies account for over 80%
of solid waste created at Qwest Field. Fuel economy for garbage / recycling trucks is
based on fleet averages (Langer, 2004, p. 12) Footnotes recognize changes or
assumptions used to properly select coefficients identified by the WARM model.
Page 81
Solid Waste Greenhouse Gas Emission Data
Transportation Emissions
Location
Number of Trips
Transport to Allied Waste
Transport to Fibres
165
6
co-efficient
KgCO2e / Mile
181.5
1.27
156
1.27
Total Transportation Emissions:
Total Miles
MTCO2e
0.23
0.20
0.43
2007
Life Cycle Emission Reductions
Stream
Cardboard
Compost
Newspaper
Mixed paper
Metal, misc
Metal, scrap
Plastic, misc
Plastic, bottles
Glass
Wood Pallets
1
Vinyl, Acrylic
2
Construction debris
3
6
Trash (in tons)
Tons
92.37
25.75
2.57
20.73
1.55
0.75
6.96
6.02
2.81
Disposal Method
Recycle
Compost
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
co-efficient
-3.11
-0.2
-2.8
-3.42
-5.26
-5.26
-1.52
-1.55
-0.28
MTCO2e
-95.76
-1.72
-2.40
-23.63
-2.72
-1.32
-3.53
-3.11
-0.26
6.72
Source Reduction
-2.02
-4.52
0.04
Source Reduction
-2.06
-0.03
62.4
Recycle
-2.46
-51.17
757.98
Landfill (energy)
-0.31
Total Life Cycle Emission Reductions:
Total Solid Waste Emissions
-78.32
-268.48
-268.05
Transportation Emissions
Location
Number of Trips
Transport to Allied Waste
Transport to Fibres
111
6
co-efficient
KgCO2e / Mile
122.1
1.27
156
1.27
Total Transportation Emissions:
Total Miles
MTCO2e
0.16
0.20
0.35
Life Cycle Emission Reductions
Stream
Cardboard
Aluminum
Tons
82.51
0.19
Sod*
co-efficient
-3.11
-13.67
MTCO2e
-85.54
-0.87
10.36
Compost
-0.2
-0.69
Cooking oil
Compost
Carpet(HH/Benchmark))
Newspaper
Mixed paper
Metal, misc
Metal, scrap
Plastic, misc/(WM/Fibres)
Plastic, bottles
Glass
Comingle (WM facility rate)
14.53
50.87
1.11
0.99
21.39
2.45
1.385
39.39
14.73
7.19
4.64
Source Reduction
Compost
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
-0.2
-0.2
-7.23
-2.8
-3.42
-5.26
-5.26
-1.52
-1.55
-0.28
-2.88
-0.97
-3.39
-2.68
-0.92
-24.38
-4.30
-2.43
-19.96
-7.61
-0.67
-4.45
1
41.05
0.77
Source Reduction
Recycle
-2.02
-2.27
-27.64
-0.58
0.779
Source Reduction
-2.06
-0.53
30.55
Recycle
-2.46
-25.05
4
2008
Disposal Method
Recycle
Recycle
Wood Pallets
5
Electronic waste
Vinyl, Acrylic
2
Construction debris
3
6
Trash (in tons)
528.17
Landfill (energy)
-0.31
Total Life Cycle Emission Reductions:
Total Solid Waste Emissions
-54.58
-267.24
-268.21
1
Wood pallets are reused - used dimensional lumber source reduction coefficient
2
Vinyl banners are sent to super graphics or recycling or to Alchemy goods to make new products - used average of source
3
Construction debris is recycled - used an average of fiberboard and dimensional lumber
4
Cooking oil is recycled at Standard biodiesel - used combustion coefficient
5
Electronics are recycled - used personal computer coefficient
6
Trash value includes emission reductions attributed to energy recovery
Yellow and Italicized = Estimated from 2008 data
Table 11 - Solid Waste Emissions Calculations
Page 82
Appendix D: Emissions from water consumption and liquid waste
Several steps are required to calculate Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions
associated with water consumption. First, it is necessary to determine how much energy
is used to transport and filter water used at Qwest Field. Water used at Qwest Field
comes from the Cedar River Watershed and is supplied by Seattle Public Utilities
(Bingaman, 2009). After use, water returned to the sewer is routed to King County’s
West Point treatment facility in Discovery Park (Bingaman, 2009). Seattle City Light
provides electricity to these systems, as they are located within Seattle City Light’s
service territory.
Some water provided to Qwest Field does not get returned via the sewer system.
This water is used in the HVAC cooling system or for irrigation purposes (Bingaman,
2009), and is not counted as treated water. Domestic water, such as that used for
drinking, cooking, and bathing, is returned to the sewer and treated at Discovery Park.
Qwest Field Water Consumption
Year and Service
2007 Water Delivered
2007 Water Treated
2007 TOTAL
2008 Water Delivered
2008 Water Treated
2008 TOTAL
CCF
Electricity used
(100 cubic feet)
kWh
31,803.00
33,452.30
30,179.00
29,762.89
27,594.00
26,616.00
29,025.02
26,249.02
MTCO2e
0.271
0.241
0.512
0.235
0.213
0.448
Table 12 - Water and Liquid Waste Emissions Calculations
Page 83
Appendix E: Emissions from Fan Transportation
A review of current academic literature does not provide a model to estimate
emissions from attendee transportation to and from LE facilities. Many attendees
purchase tickets the day of the show, making their origins anonymous. In addition,
privacy rules prohibit FGI, the Seahawks, or other facility lessees from sharing the
location of individual ticket holders. As a result, many estimates and assumptions are
needed to calculate emissions from fan transportation.
While FGI could not provide a list of addresses for every visitor to Qwest Field,
the Seahawks provided a map to illustrate where season ticket holder accounts resided by
county for the 2007 season (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008). Because a 2008 map was
unavailable, this thesis will assume 2007 and 2008 distances are similar.
.
