November 2008

• Eastern Pima County

• City of Tucson

• Pima County Government Operations

• City of Tucson Government Operations

i

PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

REGIONAL COUNCIL

Chair

Ramon Valadez

Supervisor Pima County

Vice Chair

Lynne Skelton

Mayor Town of Sahuarita

Treasurer

Ned Norris Jr. Chairman

Tohono O’odham Nation

Member

Peter Yucupicio

Chair Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Member

Paul Loomis

Mayor Town of Oro Valley

Member

Jennifer Eckstrom

Mayor City of South Tucson

Member

Robert Walkup

Mayor City of Tucson

Member

Ed Honea Mayor

Town of Marana

Member

S. L. Schorr

Arizona State Transportation Board

Representative

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Rakesh Tripathi, Arizona Department of Transportation, Tucson Planning Division Enrique Serna, Manager, City of South Tucson

Arcadio Gastellum, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Richard Miranda, Assistant Manager, City of Tucson Charles Huckelberry, Administrator, Pima County

Gilbert Davidson, Manager, Town of Marana James Stahle, Manager, Town of Sahuarita

Fred Stevens, Project Specialist, Tohono O’odham Nation David Andrews, Manager, Town of Oro Valley

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Gary G. Hayes

Environmental Planning Coordinator

Dennis Dickerson

Air Quality Planning Staff:

Air Quality Planning Manager

Lee Comrie

Air Quality Planner

Susanne Cotty

November 2008

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................. v 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................1 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................2 3. Project Objectives .........................................................................................................................................................3 5. Location-Specific Methodology and Preliminary Results................................................................................7

A. Eastern Pima County...............................................................................................................................................7 B. Tucson....................................................................................................................................................................... 16 C. Pima County Government Operations........................................................................................................... 24 D. City of Tucson Government Operations........................................................................................................ 31

6. Inventory Role and the Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 38 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Area.................................................................................................................8 Figure 2. Comparison of Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006........................9 Figure 3. Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions 1990-2006..................................................................................9 Figure 4. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector ...................................................................... 12 Figure 5. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Source ..................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Comparison of Tucson GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006................................................ 19 Figure 7. Tucson GHG Emissions 1990 to 2006..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Sector ................................................................................. 20 Figure 9. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Source................................................................................ 21 Figure 10. Comparison of County Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000-2007 ........................... 25 Figure 11. County Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007............................................................................. 25 Figure 12. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Sector .................................................................... 27 Figure 13. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Source ................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Comparison of City Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000 and 2007.......................... 32 Figure 15. City Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007 ................................................................................... 32 Figure 16. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Sector ........................................................................... 34 Figure 17. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Source .......................................................................... 35

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Eastern Pima County Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons CO2e) and Energy (million Btu)

1990 to 2006 ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2. Summary of County Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to

2006 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3. Tucson Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) and Energy (million Btu) 1990 to 2006..... 18 Table 4. Summary of City Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to 2006 22 Table 5. Pima County Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons), Energy (million Btu)

and Expenditures (dollars) 2000 to 2007....................................................................................................... 30 Table 6. City of Tucson Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons), Energy (million Btu)

and Expenditures (dollars) 1990-2007 ........................................................................................................... 37

iii

APPENDICES

A: Data Sources for Community and Government Inventories B: Population Data for the United States, Arizona, Eastern Pima County and the City of Tucson C: Emissions Factors for Electricity Use D: Pima County Community Inventory Summary E: Waste Characterization Standards F: EPA WARM Model Emission Factors G: City of Tucson Community Inventory Data Summary H: Pima County Government Inventory Data Summary I: City of Tucson Government Inventory Data Summary

iv

Acknowledgments

Numerous representatives from various organizations have contributed to the production of this report and their efforts are greatly appreciated. We extend a special note of thanks to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and the City of Tucson for their contributions. Additionally, various members of Pima Association of Governments, Tucson Electric Power, Southwest Gas, Tohono O’odham Utility Authority, Trico Electric Cooperative Inc. , Tucson International Airport , Ryan Airfield, Marana Airport, Union Pacific Railroad, Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality provided data and guidance in compiling this report. A full list of contributors is contained in Appendix A.

