Greenhouse Gas Emissions Verification Report - AC … Transit - 2009...analysis to determine the emissions sources, data systems, and facilities with the highest likelihood of causing

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Verification Report

AC Transit

Prepared by KEMA-Registered Quality, Inc. 4377 County Line Rd. Suite 202 Chalfont, PA 18914 January 31, 2011

AC Transit i Proprietary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Verification Report 2/22/2011

Table of Contents: 1. Verification Summary........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Pre-Verification Activities .................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Sampling Plan............................................................................................................................. 1

4. Core Verification Activities .................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Recalculation Results.................................................................................................................. 3 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Discussion of Results.................................................................................................................. 4

5. Assessment of Conformance with the GRP .......................................................................................... 5 Appendices: A Final AC Transit CRIS Report B Verification Plan C Supporting Calculations D Verification Checklist E Verification Statement

AC Transit 1 Proprietary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Verification Report 2/22/2011

1. Verification Summary

Reporter Name: AC Transit Verification Body Name DEKRA Certification Inc. (formerly KEMA-Registered Quality Inc.) Verification Body Contact Justin Dunning Lead Verifier Justin Dunning Supporting Verifier Pankaj Hande (in training) Senior Reviewer David Millar Reporting Year 2009 Reporting Scheme The Climate Registry – GRP v 1.1 Geographical Scope of Verification

North America

Emissions Scope CO2 Operational Boundaries Control Standards Used The Climate Registry (TCR) General Verification Protocol v2.0 (GVP)

TCR General Reporting Protocol v1.1 (GRP) ISO 14064-3 2006 ISO 14065 2007

Objectives An evaluation of the following:

The emissions report’s conformance with applicable verification criteria, principles and requirements of TCR’s General Reporting Protocol.

The GHG inventory of GHG emissions and removals

The organization’s GHG related controls.

Criteria The verification criteria are established in TCR’s GVP. The

verification criteria requires emissions reports to contain no material misstatements, which are defined as any error or combination or errors which add up to more than 5 percent of the total combined emissions from Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect).

Level of Assurance Reasonable Assurance Verification Findings Verified


2. Introduction

DEKRA Certification, Inc (DCI) has performed a greenhouse gas emissions verification for the Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) for calendar year 2009 emissions report submitted to the Climate Registry (TCR). AC Transit is a non-profit public transit provided serving the Bay Area of California with busses operating primarily in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The inventory was prepared by Sue Chaewsky from AC transit and Chirs lawless from Cameron Cole, LLC. DCI performed the verification in accordance with the General Verification Protocol version 2.0 (GVP). This report is a summary of DCIs findings.

3. Pre-Verification Activities

DCI performed the following routine pre-verification activities:

Submitted Conflict of Interest form to the TCR. DCI received approval to proceed with the verification on October 8, 2010.

DCI reviewed AC transit’s emissions report submitted to the Climate Registry Information System (CRIS). The emissions report is included in Appendix A.

DCI reviewed the greenhouse gas emissions inventory spreadsheet developed by AC transit and Cameron Cole.

DCI reviewed the greenhouse gas emissions inventory management plan developed by AC transit and Cameron Cole

DCI conducted a verification kick-off conference call with AC Transit on October 15, 2010.

3.1 Risk Assessment

Based on information gathered prior to and during the kick-off meeting, DCI developed an initial risk analysis to determine the emissions sources, data systems, and facilities with the highest likelihood of causing errors in reporting of greater than 5 percent of scope 1 (direct) and scope 2 (indirect) emissions. Table 1 presents DCI’s guidelines for assessing risk in data systems and calculation methodologies.


Table 1: Guidelines for Control System and Methodological Risk Assessment

Risk Level Control System Guidelines Methodological Guidelines

High

Data sets are of questionable accuracy due to high chance of human error. Hand kept run logs for fuel or mileage are an example. Data is disorganized and must be found in multiple places.

Reporter enters pre-calculated emissions totals based on methodologies and emissions factors from un-established or questionable sources.

Medium

Data systems are organized primarily electronically however a significant data entry effort is required. Primary records may be kept as paper copies such as utility and fuel invoices. Data is organized either centrally or in few locations.

Reporter enters pre-calculated emissions totals based on methodologies and emissions factors taken from well established sources outside the GRP such as U.S. EPA, IPCC, etc.

Low

Data systems are primarily electronic and automated. There is little to no need for human data entry. Data is centrally organized, easy to search, and routinely monitored for accuracy.

Reporter uses Tier A calculation systems such as CEMS, uses CRIS to calculate emissions, or uses default emissions factors and methodologies for pre-calculated emissions totals.

Based on a review of AC transit’s control systems, DCI developed the following risk assessment presented in Table 2.


FORM 402. Risk Analysis Table

SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS (Direct)

Emissions SourceEmissions

Type # of SourcesData Management

System Calculation Methodology

Total CO2e (metric tons)

% of Emissions in Scope 1

Data System Risk

Methodology Risk

Overall Risk of Material Misstatement

Revenue Vehicles (Diesel) Mobile 629

Inventory Management System, Difference in Daily Tank measurements plus daily deliveries

Tier B - Default EFs based on Fuel use 67,460 95.045% Medium Low Medium

Non Revenue Vehichles (Gasoline) Mobile 193


Tier B - Default EFs based on Fuel use 1,378 1.941% Medium Low Low

Facility Gas Use Stationary 7Fuel Use from utility Bills, default emissions factors.

Tier C for CO2 - Default Efs based on fuel invoices 2,104 2.964% Low Low Low

All other sources

Mobile, fugitive, stationary Unknown Various

Various - Generally Tier C & default emissions factors 35 0.049% High Low LowTOTALS 70,977 100.00%

SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS (Indirect)






Data System Risk

Methodology Risk


Owned Office Space Indirect 11 Utility Bills 2008 PUC Report 2,613 99% Low High MediumLeased Office Space Indirect 1 Utility Bills 2008 PUC Report 29 1% Low High Low

TOTALS 2,642 100%


3.2 Sampling Plan

DCI devised a sampling plan of representative emissions sources based on an evaluation of the inventory’s methodological and data risk. The largest sources are diesel combustion emissions from the Bus fleet, followed by purchased electricity, followed by natural gas use and fleet gasoline use.