Figure 13 - Map of Seahawk Season Ticket Holders
Page 84
This map is used to estimate the distance an “average” attendee travels to Qwest
Field. Assumptions used in this calculation are as follows;
•
All Qwest Field attendees come from Washington State.
•
All Qwest Field attendees follow the same county level distribution
pattern as Seahawks season ticket holders.
•
All Qwest Field attendees transport themselves from their home to Qwest
Field and back for each event; they do not start or end in alternate
locations.
•
Table 13 – The location of attendee’s homes within King, Snohomish,
Pierce, and Kitsap counties (which represent 82% of Seahawks Season
ticket holders) is proportionate to population density.
o Incorporated towns are used as start and end points to calculate
mileage. Mileage was calculated using Google Earth and
MapQuest internet tools (Google, 2009; MapQuest, 2008)
o Mileage is multiplied by the percentage of population relative to
the entire county (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2008) to
calculate a town’s portion of miles.
o All portions are added up to create an average travel distance for
King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap counties.
Page 85
Event Attendee Transportation Emissions
Average miles for King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap county attendees
Population
2007
Location
Percentage of
Season Ticket
Holders
Distance
to
Qwest Field
1,476,755
100.00%
2,725
0.18%
28
44,300
3.00%
28
310
0.02%
9.8
118,100
8.00%
12
4,120
0.28%
25
16,250
1.10%
22
31,410
2.13%
10
1,900
0.13%
33
2,810
0.19%
10
17,190
1.16%
35
29,090
1.97%
18
5,845
0.40%
27
11,320
0.77%
42
87,390
5.92%
23
480
0.03%
9
24,710
1.67%
16
19,940
1.35%
16
86,660
5.87%
16
47,890
3.24%
16
12,730
0.86%
16
20,020
1.36%
27
2,950
0.20%
10
22,380
1.52%
7
825
0.06%
30
9,550
0.65%
12
6,435
0.44%
12
4,705
0.32%
30
5,945
0.40%
28
50,680
3.43%
17
60,290
4.08%
16
40,260
2.73%
21
25,530
1.73%
14
572,600
38.77%
3
52,500
3.56%
13
210
0.01%
69
7,815
0.53%
28
18,000
1.22%
11
9,915
0.67%
24
975
0.07%
10
Average miles from a King County Attendee
74,800
23,080
30.86%
10
35,810
47.87%
17
8,350
11.16%
58
7,560
10.11%
20
Average miles from a Kitsap County Attendee
King County
Algona
Auburn
BeauxArts
Bellevue
BlackDiamond
Bothell
Burien
Carnation
ClydeHill
Covington
DesMoines
Duvall
Enumclaw
FederalWay
HuntsPoint
Issaquah
Kenmore
Kent
Kirkland
LakeForestPark
MapleValley
Medina
MercerIsland
Milton
Newcastle
NormandyPark
NorthBend
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
SeaTac
Seattle
Shoreline
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Woodinville
YarrowPoint
Kitsap
BainbridgeIsland
Bremerton
PortOrchard
Poulsbo
Average
Attendee
Distance
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
11.9
3.0
7.9
6.5
2.1
19.5
Location
Population
2007
Percentage of
Season Ticket
Holders
Distance
to
Qwest Field
423,533
6,170
1.46%
28
15,740
3.72%
38
4,555
1.08%
45
658
0.16%
51
7,045
1.66%
48
2,380
0.56%
60
9,560
2.26%
28
0
0.00%
42
7,180
1.70%
29
6,270
1.48%
38
6,780
1.60%
49
59,010
13.93%
39
5,695
1.34%
30
4,820
1.14%
42
110
0.03%
28
36,790
8.69%
36
875
0.21%
53
750
0.18%
38
440
0.10%
43
6,220
1.47%
43
9,035
2.13%
34
201,700
47.62%
33
31,300
7.39%
39
450
0.11%
49
Average miles from a Pierce County Attendee
367,595
Snohomish
Arlington
16,720
4.55%
48
Bothell
15,450
4.20%
22
Brier
6,480
1.76%
18
Darrington
1,465
0.40%
77
Edmonds
40,560
11.03%
19
Everett
101,800
27.69%
31
GoldBar
2,175
0.59%
48
GraniteFalls
3,195
0.87%
45
Index
160
0.04%
57
LakeStevens
13,350
3.63%
38
Lynnwood
35,490
9.65%
18
Marysville
36,210
9.85%
36
MillCreek
17,620
4.79%
23
Monroe
16,290
4.43%
34
MountlakeTerrace
20,810
5.66%
17
Mukilteo
19,940
5.42%
25
Snohomish
8,970
2.44%
34
Stanwood
5,200
1.41%
55
Sultan
4,530
1.23%
43
Woodway
1,180
0.32%
18
Average miles from a Snohomish County Attendee
Pierce
Auburn
BonneyLake
Buckley
Carbonado
DuPont
Eatonville
Edgewood
Enumclaw
Fife
Fircrest
GigHarbor
Lakewood
Milton
Orting
Pacific
Puyallup
Roy
Ruston
SouthPrairie
Steilacoom
Sumner
Tacoma
UniversityPlace
Wilkeson
Average
Attendee
Distance
0.4
1.4
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.8
5.4
0.4
0.5
0.0
3.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.7
15.7
2.9
0.1
35.6
2.2
0.9
0.3
0.3
2.0
8.5
0.3
0.4
0.0
1.4
1.8
3.6
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.1
28.8
Table 13 - Average Miles for King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties
•
Table 13 – The location of event attendee’s who reside outside King,
Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap counties (which represent only 18% of
Seahawks Season ticket holders) is calculated based on the county seat.