v

List of Acronyms

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

APC Arizona Portland Cement Company

Btu British thermal units

B-20 Biodiesel containing 20 percent vegetable oil and 80 percent diesel

CACP Clean Air and Climate Protection model

CH4 Methane

CKD Cement Kiln Dust

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents

DOE Department of Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration (department within DOE)

eGRID Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KWh Kilowatt hours

LTO Landings and Take-offs

MMBtu Million British thermal units

N2O Nitrous oxide

PAG Pima Association of Governments

PCWRD Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department

PDEQ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality

PFC Perfluorocarbons

RCI Residential, Commercial and Industrial sectors

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

TEP Tucson Electric Power

TIA Tucson International Airport

TRP Travel Reduction Program

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WARM Waste Reduction Model

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

1

1. Executive Summary Pima Association of Governments (PAG), on behalf of Pima County and the City of Tucson and with direction from the PAG Regional Council, has completed the first draft of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory for the region since an initial inventory was completed for the City of Tucson in 1998. This inventory is intended to be a living document, to be updated as new and more accurate data become available. This report presents initial estimates of historical and current anthropogenic GHG emissions for select years from 1990 to 2006 for eastern Pima County and the City of Tucson (hereinafter referred to as the County and the City respectively). The County inventory encompasses the entire Tucson region inclusive of the City, with the City inventory only reflecting emissions from within the city limits. In addition, Pima County and City of Tucson government inventories (hereinafter referred to as the County government and the City government) were developed for 2000 to 2007, which focus on emissions generated in their respective government operations. These estimates are intended to provide County and City stakeholders with an initial understanding of past and current regional GHG emissions and to serve as a basis for analyzing and designing mitigation plans and strategies. Pima County has experienced rapid population and economic growth from 1990 to 2006, with a concurrent increase in GHG emissions. The City experienced a somewhat slower increase in population and GHG emissions. County GHG emissions increased by 46 percent during this period, while emissions generated within the City showed a 34 percent increase over 1990 levels. Nationally, GHG emissions are estimated to have increased 15 percent from 1990 to 2006 (USEPA, 2008), reflecting the slower population growth. In contrast, Arizona’s rapid population and economic growth is reflected in the concurrent increase in GHG emissions that were projected to increase 60 percent over the same period (Bailie et al, 2006). Population statistics can be found in Appendix B. Modeling analyses for 2006 conducted for this report estimate that the County region produced 14.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), while emissions originating within the City were 7.3 million metric tons of CO2e. From 1990 through 2006, transportation and energy use by the various economic sectors produced the largest share of GHG emissions both at the County and City levels. In 2006, 34 percent of the County GHG emissions were from transportation, while energy use from residential, commercial and industrial energy use totaled 64 percent, with residential energy use being the largest contributor at 27 percent. The City’s major sources and trends of GHG emissions mirror those of the County. In 2006, emissions due to City residential, commercial and industrial energy use totaled 63 percent and transportation emissions were 33 percent of total City emissions, respectively. In 2006, County government emissions were less than 1 percent of total County emissions. County government emissions in 2007 were 141,739 metric tons, representing a 47 percent rise over 2000 levels. With the exception of employee commuting, emissions from all other inventoried sources experienced growth in GHG emissions over this seven-year period. The majority of this increase can be attributed to energy use in County facilities and in wastewater treatment which exhibited the greatest rate of growth over this time. The emissions from energy use in County

2

government facilities averaged 51 percent of emissions and wastewater treatment averaged 25 percent from 2000 to 2007. Emissions from the County fleet and employee commute vehicle use, waste disposal and public lighting combined are responsible for an average of 24 percent of total emissions from 2000 to 2007. Electricity is the major form of energy consumed and averaged 63 percent of total County government emissions from 2000 to 2007. In 2006, City government emissions were approximately 3 percent of total City community emissions. City government emissions in 2007 were 225,632 metric tons, representing a 6 percent reduction over 2000 levels. Water energy use and waste disposal emissions increased from 2000 to 2007 while emissions from facility energy use, vehicle fleet, employee commute declined over this same period. Emissions generated from energy used in pumping, treating and distributing drinking water remain the greatest contributor to City government emissions from 2000 to 2007, averaging 50 percent of total emissions. Facility energy use emissions, another significant component of City government emissions, averaged 21 percent of the totals over this same period. Emissions generated by reclaimed water energy use, public lighting, City fleet, employee vehicle use and waste disposal, combined, make up the remaining 29 percent of City government totals over this seven-year period. Electricity is the predominant form of energy consumed and is responsible for an average of 75 percent of emissions from 2000 to 2007.

2. Introduction Scientific consensus that the earth’s climate is being affected by human activities has been documented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a series of assessment reports (IPCC, 2007). Increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere represent an elevated risk of inducing climate change. In response, governments across the world have endorsed measures to establish goals for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases. On Sept. 7, 2006, Arizona’s Governor Napolitano signed Executive Order 2006-13, which established a statewide goal to reduce Arizona's future GHG emissions to the 2000 emissions level by the year 2020, and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040. In 2006, the City endorsed the United States Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and the goals of the Kyoto Protocols.1 The first step in achieving effective reductions is to establish a baseline against which future emissions can be compared. In 1997, the City commissioned a report that provides a snapshot of carbon dioxide emissions (Fuller and Rauluk, 1998). This report characterized carbon dioxide emissions only for the City of Tucson and their operations. In 2006, the State of Arizona produced a statewide emissions inventory (Bailie et al, 2006). This report, however, does not provide a county-by-county analysis. Although these reports served as references, a reliable equivalent comparison of City and County emissions to these inventories cannot be made.