DCI focused on fleet use since 95% of emissions stem from that source, as well as the purchased electricity since that represented 100% of the scope 2 emissions. We planned to review the fuel management systems in place. A comparison of fuel use form the accounting database was made to the facility level fuel receipts to verify the accuracy of the fuel reporting.

On-site, DCI planned to audit the fuel data management system to determine if this process is robust and accurate. Engineer’s logs and purchase records for diesel and gasoline were to be collected.

The following sampling plan addressed each of these major sources by choosing a sample size based on an evaluation of emissions magnitude versus data management system risk. The sampling plan was included in the verification plan (Appendix B).


FORM 403. Sampling Plan TableSCOPE 1 DATA SAMPLE

Emissions Category

Facility Site Visit? Source Specific sources to be

recalculated

Rationale

Mobile Combustion

Fleet Vehichles yes Diesel and Gasoline used at CMF and 4 Bus

Yards

CO 2 Largest and most important source. Low level of effort to recalculate based on fuel records. Please provide fuel usage records & fuel purchase records.

SCOPE 2: DATA SAMPLEEmissions Category

Facility Site Visit? Source Specific Data to be Audited

Rationale

Purchased Electricity

Powerplant water pumps

Yes Electricity Seminary Bus yard and

Corporate offices

Largest indirect source. Provide copies of invoices.

Purchased SteamNone

Purchased Chilled Water

None


4. Core Verification Activities

Core verification activities included visiting selected AC Transit facilities and gathering primary data for sources listed in the sampling plan. DCI staff visited the following facilities as part of the assessment:

AC Transit Corporate Offices – One of the largest sources of electricity use and also where the accounting department is located.

Emeryville Bus Yard – One of four main fueling yards for the bus fleet

Seminary Bus Yard - One of four main fueling yards for the bus fleet

Central Maintenance Facility – Location of the staff who prepare the GHG inventory as well as monitor organization wide fuel usage

4.1 Recalculation Results

Following the site visit, DCI recalculated emissions estimates for sources specified in the sampling plan. Table 4 presents the results of the recalculation.

Table 4: Recalculation Results

SCOPE 1: SAMPLED DIRECT EMISSIONS

RECALCULATEDREPORTED EMISSIONS

PERCENT DIFFERENC

ECO2 CO2

(metric tons) (metric tons)Diesel Consumption 6,639,083 Gallons 67,487 67,460 -0.04%Gasoline Consumption 176,055 Gallons 1,378 1,378 0.01%

TOTAL SCOPE 1 68,865 68,838 -0.04%

SCOPE 2: SAMPLED INDIRECT EMISSIONS


PERCENT DIFFERENC

ECO2 CO2e

(metric tons) (metric tons)Purchased Eelctricity 3,838,662 kWh 1,261 1,117 -12.94%TOTAL SCOPE 2

Source Consumption Units



4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

After comparing DCI’s emissions estimates to Mesquite Power’s, DCI used a sensitivity analysis to understand how misstatements propagate through an overall inventory. To achieve this, the percent difference for each source is multiplied by that source category’s percent contribution to the inventory.

Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis

According to our analysis, AC Transit’s emissions inventory contains a cumulative misstatement of 0.3% percent in Scope 1 and 5.4% in Scope 2.

4.3 Discussion of Results

The following bullet points include DCI’s analysis of AC Transit’s data control systems and emissions calculations by source.


AC Transit collects PG&E power bills for 11 facilities containing 16 meters. Sampling of the invoices confirmed that the correct kWh values were used. However, AC Transit uses a generator specific emissions factor based on PG&E’s 2008 PUP report. This value is 641 lbs CO2/MWH, the value provided in table 14.1 is 724 pounds CO2/MWH. This difference is greater than 5%. However, since the values form table 14.1 is based on 2005 data, it is reasonable to use a generator specific emissions factor based on 2008. Particularly since the 2009 data is not available. The calculation methodology follows the guidance provided in an update on 2/11/2010.

Percent Contribution to Scope 1

Percent Difference from sample

Total Percent Misstatement

Diesel Consumption 95% 0% 0.0%Gasoline Consumption 2% 0% 0.0%Fugitive Emissions 0.0%Process Emissions 0.0%Total Scope 1 0.0%


Percent Difference from Sample


Purchased Electricity 42% -13% -5.4%Total Scope 2 -5.4%

SCOPE 2: INDIRECT EMISSIONS

SCOPE 1: DIRECT EMISSIONS

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS


Fleet Combustion

AC Transit has a robust data management system surrounding the purchase and use of fuel. Fuel represents the largest non-payroll operating costs for AC Transit.

The greenhouse gas inventory was based on fuel purchase records. AC transit verifies fuel purchases on receipt through using a Veeder-Root system.

DCI sampled the daily tank readings and compared them to the data entered into their fuel data management database. No discrepancies were found for either diesel or gasoline use.

AC Transit has lease agreements with the Alameda County Sherriff Department and UC Berkeley allowing them to use AC transit’s refueling facilities. The fuel used by these entities has been included from the calculations. If these sources were included, they would not materially affect the reported emissions value.

5. Assessment of Conformance with the GRP

The verification criteria for a material misstatement in the GVP is plus or minus 5 percent from the correctly calculated emissions estimate. According to our analysis, Mesquite Power has no material misstatements.

DCI will be able to verify the emissions inventory. A copy of the verification statement is included in Appendix E.