Mileage was calculated using Google Earth and MapQuest internet tools
Page 86
(Google, 2009; MapQuest, 2008). Mileages for King, Snohomish, Pierce,
and Kitsap counties were calculated in Table 13;
Event Attendee Transportation Emissions
County to Qwest Field distance
County
Adams
Asotin
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Columbia
Cowlizt
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittias
Klickitat
Distance to
Qwest Field
220.0
340.0
194.0
147.0
87.4
164.0
285.0
127.0
168.0
300.0
224.0
304.0
172.0
100.0
58.0
58.4
11.9
19.5
107.0
212.0
County
Distance to
Qwest Field
Lewis
Lincon
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce
San Juan
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima
88.0
263.0
81.8
233.0
128.0
325.0
36.0
107.0
64.1
210.0
28.8
279.0
350.0
61.4
151.0
272.0
90.8
238.0
142.0
Table 14 - County Distance to Qwest Field
These estimates created a profile of how far the average Skagit County attendee
travels to Qwest Field relative to the average King County attendee. Next, several
assumptions about attendees behavior was made to complete the model;
•
The fleet of cars owned by attendees is similar to the national fleet, with a
fuel economy of 25.3 miles per gallon (Union of Concerend Scientists,
2009).
Page 87
•
Diesel vehicles are treated similar to gasoline vehicles since they represent
only a small percentage of vehicles sold (0.1% of vehicles sold (The
Environmental Protection Agency, 2008)), and diesel vehicles are
typically more fuel efficient than gas vehicles. As a result, this thesis will
ignore the greater level of carbon emissions created by combusting diesel
fuel (Environmental Protection Agency, 2005).
•
Table 15 – All Qwest Field and Events Center attendees follow similar
transportation patterns as reported in a sample football game from Qwest’s
2007 – 2008 Traffic Management Plan (Authority, First and Goal, &
Seahawks, 2008)
Event Attendee Transportation Emissions
Mode
Persons
%
Automobile
43,890
75.67%
Transit
3,860
6.66%
560
0.97%
3,680
6.34%
Charter Bus
Rail
Ferry
2,220
3.83%
Pedestrian
1,870
3.22%
Drop-Off
1,920
3.31%
Total
# Vehicles # Occupants per Auto
16,625
2.64
58,000
Table 15 - Seahawks Transportation Patterns
The final calculation below shows how estimates above are used to create the first
part of a greenhouse gas estimate for event attendee transportation. The total number of
miles was reduced by 24.33% because the Traffic Management Plan illustrated how
many people use public transportation to attend Qwest events.
Page 88
Event Attendee Transportation Emissions
County
Percentage
Approx
Approx Vehicle Miles
Mileage
Traveled
(one way
per game)
220.00
4,950
340.00
6,800
25.3
25.3
Total Gallons
Gasoline used
(Round Trip per
County)
195.65
268.77
30,555
25,358
19,884
25.3
25.3
25.3
1,207.71
1,002.27
785.91
10.63
8.82
6.92
164.00
285.00
127.00
168.00
300.00
124,640
2,138
28,893
10,920
750
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
4,926.48
84.49
1,142.00
431.62
29.64
43.35
0.74
10.05
3.80
0.26
109
165
251
366
172
28,380
2,323
135
26
224.00
304.00
172.00
100.00
58.00
58.40
11.95
19.51
107.00
212.00
18,480
21,500
19,000
16,095
7,592
257,011
34,338
10,968
4,240
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
730.43
849.80
750.99
636.17
300.08
10,158.54
1,357.22
433.50
167.59
6.43
7.48
6.61
5.60
2.64
89.40
11.94
3.81
1.47
845
30
244
30
40
30
7,059
76
650
13
7,679
660
26
1,871
13
99
1,030
20
713
88.00
263.00
81.80
233.00
128.00
325.00
35.59
107.00
64.10
210.00
28.75
279.00
350.00
61.40
151.00
272.00
90.80
238.00
142.00
56,320
5,918
15,133
5,243
3,840
7,313
190,318
6,153
31,569
2,100
167,259
139,500
7,000
87,035
1,510
20,400
70,824
3,570
76,680
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
2,226.09
233.89
598.14
207.21
151.78
289.03
7,522.43
243.18
1,247.80
83.00
6,611.03
5,513.83
276.68
3,440.10
59.68
806.32
2,799.37
141.11
3,030.83
19.59
2.06
5.26
1.82
1.34
2.54
66.20
2.14
10.98
0.73
58.18
48.52
2.43
30.27
0.53
7.10
24.63
1.24
26.67
60,940
1.10
Total Emissions 2007
Total Emissions 2008
536.28
0.0097
10,654.91
10,194.35
Approx
Individuals
(per game)
Adams
Asotin
0.05%
0.05%
30
26
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
0.38%
0.41%
0.54%
208
228
300
194.00
147.00
87.40
Clark
Columbia
Cowlizt
Douglas
Ferry
1.82%
0.02%
0.54%
0.16%
0.01%
1,003
10
300
86
3
0.20%
0.00%
0.30%
0.45%
0.66%
0.31%
51.37%
4.20%
0.24%
0.05%
Lewis
1.53%
Lincon
0.05%
Mason
0.44%
Okanogan
0.05%
Pacific
0.07%
Pend Oreille
0.05%
Pierce
12.78%
San Juan
0.14%
Skagit
1.18%
Skamania
0.02%
Snohomish
13.90%
Spokane
1.19%
Stevens
0.05%
Thurston
3.39%
Wahkiakum
0.02%
Walla Walla
0.18%
Whatcom
1.86%
Whitman
0.04%
Yakima
1.29%
Grand Total for Seahawk Season
Ticket Holders (2007)
100.00%
Average Qwest Field Attendee Numbers
2007 Attendees
2008 Attendees
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittias
Klickitat
55,249
27.91
1,451,983
1,389,221
1,541,791
28
75%
75%
MPG
MTCO2e
1.72
2.37
Table 16 - Event Attendee Transportation Emissions
Finally, it is necessary to add greenhouse gas emissions from FGI organized
attendee transportation. FGI partners with Sound Transit and Metro Transit to operate
additional rail and bus service for football games.