1 Adopted by Tucson Mayor and Council on September 6, 2006. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve a reduction of 7 percent in GHG emissions (as measured in 1990) by the year 2012. The U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement urged the adoption of policies to achieve even greater GHG emission reductions than required by the Kyoto Protocol.

3

This report presents initial estimates of historical and current Pima County and City anthropogenic GHG emissions for the period from a baseline of 1990 to 2006 using generally accepted principles and guidelines contained in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software for local GHG emissions. These estimates are intended to provide county and city stakeholders with an initial understanding of current regional GHG emissions to guide in analyzing and designing GHG mitigation strategies.

The inventory is structured to provide GHG emissions from the entire community of eastern Pima County (inclusive of the City) and a separate inventory reflecting emissions from the City of Tucson alone. Inventories focusing specifically on government activities of Pima County and Tucson are forthcoming. Three main greenhouse gases are included here [carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O)], as in the U.S. and Arizona GHG inventories. These greenhouse gases are emitted largely from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel. Emissions of these greenhouse gases are presented as CO2

equivalents (CO2e), indicating the relative contribution of each gas weighted according to its relative contribution to global climate change. Unlike the state and national inventories, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are not included but may be addressed in a subsequent version of this report. Local fluorinated hydrocarbons emissions are expected to represent a very small proportion of the total of all greenhouse gases.

3. Project Objectives In October 2007, the PAG Regional Council approved a resolution to conduct a GHG emissions inventory for eastern Pima County. The goal of this resolution is to provide a regional, broad-based GHG emissions inventory which will serve as baseline information to assist the region and government agencies in assessing emissions, measuring the region’s overall progress in achieving long-term GHG emission reductions and enabling the development of programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions. This preliminary inventory is not meant to be a precise accounting of GHG emissions but is designed to provide a resource for regional planning for the future. It is important to note that this report has not been validated by an independent party and is not a tool designed for developing regulations. Care also should be exercised in comparing the results of this inventory to those done by other communities since the sources analyzed and/or the greenhouse gases included are likely to be different.

4

4. General Methodology Community Inventories

To prepare both community GHG emissions inventories, three major emission sources were considered: energy consumption, transportation and waste disposal. Energy use was disaggregated into residential, commercial and industrial sectors electricity and natural gas use. Transportation from on-road vehicles was disaggregated by vehicle type and fuels used. Waste disposal was factored by disposal method and composition. In addition, other sources were added to include local cement production, local propane use, stationary diesel use, as well as aviation fuels and locomotive sources. While these data are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and in Appendices D and G, they are not included in the inventory analyses or in diagrams due to the absence of 1990 data. Subsequent drafts could include emissions generated by additional sources. Using the CACP model and emission factors, as appropriate, GHG emissions were estimated for select years from 1990 to 2006. The model was used to calculate emissions for all electricity and natural gas use, transportation and waste estimations. Propane and industrial diesel use emissions were estimated using emission factors imbedded in the CACP model. Emissions generated by locomotives and aviation fuels were estimated using Department of Energy emission factors corresponding to fuel type. Emissions from cement production were estimated using EPA methodology (USEPA, 2008). Local data and emissions factors were used whenever possible. Assumptions used in compiling the data are provided in this report. These estimates are preliminary and will be revised as more data becomes available. Energy use, transportation and waste disposal data from 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 (as available) were compiled and analyzed using the CACP software, which calculates GHG emissions produced by electricity, natural gas, miles traveled and from solid waste disposal. In this report, CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions are estimated and expressed as metric tons of CO2e. In addition, the CACP model also reports energy use as Btu consumption. Local energy use, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and waste disposal data were entered into the model and converted to CO2e emissions using specific emission factors or coefficients. These emission factors specify the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of energy used, miles traveled and waste disposed. These factors were then applied to activity levels in order to calculate emission levels. Annual electricity emission factors were calculated using emissions data from TEP generating resources and were supplied by TEP for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 to estimate CO2e emissions. Appendix C contains TEP emission factors used in this report. Emissions associated with TEP power purchases for all years were estimated using the eGRID WECC Southwest Region average coefficient upon TEP’s staff recommendations. EPA’s eGrid database provides air quality information on most electrical power plants in the United States using information obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Emissions data from these various sources are collected and grouped