Mesquite Power Proprietary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Verification Report 2/22/2011

Appendix A: Mesquite Power CRIS REPORT

CRIS: Climate Registry Information SystemEntity Emissions Detailed ReportAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District(Private)2/9/2011 8:49:45 PST

Transitional Report

Entity Information

Entity NameEntity Address

94603 United StatesOakland California10626 International Blvd.Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

Entity WebsiteSue ChaewskyEntity Contact

Contact Email [email protected] PhoneNon-profit Government or AcademicEntity Type

Description

2009 Emissions Information

The Climate Registry's General Reporting Protocol v. 1.1 (May 2008) and associated updates and clarificationsReporting ProtocolConsolidation Methodology Operational Control OnlyReporting Status Verification in Progress

Page 1 of 44


Transitional Report

Operational Control: National - US

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6DIRECT EMISSIONS (metric tons)N2OCH4CO2

000002,133.760752,133.76075Stationary Combustion - Scope 1

0000068,842.8342968,842.83429Mobile Combustion - Scope 1

0000000Process - Scope 1

0000000Fugitive - Scope 1

70,976.59504TOTAL DIRECT EMISSIONS 70,976.59504 0 0 0 0 0

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6INDIRECT EMISSIONS (metric tons)N2OCH4CO2

000002,642.158632,642.15863Purchased Electricity - Scope 2

0000000Purchased Heating - Scope 2

0000000Purchased Cooling - Scope 2

0000000Purchased Steam - Scope 2

2,642.15863TOTAL INDIRECT EMISSIONS 2,642.15863 0 0 0 0 0

CO2BIOGENIC EMISSIONS (metric tons)

Stationary Biomass Combustion - Biomass 0

Mobile Biomass Combustion - Biomass 0

TOTAL BIOGENIC EMISSIONS 0

Page 2 of 44


Transitional Report

SIMPLIFIED ESTIMATION METHODS (metric tons)

63.73104SEMS Total (CO2e):

%: 0.08657

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (metric tons)

N2OCH4CO2

Scope 1 (Optional) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Biomass (Optional) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 000000TOTAL Optional EMISSIONS

Page 3 of 44


Transitional Report

Page 4 of 44


Transitional Report

Page 5 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Corporate OfficesDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes

Equity Share (%) N/A

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6DIRECT EMISSIONS (metric tons)

N2OCH4CO2

Stationary Combustion - Scope 1 260.07044 260.07044 0 0 0 0 0

Mobile Combustion - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fugitive - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

260.07044TOTAL DIRECT EMISSIONS 260.07044 0 0 0 0 0

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6INDIRECT EMISSIONS (metric tons)

N2OCH4CO2

Purchased Electricity - Scope 2 539.16693 539.16693 0 0 0 0 0

Purchased Heating - Scope 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Purchased Cooling - Scope 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Purchased Steam - Scope 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

539.16693TOTAL INDIRECT EMISSIONS 539.16693 0 0 0 0 0

Page 6 of 44


Transitional Report

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6BIOGENIC EMISSIONS (metric tons)

N2OCH4CO2

Stationary Biomass Combustion - Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mobile Biomass Combustion - Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0TOTAL BIOGENIC EMISSIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0

CO2e PFCs (CO2e)HFCs (CO2e) SF6Optional EMISSIONS (metric tons)

N2OCH4CO2





0TOTAL Optional EMISSIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0


SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

10.52651

1.31707

Page 7 of 44


Transitional Report

SourceName Activity Type TechnologyGHG CO2-e

*t ReferenceFuel FuelQuantity

EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc

Method OXEnd UseSector

FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

EmergencyGenerators

StationaryCombustion -Scope 1

CO2 10.52651 10.52651 Emission Factor UnspecifiedTechnology

Commerc..PetroleumProducts

Distillate FuelOil No. 2

1031 gal 10.21 kg/gal Y GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary2010Table 12.1

Furnaces andWater Heaters



Commerc..Natural Gas Unspecified(WeightedU.S. Average)

47066therm

53.02kg/MMBtu

GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary 2010Table 12.1

PurchasedElectricity

PurchasedElectricity -Scope 2


All WECC California All 1853369kWh

641.35lb/MWh

GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary 2010Tables 14.1

EF from 2008 PGE PUP Report

Customized

Page 8 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: FleetDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2

Stationary Combustion - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mobile Combustion - Scope 1 68,842.83429 68,842.83429 0 0 0 0 0

Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


68,842.83429TOTAL DIRECT EMISSIONS 68,842.83429 0 0 0 0 0


N2OCH4CO2

Purchased Electricity - Scope 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




0TOTAL INDIRECT EMISSIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 9 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

4.86

0.00706

Page 10 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

CombustionEngines(Diesel)

MobileCombustion -Scope 1

CO2 67,460.15523 67,460.15523 Emission Factor Uncontrolled Heavy-DutyVehicles

Diesel Fuel All 6607263gal

10.21 kg/gal GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary 2010Table 13.1

CombustionEngines(Gasoline)


CO2 1,377.81906 1,377.81906 Emission Factor Uncontrolled PassengerVehicles

Motor Gasoline All 156927 gal 8.78 kg/gal GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary 2010Table 13.1

CombustionEngines(PropaneForklifts)


CO2 4.86 4.86 PreCalculated PreCalculated PreCalcul ..PreCalculated PreCalculated 79.59124MMBtu

Y PreCalculated

Page 11 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Emeryville Bus Yard (D2)Does the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 12 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

6.18726

0.85127

Page 13 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

EmergencyGenerators










58644therm

53.02kg/MMBtu






641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 14 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Richmond Bus Yard (D3)Does the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 15 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

6.3302

1.59666

Page 16 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

EmergencyGenerators










32693therm

53.02kg/MMBtu






641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 17 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Seminary Bus Yard (D4)Does the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 18 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