Page 89
Sound Transit, the regional transit authority that operates commuter rail service
between Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma, works with the Seahawks and FGI to provide
commuter rail service during Seahawk home games. During each game two trains run
north, servicing Everett and stops in-between, and three trains run south, servicing
Tacoma and stops in-between.
FGI also partners with Metro Transit, the King County transit authority that runs
bus service and maintains a series of park-and-ride facilities through-out King County.
Metro Transit provides additional bus service between Northgate Park-and-Ride, South
Kirkland Park-and-Ride, Eastgate Park-and-Ride, Kent Park-and-Ride, and Federal Way
Park-and-Ride during Seahawk home games.
To calculate emissions from FGI organized fan transportation, the table below
uses the following facts and assumptions
•
Bus fuel consumption is based on Metro fleet averages (Sawyer & Durst,
2008) with details about service provided during and after an
informational interview (Gauthier, 2009).
•
Train fuel consumption is based on total trip consumption and details
about service provided during and after an informational interview (Smith,
2009).
•
The Distance between park and rides and Qwest Field were calculated
using Google Maps (Google, 2009). Rail distances were taken from the
American Rails website (American-Rails.com, 2009).
Page 90
•
There is no way to calculate emissions from attendees who took non-FGI
funded bus, train, or ferry service (Gauthier, 2009; Laird, 2009). These
emissions will have to be omitted due to lack of data.
•
Several routes (Kent and Federal Way) were contracted with Starline, a
private coach company, mid 2008. Data for Starline is unavailable.
Event Attendee Transportation Emissions - Mass Transit
Service
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Train
Train
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Train
Train
Start Location
Distance
to Qwest
Annual
Trips
fuel
economy
Fuel per
Round
Trip
# of
Passengers
MTCO2e per
route
Metro King County Bus Transportation 2007
Northgate Park and Ride
8.5
341
4.813
5.30
11,713
South Kirkland Park and Ride
10.1
209
4.813
6.30
11,704
Eastgate Park and Ride
9.8
286
4.813
6.11
17,671
Kent Park and Ride
17.7
99
4.813
11.03
3,173
Federal Way Park and Ride
22.3
242
4.813
13.90
7,472
Total 2007 Bus MTCO2e
Sound Transit Commuter Rail Transportation 2007
Tacoma
39
24
300
23,021
Everett
35
16
270
10,638
Total 2007 Train MTCO2e
Total 2007 Mass Transit MTCO2e
Metro King County Bus Transportation 2008
Northgate Park and Ride
8.5
279
4.813
5.30
11,851
South Kirkland Park and Ride
10.1
171
4.813
6.30
10,810
Eastgate Park and Ride
9.8
234
4.813
6.11
12,678
Kent Park and Ride
17.7
81
4.813
11.03
887
Federal Way Park and Ride
22.3
198
4.813
13.90
4,041
Total 2008 Bus MTCO2e
Sound Transit Commuter Rail Transportation 2008
Tacoma
39
27
300
62,104
Everett
35
18
270
23,334
Total 2008 Train MTCO2e
Total 2008 Mass Transit MTCO2e
18.34
13.35
17.73
11.09
34.14
94.65
73.08
43.85
116.93
211.58
15.00
10.93
14.51
9.07
27.93
77.44
82.22
49.33
131.54
208.99
Table 17 - Event Attendee Transportation Emissions - Mass Transit
Once all the pieces are assembled, it is possible to estimate greenhouse emissions
attributed to event attendee transportation. This estimate assumes all attendee emissions
and behaviors follow that of Seahawks attendees as described above. Each transportation
method is assigned an emissions coefficient per attendee based on the above calculations.
Page 91
The attendees are multiplied by this coefficient to estimate greenhouse gasses associated
with that type of transportation.
Total Emissions from Event Attendee Transportation - Final Results
Year
Type of Transportation
2007 Automobile Transportation
2007 Bus Transportation
2007 Train Transportation
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
Percentage of Attendees
using transport method
75.65%
Total
Automobile Transportation
Bus Transportation
Train Transportation
Total
Total Attendees
MTCO2e per
7.63%
6.34%
1,098,425.14
110,786.30
92,055.72
0.0097
0.0018
0.0014
75.65%
7.63%
6.34%
1,050,945.69
105,997.56
88,076.61
0.0097
0.0019
0.0010
Total
MTCO
e
10654.72
202.70
126.05
10983.47
10194.17
203.86
92.17
10490.20
Table 18 - Event Attendee Transportation - Final Results
This model is unable to calculate several emission sources, such as emissions
from attendees transporting themselves to park and rides to catch trains and busses,
emissions from automobile and foot ferries, and other forms of transportation not
included in the traffic management plan. What these numbers allow is an estimate of
greenhouse gas emissions to facilitate discussion about their impacts to Qwest Field.
Further research could improve this model. It is unknown if all Qwest Field
attendees are geographically distributed in a manner similar to Seahawk Season ticket
holders, which represent approximately 32% of annual attendees. Additionally, it is
unknown if event attendees are actually geographically distributed. Finally, it is
unknown if these variables would significantly influence this model and alter the above
greenhouse gas estimates.
Page 92
Appendix F: Office Paper
To calculate emissions from office paper it is necessary to determine the weight
of office paper consumed and the percentage of post-consumer content within the paper.
These numbers are used to determine emissions created from manufacturing paper. Once
these numbers are calculated, a reduction credit is calculated based on the amount of post
consumer product in the paper. This reduction represents emissions avoided from the
extraction of wood products. As done before, the total amount of emissions avoided is
divided by three to represent the contributions of other partners in the recycling chain
(City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment, 2009).
The amount of paper used is estimated, as FGI only starting tracking office paper
in May 2008. It is assumed that paper consumption during these months is similar to the
mean of consumption for May 2008 – December 2008. As a result, both 2007 and 2008
emissions numbers are estimated.
Office Paper Emissions
Year
%
Recycled
2007
2008
30%
30%
Boxes
Weight
(MT)
Mfg
Emissions
Recycle
Reductions
Total MTCO2e
65
65
1.48
1.48
1.65
1.65
-4.0
-4.0
-2.35
-2.35
Table 19 - Office Paper
Page 93
Appendix G: Emissions from First and Goal Funded Airline Travel
Calculating greenhouse gas emissions from business travel requires an inventory
of trips and classification of those trips based on distance traveled. An inventory of FGI
funded airline travel was provided by Mike McFaul (McFaul, Facilities Director, 2008).
Mileage for individual airline trips was calculated using WebFlyer’s mile marker tool
(WebFlyer.com), and is used by the Seattle Climate Partnership’s greenhouse gas tool
(2009). Trips are classified into three categories; short (0 – 299 miles), medium (300 –
699 miles) and long (700 + miles) to most accurately account for extra fuel used during
takeoff (City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment, 2009). Accounting
could only produce data for the year 2008. Year 2007 data is estimated to be equal to
year 2008 for this report.
First and Goal Funded Airline Travel
Destination
Seattle to Phoenix
Seattle to LA
Seattle to Missoula
Seattle to LA and Las Vegas
Seattle to Pittsburg
Seattle to Orlando
Seattle to Dallas
Seattle to Minneapolis St Paul
Seattle to Santa Ana
Seattle to Tampa
# of Trips
2
10
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
2
Total Airline Miles
2464
1908
774
1853
4240
3420
3320
2780
1956
5020
Trip Class
Long
Long
Medium
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Total 2008 Emissions
Emissions
0.46816
0.36252
0.17802
0.35207
0.8056
0.6498
0.6308
0.5282
0.37164
0.9538
5.30061
Table 20 - Airline Emissions
Page 94
Tackling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
the Large Events Industry
Jeremy Stewart
The Evergreen State College
September 1, 2009
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
Large Events Industry
1. Background: The large events industry and
environmental challenges
2. Methods and results: A greenhouse gas inventory of
Qwest Field
3. Discussion: Analyze trends from the inventory to
determine risk, examine the intersection between public
policy and greenhouse gas emissions, and review reduction
scenarios
2
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Background
The large events industry
• Describing the large events industry
• Organization of the large events industry
• Business needs of the large events industry
Environmental Challenges
• Climate Change
• Peak Oil
3
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
The Large Event Industry
What is a large event?
Gatherings that concentrate
people for entertainment
Takes place at a specialized facility
4
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Why is this industry important?
1.4 Million people attend an event at Qwest Field
and Events Center last year
Most facilities are new or completely remodeled
84% of all major sports teams play in a facility newer than 1980
Facilities are getting bigger and more complicated
Little study on the greenhouse gas impact of such facilities
5
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Organization of the Industry
Facility ownership.
Private ownership
Municipality
Public / Private partnership
Facility is managed by a professional management
company
May be owned by facility owners or lease facility from owners
6
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Business Model
To rent or lease real estate that draws customers to
events by providing unique facilities that
accommodate participant needs while offering
business opportunities necessary for the tenant’s
financial success.
7
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Business Needs
1. Draw visitors to the facility
2. Accommodate the number of anticipated
3.
4.
5.
6.
8
participants
Facilitate high-tech broadcasting and technical
needs of tenants
Increase revenue by retailing products and food
Provide a safe environment for attendees to
participate in events
Accommodate waste from event attendees and
tenants
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Environmental Challenges
Climate Change
9
Peak Oil
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Climate Change
Increasing CO2 levels
lead to higher global
average temperature
• Alters traditional
weather patterns
• Causes stronger,
more frequent
storms
• Changes growing
seasons
• Increases sea level
10
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Peak Oil
Declining oil supplies combined with increased oil demand
causes prices to run out of control
• Increased energy
demand across all
energy types
• Limited
availability of
energy resources
• Drastic changes to
an energy driven
lifestyle
11
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
What does this mean?
Increased risk and uncertainty
Government regulation to control climate change
Limits on emissions
Internalizing costs
Market response to peak oil
Drastically higher energy prices
Re-optimization of lifestyles to accommodate high energy prices
Increased risk to wild card events
Powerful storms and unpredictable weather
Changed human settlement and migration patterns
Social unrest
12
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Business Needs of the Large Events
Industry
1. Draw visitors to the facility
2. Accommodate the number of anticipated
3.
4.
5.
6.
13
participants
Facilitate high-tech broadcasting, and technical
needs of tenants
Increase revenue by retailing products and food
Provide a safe environment for attendees to
participate in events
Accommodate waste from event attendees and
tenants
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Methods and Results
Greenhouse gas inventory
• Understand the facility
• Choose appropriate inventory tool
• Draw organizational boundaries
• Collect and organize data
14
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Qwest Field and Events Center
Location: Seattle , WA
Owner: Washington Public
Stadium Authority
Management Company:
First & Goal, Inc.