3.26657

0.28401

Page 19 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

AcetyleneTorches


CO2 0.03 0.03 PreCalculated UnspecifiedTechnology


Acetylene 0.41328MMBtu

Y GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary 2010Table 12.4

EmergencyGenerators










107385therm

53.02kg/MMBtu






641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 20 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Hayward Bus Yard (D6)Does the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 21 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

2.69292

0.34755

Page 22 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

AcetyleneTorches






EmergencyGenerators










68096therm

53.02kg/MMBtu






641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 23 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Central Maintenance FacilityDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 24 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

1.13758

0.14645

Page 25 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

AcetyleneTorches






CompressedGasMachining


CO2 0.05774 0.05774 PreCalculated PreCalculated PreCalcul ..PreCalculated PreCalculated 0 MMBtu Y PreCalculated

EmergencyGenerators










76118therm

53.02kg/MMBtu






641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 26 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Training FacilityDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 27 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

0.03

0.02923

Page 28 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel

AcetyleneTorches










6752 therm 53.02kg/MMBtu






641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 29 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Radio Communication TowerDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0TOTAL DIRECT EMISSIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0


N2OCH4CO2






Page 30 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

0

0

Page 31 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel




All WECC California All 12497 kWh 641.35lb/MWh



Customized

Page 32 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Eastmont Training CenterDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 33 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

0

0

Page 34 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel







Customized

Page 35 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: Richmond Parkway Transit CenterDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 36 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

0

0

Page 37 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel







Customized

Page 38 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: 66th AveDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 39 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

0

0

Page 40 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel






EF from 2008 PGE PUP report.

Customized

Page 41 of 44


Transitional Report

TOTAL EMISSIONS: 1400 Franklin Street OfficeDoes the Entity control the Facility's emissions? Yes



N2OCH4CO2



Process - Scope 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




N2OCH4CO2






Page 42 of 44


Transitional Report


N2OCH4CO2





N2OCH4CO2







SEMS Total (CO2e):

%:

28.7

100

Page 43 of 44


Transitional Report



EmissionFactor

HeatContent SEMCalc


FuelType

CarbonContent

CoefficientPerform

EfficiencyFactor

Amount*t

LabelLabel




All WECC California All 98639 kWh Y GRP Updates andClarificationsFebruary 2010Tables 14.1

Multiplied usable space by 13.49 kwh/ft2 (PGE Annual Intensity Factor) for usage.

Page 44 of 44


Appendix B: Verification Plan

KEMA Registered Quality, Inc. 4377 County Line Road, Chalfont, PA 18914

T (215) 997-4519 F (215) 997-3810 www.krqusa.com

Date 10-25-2010 Subject: Verification Plan for AC Transit Ms. Sue Chaewsky: This letter briefly describes a general overview of the scope and breadth of verification activities for AC Transit General Verification Plan Version 2.0 Last revised on 11-10-2010 The verification will achieve the following objectives: Level of assurance –The level of assurance a Verification Body attaches to its verification work dictates the relative degree of confidence the Verification Body has in its assessment of the accuracy of the reported data, and by extension the level of confidence that the Registry or other users can place in the reported information. KRQ will evaluate AC Transit’s inventory to a standard of Reasonable Assurance. Reasonable Assurance statements are usually crafted in a positive fashion; a Verification Body provides reasonable assurance that an emission report is materially correct. A reasonable assurance opinion is generally considered to generate the highest possible level of confidence. Objectives – The objectives of this verification of AC Transit’s emissions report include an evaluation of:

The emissions report’s conformance with applicable verification criteria, principles and requirements of TCR’s General Reporting Protocol.

The organization’s GHG inventory of GHG emissions and removals Any significant changes in the organizations GHG inventory since the last reporting

period The organization’s GHG related controls.

Criteria – KRQ will evaluate AC Transit’s inventory against the verification criteria established in TCR’s General Verification Protocol. TCR’s verification criteria requires emissions reports to contain no material misstatements, which are defined as any error or combination or errors which add up to more than 5 percent of the emissions total in both Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions. Scope – KRQ will evaluate the scope of AC Transit’s inventory including:

Date Page 2

FM 404 - Rev B 2/20/2009

FORM 401. Verification Scope

1. General Information

AC Transit

10626 International BlvdOakland, CA 94603

Sue Chaewsky(510) [email protected]

Transit Provider

Justin DunningPankaj Hande, David MillarJulia Vetromile

The Climate RegistryGRPTransitionalReasonable AssuranceAnnual

20091st year

North AmericaOperational Control

71,005 2,613

CO2 OnlyN/AN/A

5%

Types of GHGs ReportedIndirect Emissions Total (CO2e)

Reporting Year

Organizational BoundariesGeographic Boundaries

% Change Direct Emissions% Change Indirect Emissions

Reporting Cycle Year

Materiality Threshold

Applicable Protocols

KRQ Lead Verifier

Verification Frequency

Reporter TypeLevel of Assurance

Reporter Name

ReporterAddress

Primary Contact

Direct Emissions Total (CO2e)

NAIC Code

Description of Reporter Business/Activities

Phone E-mail

SIC Code

Additional Verifiers

Baseline Year

Reporting Scheme

Senior Lead Verifier

Date Page 3

FM 404 - Rev B 2/20/2009

2. Facility List

Name Address Contact Name/Phone

Emeryville Bus Yard1177 47th St, Emeryville, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8869

Richmond Bus yard213 21st St, Richmond, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8870

Hayward Bus Yard 1758 Sabre St, Hayward, Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8871

Seminary Bus Yard900 Seminary Ave, Oakland, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8872

Central Maintenance Facility10626 International Blvd, Oakland CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8873

Corporate Offices1600 Franklin St, Oakland CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8874

1400 Frankiln st Offices1400 Franklin St, Oakland, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8875

Training Facility20234 Mack St, Hayward, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8876

Radio Communciation Tower

Radio Rd KBRG Bldg, Site D San Bruno MT, Daly City, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8877