Primary Tenant: Seattle
Seahawks and Seattle
Sounders FC
2008 Visitors: 1,389,000
15
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Choosing the Inventory Tool
16
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Measuring Emissions
All greenhouse gas
measurements are reported in
Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent” or MTCO2e, an
internationally recognized
standard
MTCO2e converts all greenhouse
gasses to the equivalent warming
impact of CO2
17
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Collecting and Organizing Data
Use best data available per The Climate Registry’s
guidelines
1. Direct Calculation – Converts a measured unit of energy or
volume of fuel into MTCO2e
2. Indirect Calculation – Converts a measured value into a unit of
energy or volume of fuel, then converts the value into MTCO2e
3. Estimated Indirect Calculation – Utilizes data to estimate a
measurement, converts the calculated measurement into a unit
of energy or volume of fuel, then converts the value into
MTCO2e
18
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Drawing Organization Boundaries
The Climate Registry’s control approach
Included
19
All Scope 1 Emissions - Required
• Stationary combustion
• Mobile combustion
• Process emissions*
• Fugitive emissions
All Scope 2 Emissions - Required
• Electricity
• Steam*
• Purchased heat*
Select Scope 3 Emissions - Optional
• Solid waste
• Water & liquid waste
• Attendee transportation
• Office paper
• Airline travel
Not Included
Other Scope 3 Emissions
• Tenant, employee, and supply
transportation emissions
• Emissions from growing food
consumed at Qwest Field
• Emissions from manufacturing
supplies and equipment used at
Qwest Field
*Not Present at Qwest Field
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 1 – Stationary Combustion
Data requested: Natural gas consumption
Data received: Natural gas consumption
Conversion method: Direct calculation
0.005351 Metric Tons CO2e per Therm consumed
2007 MTCO2e: 791.45
2008 MTCO2e: 772.15
20
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 1 – Mobile Combustion
Data requested: Quantities of gasoline, diesel, and propane used for
mobile combustion
Data received: Hours of equipment operation from FGI maintenance
staff (pulled from equipment hour meters)
Conversion method: Estimated indirect calculation – based on equipment
operating hours, fuel consumption, and type of fuel used
2007 MTCO2e: 38.96 estimated
2008 MTCO2e: 38.96 estimated
21
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 1 – Fugitive Emissions
Data Requested: Quantities of HVAC refrigerant used
Data Received: Quantities of HVAC refrigerant purchased
Conversion method: Direct calculation – based on quantities of refrigerant
purchased and global warming potential
2007 MTCO2e: 297.92
2008 MTCO2e: 397.63
22
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 1 Totals
900
800
MTCO2e
700
600
500
400
Stationary Combustion
300
200
Mobile Combustion
100
Fugitive Emissions
0
2007
2008
First and Goal, Inc
Scope 1 Emissions
Category
Stationary Combustion
Mobile Combustion
Fugitive Emissions
TOTAL SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS
23
2007
2008
791.45 MTCO2e
38.96 MTCO2e
297.92 MTCO2e
1128.33 MTCO2e
772.15 MTCO2e
38.96 MTCO2e
397.63 MTCO2e
1208.74 MTCO2e
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 2 – Electricity
Data requested: Electricity consumption
Data received: Electricity consumption
Conversion method: Direct calculation
0.0081 kgCO2e kWh consumed
2007 MTCO2e: 169.01
2008 MTCO2e: 164.64
24
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
MTCO2e
Scope 2 Totals
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Electricity
2007
2008
First and Goal, Inc
Scope 2 Emissions
Category
Electricity
TOTAL SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS
25
2007
169.01 MTCO2e
169.01 MTCO2e
2008
164.65 MTCO2e
164.65 MTCO2e
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 3 – Solid Waste
Data requested: Garbage and recycling information
Data received: Garbage and recycling information
Conversion method: Estimated indirect calculation
Solid waste transportation emissions
Solid waste lifecycle credit
2007 MTCO2e: -268.05 estimated
2008 MTCO2e: -268.21 estimated
26
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 3 – Water & Liquid Waste
Data requested: Water consumption
Data received: Water consumption
Conversion method: Indirect calculation
(water used * energy for transport) + (water returned * energy for
treatment) = electricity used
Electricity used * greenhouse gas coefficient for generation = MTCO2e
2007 MTCO2e: 0.51
2008 MTCO2e: 0.44
27
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 3 – Attendee Transportation
Data requested: Average miles a Qwest Field attendee travels
Data received: Marketing chart of Seahawks season ticket holders
Conversion method: Estimated indirect calculation
Distance average fan travels
Number of fans driving per year / average carpool number
Average EPA MPG
FGI funded transportation initiatives
2007 MTCO2e: 10,654.91 estimated
2008 MTCO2e: 10,194.35 estimated
28
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 3 – Office Paper
Data requested: Office paper consumption
Data received: Office paper purchased 2008
Conversion method: Estimated indirect calculation
weight of paper * coefficient = MTCO2e
2008 Metric Tons CO2e: -2.35 estimated
2007 Metric Tons CO2e: -2.35 estimated
29
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 3 – Business Airline Travel
Data requested: FGI funded airline trips
Data received: FGI funded airline trips 2008
Conversion method: Estimated indirect calculation
2007 Metric Tons CO2e: 5.30 estimated
2008 Metric Tons CO2e: 5.30
30
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scope 3 Totals
12000
10000
MTCO2e
8000
FGI funded Airline Travel
6000
Office Paper
4000
Event Attendee Transportation
2000
Water
0
-2000
2007
2008
Solid Waste
First and Goal, Inc
Scope 3 Emissions
Category
Solid Waste
Water
Event Attendee Transportation
Office Paper
FGI funded Airline Travel
TOTAL SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS
31
2007
-268.05 MTCO2e
0.51 MTCO2e
10983.47 MTCO2e
-2.35 MTCO2e
5.3 MTCO2e
10718.88 MTCO2e
2008
-268.21 MTCO2e
0.44 MTCO2e
10490.20 MTCO2e
-2.35 MTCO2e
5.3 MTCO2e
10225.38 MTCO2e
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Total Emissions
14000
FGI funded Airline Travel
12000
Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivilant
Office Paper
10000
Event Attendee Transportation
8000
Water
6000
Solid Waste
4000
Electricity
Fugitive Emissions
2000
Mobile Combustion
0
2007
2008
Stationary Combustion
-2000
32
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Discussion
Discuss the results in context of energy,
attendance, and scope 3 emissions
Discuss the results in context of risk and
regulation
Examining possible reduction scenarios
33
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Energy Emissions – Scope 1 & 2
• The majority of facility
800
700
Stationary
Combustion
Mobile
Combustion
Fugitive
Emissions
Electricity
600
MTCO2e
emissions from energy
are from natural gas
• Mobile combustion
emissions represent
under 5% of Scope 1 and
2 emissions
• Fugitive emissions
represent a substantial
portion of Scope 1 & 2
900
500
400
300
200
TOTAL SCOPE 1 & 2
AVERAGE 1335.36
100
0
2007
34
2008
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Energy Use and Attendance
Natural Gas
180,000
Electricity
35,000
160,000
30,000
140,000
25,000
120,000
100,000
20,000
80,000
15,000
60,000
10,000
40,000
20,000
5,000
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Therms
35
Attendance
(10's of fans)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Elec (mWh)
Attendance
(100's of fans)
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Fuel Switching
Total energy
GHG emissions
180,000
1,200
160,000
1,000
140,000
120,000
800
MTCO2e
100,000
80,000
60,000
600
400
40,000
200
20,000
2003
2004
Total BTU
(millions)
36
2005
2006
2007
Attendance
(10's of fans)
2008
2003
2004
Electricity
Carbon
2005
2006
2007
Natural Gas
Carbon
2008
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Electricity
Location has a significant impact on
greenhouse gas emissions from electricity.