Eastmont Transit Center7235 Foothill Blvd #B, Oakland, CA Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8878

66th Ave 905 66th Ave Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8879Sue Chaewsky (510) 577-8880

3. Emissions Sources List

Scope Type Sources

Stationary CombustionFurnaces , water heaters, emergency genrators

Mobile Combustion

Fleet vehichles using diesel, Light duty and heavy duty trucks using gasoline and diesel

Process Emissions NoneFugitive Emissions NonePurchased Electricity Purchased electricityPurchased Steam None

Purchased Chilled Water None

FM 401 - Rev A - 2/18/09

1 Direct

2 Indirect

Date Page 4

FM 404 - Rev B 2/20/2009

To date, KRQ has performed the following planning activities for AC Transit

Kick off meeting – Held 10-15-2010 Document review including calculation spreadsheets Risk assessment based on the review of information systems and controls. Sampling plan to verify sources, systems, or facilities deemed to be high risk of material

misstatement Notice of Verification form has been submitted to TCR.

The balance of the verification will consist of the following activities:

Desk review of AC Transit’s CRIS report Collect sample data including on-site visits. Review documentation. Recalculate emissions estimates. Extrapolate discrepancies to

the overall inventory. Determine if any material misstatements are present. Report findings to AC Transit. Allow for inventory corrections if necessary. Enter verification statement into CRIS.

An updated schedule is attached:

Milestone Date

Submit COI 10-1-10

Contract Signed 8-27-10

Project Initiation/Kick-off 10-15-10

Develop Risk Analysis 10-25-10

Develop Sampling Plan/NVA 10-25-10

On Site Sampling 11-9-2010 and 11-12-2010

Recalculation & Analysis 11-19-10

Verification Report and Statement

11-29-10

QA/QC 12-3-10

Verification in CRIS 12-17-10

KEMA Registered Quality, Inc. 4377 County Line Road, Chalfont, PA 18914

T (215) 997-4519 F (215) 997-3810 www.krqusa.com

Risk Assessment

FORM 402. Risk Analysis Table

SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS (Direct)






Data System Risk

Methodology Risk


Revenue Vehicles (Diesel) Mobile 629


Tier B - Default EFs based on Fuel use 67,460 95.045% Medium Low Medium

Non Revenue Vehichles (Gasoline) Mobile 193


Tier B - Default EFs based on Fuel use 1,378 1.941% Medium Low Low

Facility Gas Use Stationary 7Fuel Use from utility Bills, default emissions factors.

Tier C for CO2 - Default Efs based on fuel invoices 2,104 2.964% Low Low Low

All other sources

Mobile, fugitive, stationary Unknown Various

Various - Generally Tier C & default emissions factors 35 0.049% High Low LowTOTALS 70,977 100.00%

SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS (Indirect)






Data System Risk

Methodology Risk


Owned Office Space Indirect 11 Utility Bills 2008 PUC Report 2,613 99% Low High MediumLeased Office Space Indirect 1 Utility Bills 2008 PUC Report 29 1% Low High Low

TOTALS 2,642 100%

ate age 6

M 404 - Rev B 2/20/2009

Sampling Plan Description of Sampling Plan strategy: 93% of reported emissions are from mobile combustion sources. The fuel usage records will be compared with fuel purchase records for consistency. Site visits will examine the data management process surrounding the capture of fuel usage data. Indirect electricity use will also be evaluated, electricity bills from the two largest usage facilities will be compared with input values, and the emissions factor will be checked for accuracy. FORM 403. Sampling Plan TableSCOPE 1 DATA SAMPLE

Emissions Category

Facility Site Visit? Source Specific sources to be

recalculated

Rationale

Mobile Combustion

Fleet Vehichles yes Diesel and Gasoline used at CMF and 4 Bus

Yards

CO 2 Largest and most important source. Low level of effort to recalculate based on fuel records. Please provide fuel usage records & fuel purchase records.

SCOPE 2: DATA SAMPLEEmissions Category

Facility Site Visit? Source Specific Data to be Audited

Rationale


Powerplant water pumps

Yes Electricity Seminary Bus yard and

Corporate offices

Largest indirect source. Provide copies of invoices.

Purchased SteamNone

Purchased Chilled Water

None


Appendix C: Supporting Calculations

Electricity Recalculation

Bill Month Svc From Svc To# of days

Seminary - D4 -

9310937056Seminary

MMA SolarProrated Usage (kWh)

January 12/18/2008 1/20/2009 33 186400 10,407 123,377 February 1/20/2009 2/19/2009 30 172320 12,874 185,194 March 2/19/2009 3/20/2009 29 160800 22,518 183,318 April 3/20/2009 4/21/2009 32 152320 25,060 177,380 May 4/21/2009 5/21/2009 30 121920 32,214 154,134 June 5/21/2009 6/22/2009 32 135680 32,065 167,745 July 6/22/2009 7/22/2009 30 124160 32,813 156,973 August 7/22/2009 8/20/2009 29 125760 29,388 155,148 September 8/20/2009 9/21/2009 32 145760 21,657 167,417 October 9/21/2009 10/20/2009 29 132960 17,358 150,318 November 10/20/2009 11/19/2009 30 137440 13,311 150,751 December 11/19/2009 12/21/2009 32 148000 17,379 165,379 January '10 12/21/2009 1/20/2010 30 144480 48,160

1,985,293.70

Bill Month Svc From Svc To# of days Corporate HSE

Prorated Usage (kWh)

January 12/23/2008 1/23/2009 31 76,800 80,400 116,632 February 1/23/2009 2/24/2009 32 82,500 81,300 163,800 March 2/24/2009 3/25/2009 29 74,100 83,400 157,500 April 3/25/2009 4/27/2009 33 82,200 84,000 166,200 May 4/27/2009 5/19/2009 22 53,100 99,000 152,100 June 5/19/2009 6/25/2009 37 90,300 76,800 167,100 July 6/25/2009 7/27/2009 32 75,600 103,500 179,100 August 7/27/2009 8/24/2009 28 68,100 113,400 181,500 September 8/24/2009 9/24/2009 31 78,300 0 78,300 October 9/24/2009 10/23/2009 29 73,500 58,500 132,000 November 10/23/2009 11/23/2009 31 76,800 93,900 170,700 December 11/23/2009 12/23/2009 30 78,300 72,900 151,200 January '10 12/23/2009 1/25/2010 33 80,400 73,200 37,236

1,853,368.62

3,838,662.32 1,261.19 1,117.03

13%

Emissions Factors, from EPA, CAMX, WECC Californialb C02/MWh 724.12 Table 14.1 http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2010/08/Default-Emissions-Factors.xlslb C02/MWh 641.35 PGE 2008 PUP Report

Diesel Combustion Recalculation

CFS CFWA D-2 D-3 D-4 D-6 Total CO2Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons mTons

Jan - - 124,797 82,200 165,634 168,431 541,062 5,524 Feb - - 119,645 76,978 157,474 158,534 512,631 5,234 Mar 3,046 - 135,852 89,868 181,780 182,830 593,376 6,058 Apr - - 129,838 86,432 169,573 176,034 561,877 5,737 May 632 - 123,334 81,921 162,489 162,492 530,868 5,420 Jun 54 - 79,523 52,918 104,709 105,697 342,901 3,501 Jul 741 - 181,034 120,397 237,256 244,201 783,629 8,001 Aug 245 - 125,947 82,509 163,495 165,646 537,842 5,491 Sep 70 - 127,918 84,853 168,219 163,162 544,222 5,557 Oct - - 131,252 92,884 169,237 170,943 564,316 5,762 Nov 666 - 124,833 80,683 159,268 163,596 529,046 5,402 Dec 101 - 137,932 90,362 185,271 183,647 597,313 6,099

Gallons 5,555 - 1,541,905 1,022,005 2,024,405 2,045,213 6,639,083 67,785 mTons CO2 57 - 15,743 10,435 20,669 20,882 67,785

Data from "Monthly Fuel Usage.pdf"

October and May Data from District 2 checcked against MSO 119 report

MSO 119 Report fuel purchases check against hard copy reciepts

Emission FactorTable 12.1 Diesel Fuel kg Co2/Gallon= 10.21

Miles Driven 80,334 MilesMPG 2.75 Miles/GallonGallons 29,212 GallonsCO2 298.26 mTons

Bought Used Bought Used1-Oct Thur 5006 1-May Fri 51032-Oct Fri 7772 5294 2-May Sat3-Oct Sat 3-May Sun4-Oct Sun 4-May Mon 102445-Oct Mon 7755 10839 5-May Tue 7485 46806-Oct Tue 7778 4900 6-May Wed 14968 48457-Oct Wed 4808 7-May Thu 52258-Oct Thu 7795 5413 8-May Fri 7571 48669-Oct Fri 5057 9-May Sat

10-Oct Sat 10-May Sun11-Oct Sun 11-May Mon 1034612-Oct Mon 7793 9919 12-May Tue 14940 479413-Oct Tue 7813 4885 13-May Wed14-Oct Wed 7787 5038 14-May Thu 15056 1023415-Oct Thu 7790 5103 15-May Fri 505716-Oct Fri 5049 16-May Sat17-Oct Sat 17-May Sun18-Oct Sun 18-May Mon 1049119-Oct Mon 7758 10115 19-May Tue 15478 489920-Oct Tue 7796 4783 20-May Wed 15565 516521-Oct Wed 7777 5083 21-May Thu 516722-Oct Thu 7772 5003 22-May Fri 7780 510523-Oct Fri 4957 23-May Sat24-Oct Sat 24-May Sun25-Oct Sun 25-May Mon26-Oct Mon 7759 10273 26-May Tue 7788 1207027-Oct Tue 7779 4971 27-May Wed 498928-Oct Wed 7803 5252 28-May Thu 15559 496629-Oct Thu 7763 4697 29-May Fri 508830-Oct Fri 4807 30-May Sat31-Oct Sat 31-May Sun

124490 131252 122190 123334

Diesel Fuel Usage

Detailed Fuel Usage, May 2009, October 2009

Berkely

Gasoline Combustion Recalculation

CFS CFWA D-2 D-3 D-4 D-6 Total CO2Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons mTons

Jan - - 5,828 2,066 3,598 2,051 13,543 119 Feb - - 6,550 1,877 3,016 1,863 13,306 117 Mar 5,198 - 6,791 2,101 3,538 2,398 20,026 176 Apr 895 - 4,034 1,925 5,194 2,275 14,323 126 May 1,775 - 4,004 1,833 5,063 2,233 14,908 131 Jun 232 - 2,624 1,263 2,687 1,299 8,105 71 Jul 1,564 - 5,834 3,069 5,884 3,042 19,393 170 Aug 1,701 - 4,074 1,746 4,224 2,381 14,126 124 Sep 1,642 - 4,039 2,020 4,995 1,926 14,622 128 Oct - - 4,027 2,107 5,161 2,352 13,647 120 Nov 2,043 - 4,031 1,724 4,667 2,105 14,570 128 Dec 1,133 4,571 1,959 5,073 2,750 15,486 136

Gallons 16,183 - 56,407 23,690 53,100 26,675 176,055 1,546 mTons CO2 142 - 495 208 466 234 1,546

Data from "Monthly Fuel Usage.pdf"

October and May Data from District 2 checcked against MSO 119 report

MSO 119 Report fuel purchases check against hard copy reciepts

Emission FactorTable 12.1 Motor Fuel kg Co2/Gallon= 8.78



Used Used1-Oct Thur 196 1-May Fri 1482-Oct Fri 130 2-May Sat3-Oct Sat 3-May Sun4-Oct Sun 4-May Mon 2825-Oct Mon 230 5-May Tue 1526-Oct Tue 199 6-May Wed 1787-Oct Wed 149 7-May Thu 1808-Oct Thu 153 8-May Fri 1629-Oct Fri 191 9-May Sat