Annual Estimated MTCO2e
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
Electricity
Fugitive
6000
Mobile
4000
Stationary
2000
0
37
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Up & Downstream – Scope 3
Solid waste and
purchasing
practices create a
net emission
reduction
38
10000
8000
MTCO2e
Emissions from
event attendees
dominate all
other emissions
12000
FGI funded Airline
Travel
6000
Office Paper
4000
Event Attendee
Transportation
2000
Water
0
2007
2008
Solid Waste
-2000
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Attendee Emissions
Transportation Emissions
King, Kitsap, Piece, &
Snohomish Fans
39
Rural Fans
Percentage of Fans
82%
18%
Percentage of GHG
42%
58%
Average Miles Traveled
18.9
207.5
Automobile Emissions
0.0049
0.0316
Bus Emissions
0.0019
0.0210
Train Emissions
0.0012
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Recycling Practices
Separate recycling into
multiple streams
Compress material to
reduce hauls
Reduce total facility
waste
1000.00
800.00
600.00
Tons
Waste handling
1200.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
2006
2007
Recyclables
40
2008
Trash
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Recycling Practices
Life Cycle Emission Reductions
Waste Stream
Cardboard
Aluminum
Sod*
Cooking oil 4
Compost
Carpet(HH/Benchmark))
Newspaper
Mixed paper
Metal, misc
Metal, scrap
Plastic, misc/(WM/Fibres)
Plastic, bottles
Glass
Comingle (WM facility rate)
Wood Pallets 1
Electronic waste 5
Vinyl, Acrylic 2
Construction debris 3
Trash6 (in tons)
41
Tons
82.51
0.19
10.36
14.53
50.87
1.11
0.99
21.39
2.45
1.385
39.39
14.73
7.19
4.64
41.05
0.77
0.779
30.55
528.17
Disposal Method
co-efficient
MTCO2e
Recycle
-3.11
-85.54
Recycle
-13.67
-0.87
Compost
-0.2
-0.69
Source Reduction
-0.2
-0.97
Compost
-0.2
-3.39
Recycle
-7.23
-2.68
Recycle
-2.8
-0.92
Recycle
-3.42
-24.38
Recycle
-5.26
-4.30
Recycle
-5.26
-2.43
Recycle
-1.52
-19.96
Recycle
-1.55
-7.61
Recycle
-0.28
-0.67
Recycle
-2.88
-4.45
Source Reduction
-2.02
-27.64
Recycle
-2.27
-0.58
Source Reduction
-2.06
-0.53
Recycle
-2.46
-25.05
Landfill (energy)
-0.31
-54.58
Total Life Cycle Emission Reductions:
-267.24
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Intersection with regulation
Types of regulation and their potential impact
Current thresholds and evaluation of risk
42
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Local Regulation
Local regulations
The proposed “bag” tax
Local infrastructure
Support of transit services
Zoning requirements
43
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
State Regulations
Legislated goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The Climate Action Team
Increase the price of automobile transit
Increase public transit options
Increase regulations regarding solid waste
Incentivize energy efficiency and green building
The Western Climate Initiative
Regional cap and trade system
Facilities emitting above 10,000 MTCO2e must annually inventory and
report greenhouse gas emissions
Facilities emitting above 25,000 MTCO2e must inventory emissions and
participate in a cap and trade program
44
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Federal Regulations
Supreme court has required the EPA regulate carbon
dioxide as a pollutant
EPA is examining requiring facilities that emit above
10,000 MTCO2e report emissions annually
Waxman-Markley climate change bill passed the US
House of Representatives and would implement a
national cap and trade system
45
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Current Thresholds
Regulations regarding greenhouse gas
emissions have not yet been written
There are several thresholds that appear as common themes
10,000 MTCO2e as a reporting threshold
25,000 MTCO2e as a cap and trade threshold
Qwest Field is currently under these thresholds
46
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Regulations that hinder reductions
The “Charter Bus Rule” makes it difficult to
coordinate transit options
47
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Evaluation of Risk
While Qwest Field’s low emission level allows it to
avoids reporting, there are several risks discovered
during the inventory process
Transportation emissions are high – price increases from
regulation or peak oil could reduce attendance
Electricity emissions are very low – reducing greenhouse gas
emissions through energy projects becomes much more expensive
in terms of $ / MTCO2e
48
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Reduction Options
Scenario 1 – Increase energy efficiency
Scenario 2 – Increase rural transit options
Scenario 3 – Increase local transit options
49
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Increase Energy Efficiency
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
Updating technology to provide the same energy services with
less energy consumption
Motor Controls
Lighting
Computer Equipment
Act as a hedge against future energy price
increases
50
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Increase Energy Efficiency
Qwest was built in 2002
Qwest received conservation funding from Seattle City Light to
conserve energy beyond code
Began researching energy efficiency in 2008
Energy audit with Seattle City Light
Quick walk-through with PSE
Hired McKinstry as an energy services company
51
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scenario 1 – Energy Efficiency
Project Type
Motor Controls
CO2 Sensors
Electricity Saved Natural Gas Saved
(kWh)
(Therms)
Cost
Annua Savings
Annual Reduction
(MTCO2e)
846,047
$
318,830.00 $
43,229.00
6.85
2,573
6,008 $
42,707.00 $
7,148.00
32.17
Lighting Projects
1,490,437
$ 1,201,560.00 $