10-Oct Sat 10-May Sun11-Oct Sun 11-May Mon 27412-Oct Mon 308 12-May Tue 17113-Oct Tue 200 13-May Wed 19114-Oct Wed 111 14-May Thu 19215-Oct Thu 167 15-May Fri 19416-Oct Fri 186 16-May Sat17-Oct Sat 17-May Sun18-Oct Sun 18-May Mon 38419-Oct Mon 228 19-May Tue 19620-Oct Tue 190 20-May Wed 11821-Oct Wed 196 21-May Thu 15522-Oct Thu 123 22-May Fri 13123-Oct Fri 127 23-May Sat24-Oct Sat 24-May Sun25-Oct Sun 25-May Mon26-Oct Mon 294 26-May Tue 38927-Oct Tue 149 27-May Wed 26228-Oct Wed 178 28-May Thu 11429-Oct Thu 157 29-May Fri 13130-Oct Fri 165 30-May Sat31-Oct Sat 31-May Sun

4027 4004

Gasoline Fuel Usage

Berkely

Detailed Fuel Usage, May 2009, October 2009

Sheriff

SCOPE 1: SAMPLED DIRECT EMISSIONS


PERCENT DIFFERENC

ECO2 CO2

(metric tons) (metric tons)Diesel Consumption 6,639,083 Gallons 67,487 67,460 -0.04%Gasoline Consumption 176,055 Gallons 1,378 1,378 0.01%

TOTAL SCOPE 1 68,865 68,838 -0.04%

SCOPE 2: SAMPLED INDIRECT EMISSIONS


PERCENT DIFFERENC

ECO2 CO2e

(metric tons) (metric tons)Purchased Eelctricity 3,838,662 kWh 1,261 1,117 -12.94%TOTAL SCOPE 2


Percent Difference from sample


Diesel Consumption 95% 0% 0.0%Gasoline Consumption 2% 0% 0.0%Fugitive Emissions 0.0%Process Emissions 0.0%Total Scope 1 0.0%


Percent Difference from Sample


Purchased Electricity 42% -13% -5.4%Total Scope 2 -5.4%


SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

SCOPE 2: INDIRECT EMISSIONS

SCOPE 1: DIRECT EMISSIONS



Appendix D: Verification Checklist

Document #: FM 407

Revision: Issue Date: VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

A 8/5/2009

Confidential Page 1 of 6

Client Name: AC Transit Reporting Year: 2009 Lead Verifier: Justin Dunning

Requirement Yes/No Evidence/Explanation

1. Is the Reporter a legal entity under U.S., Canadian, or Mexican law?

Yes AC Transit Website

2. Is the Reporter a subsidiary of any other company, and if so is the parent company also reporting to the Registry?

No

3. If the Reporter is submitting a transitional report, is the Reporter eligible to do so?

Yes First year TCR, CO2 only

4. If the Reporter has used any simplified estimation methods not prescribed in the General Reporting Protocol, do the emissions estimated using these methods constitute 5% or less of the Reporter’s total emissions?

Yes CRIS Report & GHG Inventory Spreadsheet

5. If the answer to Question 4 is yes, are the simplified methods used appropriate, and are the results reasonable?

N/A

6. Have any mergers, acquisitions, or divestitures occurred during the current reporting year?

No Kick Off meeting

7. Have any activities been outsourced or insourced in the current year?

No Kick Off meeting

8. Have any changes in calculation methods or data sources been made since the base year?

No Kick Off meeting

9. If the answer to any of Questions 6, 7, and/or 8 is yes, would the cumulative effect of the mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, outsourcing, insourcing, and methodological changes on base year emissions exceed 5%?

N/A

10. If the answer to Question 9 is yes, has the Reporter adjusted base year emissions?

N/A

11. Has the Reporter provided all required emissions data?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet

12. [For Reporter’s using the equity share approach] Does the emission report include all processes and facilities for which the Reporter holds an equity share? If not, why?

N/A

13. [For Reporter’s using the financial control approach] Does the emission

N/A

Document #: FM 407


A 8/5/2009


report include all processes and facilities under the financial control of the Reporter? If not, why? 14. [For Reporter’s using the operational control approach] Does the emission report include all processes and facilities under the operational control of the Reporter? If not, why?

Yes Kick Off meeting, Lease documents

15. Does the report include all facilities and sources of GHG emissions within the geographic boundaries of the Reporter? Or, if the Reporter is a Transitional Reporter, does the report include all facilities and sources within the states, provinces, and or native sovereign nations that the Transitional Reporter has chosen?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet

16. Does the report include all applicable types of GHGs from each facility and emission source within the geographic and organizational boundaries of the Reporter? Or, in the case of Transitional Reporters, does the report include all emissions of the GHGs that the Reporter has chosen to report (and, at a minimum, CO2) from each facility and emission source within the geographic and organizational boundaries of the transitional Reporter?

Yes CRIS Report, GHG Inventory Spreadsheet

17. Has the reporting entity included all of its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for each facility?

Yes CRIS Report, GHG Inventory Spreadsheet,

18. Have the Scope 1 emissions been broken down by source type (stationary combustion, mobile combustion, fugitive and process)?


19. Have biogenic CO2 emissions been reported separately from the Scope 1 emissions?

N/A

20. Are the calculation methodologies/procedures used to compute GHG emissions at the source level among those described in the General Reporting Protocol? If not, why?


21. If a non-GRP methodology has been used because the General Reporting Protocol does not provide any methodology for the particular source(s)

N/A

Document #: FM 407


A 8/5/2009


in question, is the methodology that was used an industry standard for this source type(s)? 22. Are appropriate methods used to manage and implement entity-wide GHG emissions reporting programs? If the Reporter has more than one facility, is the emissions data correctly monitored?