67,117.00
12.07
Total
2,339,057
6,008 $ 1,563,097.00 $
117,494.00
51.10
52
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Increase use of public transit
Offers ability for event attendees to transport
themselves to and from Qwest Field without
relaying on personal automobile
Acts as a hedge against future fuel price increases that could
drive away attendees
Provides additional platform to sell goods and services
Provides an opportunity to reduce parking at the facility and
increase facility size
53
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Increase use of public transit
Work with politically powerful primary tenants, such as
the NFL, to eliminate the charter bus rule
Use charter bus service for rural counties
Provides a platform to retail additional goods and services maintains the
viability of rural attendees
Use local service for local counties
Partnerships such as the Sound Transit partnership can reduce costs
while providing service
54
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scenario 2 – Rural Transit
County
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Cowlizt
Franklin
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
Kittias
Lewis
Mason
Skagit
Spokane
Thurston
Whatcom
Yakima
Total Per Seahawks Game
Total for All Seahawks Games
55
Potential Riders
52
57
75
251
75
27
41
63
92
43
34
211
61
163
165
468
257
178
2312
18500
# Buses
2
2
2
7
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
6
2
5
5
12
7
5
58
464
Bus MTCO2e
2.45
1.86
1.11
7.26
1.61
1.42
1.09
1.27
1.10
0.37
0.68
3.34
1.04
2.03
8.83
4.66
4.02
4.49
48.61
388.89
Auto MTCO2e
2.66
2.21
1.73
10.84
2.51
1.61
1.87
1.65
1.40
0.66
0.95
4.90
1.32
2.75
12.13
7.57
6.16
6.67
69.57
556.54
Reduction
0.20
0.34
0.62
3.58
0.91
0.19
0.78
0.39
0.30
0.29
0.28
1.56
0.28
0.72
3.30
2.91
2.14
2.18
20.96
167.64
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Scenario 3 – Local Transit
Type
Total
Net Cost Program Cost Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Current Transit Usage through FGI Paid Opportunities (average 2007 / 2008)
MTCO2e reduced
# Passengers
$ per passenger Ticket Price
per passenger
Bus
46000
0.0030
$ 6.38
$ 3.00
$ 3.38
$ 155,480.00
138.00
Train
59549
0.0037
$ 11.29
$ 4.00
$ -
$ -
220.33
Current 2007/2008 Totals $ 155,480.00
358.33
Double Transit Usage through FGI paid opportunities
Bus
92000
0.0030
$ 6.38
$ 3.00
$ 3.38
$ 310,960.00
276.00
Train
120000
0.0037
$ 11.29
$ 4.00
$ 7.29
$ 437,400.00
444.00
$ 748,360.00
720.00
Totals under the Double Transit Scenario
Potential Reduction from Doubling FGI Paid Transit Opportunities
361.67
* Currently Sound Transit has an agreement with FGI to exchange Sounder Commuter Rail service for publicity. This
analysis assumes if FGI doubled sounder trains, FGI would be responsible for the additional cost.
56
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Meeting the Challenge
Setting a goal
Kyoto goal
7% below 1990 levels
~ 11.6% below current levels
Goal = 1300 MTCO2e
Reduction Scenarios
Scenario 1 = 51.1
Scenario 2 = 167.64
Scenario 3 = 361.67
Scenarios = 580.44 MTCO2e
57
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Conclusion – Risk
Direct risk
Price increases
Climate
Indirect risk
Regulations
Economic effects
58
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Conclusion – Geography
The greenhouse gas
content of electricity
varies greatly by
region
Population density
and availability of
public transit greatly
affect transit emissions
59
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Conclusion – Mitigation is Expensive
Low carbon content of
electricity makes
mitigation costly
“Going it alone” is an
expensive way to
provide transit services
Must balance
mitigation with
business needs
60
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Acknowledgements
Mike McFaul – First and Goal
Robert Knapp & Lawrence Geri – The Evergreen State
College
Charlie Cunniff – Seattle Climate Partnership
Jerry Wright & Greg Whiting – Seattle City Light
Holly Stewart – Editor
61
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Thank you
Questions?
62
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Picture Sources
Slide 4 “Question Mark” - http://blog.lib.umn.edu/isss/isss/question-mark1a.jpg
Slide 9 “Climate Change” - http://askehbl.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/climatechange1.jpg
Slide 9 “Peak Oil” - http://carolynbaker.net/site/images/running%20on%20empty.jpg
Slide 10 “Graph” – Stewart Thesis
Slide 11 “Graph” – Stewart Thesis
Slide 15 “Qwest Field” - http://www.pacificmetropolis.com/images/qwest_field_3.jpg
63
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Picture Sources
Slide 16 “Seattle Climate Partnership” http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/Seattle_Climate_Partnership.jpg
Slide 16 “Climate Registry” http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/images/ClimateRegistryLogo.jpg
Slide 16 “poker hand” - http://blogs.fayobserver.com/faytoz/files/2008/12/pokerhand.jpg
Slide 17 “scales of justice” http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/scales_of_justice.jpg
Slide 46 “charter bus” - http://www.usabuscharter.com/BusNewExt.jpg
Slide 57 “bulls eye” - http://itleaders.com.au/images/bullseye.jpg
64
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
Picture Sources
Slide 58 “risk” - http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u107/risky%20sign.jpg
Slide 59 “geography” - http://www.cesu.k12.vt.us/K-4Resources/images/usmap.jpg
Slide 60 “mitigation” - http://outsourceportfolio.com/wpcontent/themes/revol/images/articles/offshoreRiskMitigation.png
65
Jeremy Stewart - 09.01.2009