23. Is a qualified individual responsible for managing and reporting GHG emissions?

Yes Kick Off meeting, Cameron Cole consulting

24. Is appropriate training provided to personnel assigned to GHG emissions reporting duties? If the Reporter relies on external staff to perform required activities, are the contractors’ qualified to undertake such work?

Yes Kick Off meeting, Cameron Cole consulting

25. Are appropriate documents created to support and/or substantiate activities related to GHG emissions reporting activities, and is such documentation retained appropriately? For example, is such documentation maintained through reporting plans or procedures, utility bills, etc.?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet,, Cameron Cole consulting

26. Are appropriate mechanisms used to measure and review the effectiveness of GHG emissions reporting programs? For example, are policies, procedures, and practices evaluated and updated at appropriate intervals?

Yes Fuel Purchase monitored closely/constantly

27. Does the system account for the diversity of the sources that comprise each emission category? For example, are there multiple types of vehicles and other transportation devices that require different emission estimation methodologies?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet,

28. Do you know the diversity of GHGs emitted from each emission source category?

N/A Transitional CO2 only

29. When available, has the Reporter used the emission factors, GWPs and standardized estimation methods in the Registry’s General Reporting Protocol to calculate emissions in each source category? a) Are the methodologies, data sources

Yes, yes, yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, GHG management plan,

Document #: FM 407


A 8/5/2009


and emission factors documented and explained appropriately? b) Has the Reporter correctly documented the General Reporting Protocol’s tier ranking for each General Reporting Protocol methodology used? 30. Does the Reporter’s GHG management system appropriately track emissions

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, GHG IMP

31. Based on the table on page 39 of the GVP, have you visited an appropriate number of sites?

Yes

32. Are the reported electricity, steam, and district heating and cooling use consistent with utility bills?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, CRIS Report, recalculation results

33. Is the reported total stationary fuel use by fuel type consistent with the fuel use records?


34. Is the reported total consumption of fuels in motor vehicles consistent with available documentation and by vehicle type? If the entity calculates transportation emissions based on vehicle mileage, is the reported vehicle mileage consistent with vehicle mileage records?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, GHG management plan, CRIS Report

35. Is the reported process and fugitive emissions consistent with activity data or maintenance records?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, CRIS Report, Previous year verification

36. Are the emission factors used by the Reporter appropriate? o If Registry default factors are not

used, do the alternative emission factors provide increased accuracy?

o Is the derivation and explanation of increased accuracy properly documented and reasonable?

Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, Previous year verification CRIS Report, recalculation results

37. Does a sample of the Reporter's calculations agree with your re-calculated Scope 1 (mobile, stationary, process & fugitive), Scope 2, and Direct Biogenic CO2 (Mobile and Stationary) emissions estimates? Have you documented your process for determining the appropriate sampling


38. Are all required GHG emissions Yes GHG Inventory Spreadsheet,

Document #: FM 407


A 8/5/2009


included? CRIS Report, recalculation results, transitional CO2 only

39. Are the current year's reported emissions significantly different from the base year? If so, what has changed from the base year?

No GHG Inventory Spreadsheet, CRIS Report, recalculation results

40. Are discrepancies between your emissions estimates and the Reporter's immaterial?


Confirmation of Achievement of Registry Requirements Requirement Date Achieved Evidence

Bid on a Verification Contract 7/1/10 Submit Case-Specific COI Assessment Form to Registry

10/08/10

Negotiate Contract with Reporter 8/27/10 Notify Accreditation Body and the Registry of Planned Verification Activities Conduct Kick-off Meeting With Reporter

11/5/10

Develop Verification Plan 10/29/10 Verification Plan Identify and list all Facilities in the Entity 10/29/10 Verification Plan Identify and list all Emission Sources (of Scope 1 Mobile, Scope 1 Stationary, Scope 1 Process, Scope 1 Fugitive, Scope 2, Direct Biogenic CO2 Mobile, and Direct Biogenic CO2 Stationary Emissions)

10/29/10 Verification Plan

Identify and list all Fuel Types 10/29/10 Verification Plan Rank All Sources by Magnitude on a CO2e Basis


Assess Any Changes in Geographic and Organizational Boundaries


Evaluate Procedures and Systems for Preparing Emission Report

11-30-10 Verification Report

Evaluate Personnel and Training 11-30-10 Verification Report Assess if the uncertainty associated with methodologies and management systems is more than appropriate

11-30-10 Verification Report

Develop Sampling Procedures for Sources Based on Risk of Material Misstatement

11-30-10 Verification Plan

Confirm Total Fuel Consumption 12-13-10 Recalculation results Confirm Vehicle Miles Traveled N/A Confirm that appropriate Emission Factors are Used. If not Default Factors, ensure the Derivation and Explanation of

12-13-10 Recalculation results

Document #: FM 407


A 8/5/2009


increased Accuracy is properly Documented Calculate Scope 1 (Mobile, Stationary, Process & Fugitive), Scope 2, and Direct Biogenic CO2 (Mobile and Stationary) Based on Sampling Procedures


Compare Estimates from Sample Calculations to Reported Emissions


Determine if There are Any Discrepancies Between Sample Calculation and Reported Emissions


Determine if any reporting errors have caused material misstatements


Prepare a Detailed Verification Report & Submit to Reporter

2-14-10 Verification report

Prepare a Verification Statement & Submit to Reporter

Conduct Verification Meeting with Reporter to Discuss & Finalize Verification Report & Statement

Communicate Verification findings to the Registry via CRIS

Retain Relevant Verification Documents & Records

I, Justin Dunning do attest that the information recorded above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

________________ ______ Lead Verifier Signature Date _____________________________________ ________________ Senior Reviewer Signature Date


Appendix E: Verification Statement