5

according to geographic location to determine a regional average CO2e emission coefficient per unit of electricity used. Trico emission factors were supplied by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Appendix C). These factors were applied to Trico’s use data to determine CO2e emissions which are included in the electricity totals for the County. To evaluate emissions from natural gas consumption, usage data was entered into the CACP model which converts therms of natural gas into Btus and CO2e emissions, using coefficients from the Department of Energy’s Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Guidelines http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html. Emissions from natural gas and electric use are based on end-use energy consumption data, not on the emissions resulting from the production of that energy. For example, emissions from electricity consumed by residential, commercial and industrial sectors are reported, not emissions due to combustion of fuel at the electric generation facilities. Emissions from on-road vehicle fuel use are calculated for gasoline, diesel, B-20 and compressed natural gas (CNG). Data are entered as VMT per year for each type of vehicle by fuel type. Model default fuel economies for each vehicle/fuel combination are used and are based on the EIA Energy Data book and Tellus Institute research. Default emission factors depend on the type of fuel used and are derived from EPA data and the IPCC guidelines. Emissions resulting from waste disposal depend on waste composition and the method of treatment. The waste emission factors used in this inventory were from the EPA’s most recent evaluation, updated in August 2002. GHG emission and energy reductions resulting from waste diversion were estimated using EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) (USEPA, 2006). The model uses a life-cycle approach accounting for emissions avoided in producing replacement materials (upstream) and disposal-related emissions (downstream). Calculations are based on a comparison of the CO2e emissions and energy use that would be incurred if materials were landfilled and the savings realized through alternative waste management practices (e.g. source reduction, recycling, composting). Emissions generated by locomotives, aircraft fuel use and propane consumption are evaluated separately and included in the “Other” category. The 2000 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) yard and line haul locomotives’ CO2 emissions were based on diesel use data taken from an inventory commissioned by PAG (Envair, 2001). Emissions from yard and line haul locomotives for 2005 and 2006 were derived using diesel use data supplied by UPRR. Locomotive diesel combustion totals are included in the other category. EIA diesel emission factors were used to determine all CO2e emissions (EIA, 2007). Emissions from jet fuel and aviation gasoline use at Tucson International Airport (TIA), Ryan Airfield and Marana Airport were derived using the EIA’s fuel emission factors (EIA, 2007).

6

Propane emissions were derived from emission factors imbedded in the CACP model. In addition to emissions generated by industrial electricity and natural gas use, direct emissions from County industries are estimated. Specifically, 2000, 2005 and 2006 emissions from cement production and diesel use at Arizona Portland Cement (APC) and fuel combustion from Phelps Dodge Sierrita mining operations are presented. Emission factors in the CACP model were used to estimate diesel and B-20 use emissions. At the time of this report, only data from these two industries were available. Subsequent report versions could include other industrial sources. PAG’s Air Quality Planning staff prepared these analyses in close consultation with representatives of the City and County, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Southwest Gas, Tohono O’odham Utility Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Inc. and Trico Electric Cooperative Inc (Trico). Additionally, representatives of three area airports, Union Pacific Railroad, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office provided data for this report. Technical guidance was provided by the ICLEI staff who, in cooperation with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and Torrie Smith Associates, developed the inventory software used in this report. Government Operations Inventories

To prepare both government operations GHG emissions inventories, three major emission sources were considered: energy consumption, on-road vehicle use and waste disposal. Electricity and natural gas use data are presented for facility, water distribution and treatment and public lighting. On-road vehicle use included travel by government fleets and employee commuting and was disaggregated by vehicle and fuel type. Waste disposal was factored by disposal method and composition. Energy use, transportation and waste disposal data from 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (as available) were compiled and analyzed using the CACP software, as in the community inventories. Additionally, cost data for each category were compiled for all survey years. Annual TEP and Trico emission factors were used to estimate emissions from electricity use (Appendix C). At the time of this report, a 2007 TEP emission coefficient was not available and the 2006 emission coefficient was used to estimate 2007 electricity-related emissions. Gasoline, diesel, B-20 and CNG emissions generated by government fleets and employee commuting are included. As in the community inventory, emissions generated by these types of on-road vehicle use were determined using the U. S. Department of Energy’s Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Guidelines coefficients http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html. Emissions generated by natural gas use and waste disposal were calculated in the same manner as in the community inventories. PAG’s Air Quality Planning staff prepared these analyses in close consultation with representatives of the County and City governments.

7

5. Location-Specific Methodology and Preliminary Results Four inventories are detailed in this section: Pima County and Tucson community inventories and Pima County and City of Tucson government operations inventories. The County inventory as defined in this analysis encompasses the greater metropolitan area that also includes the City of Tucson. The areas specified for the County and City inventories are outlined (Figure 1). Emissions from select years from 1990 to 2006 are included in these community inventories. The County and City community GHG inventories include emissions generated by government operations, however, the CACP model provides the option to induct separate modeling for detailing government-generated emissions. Emissions for both government activities are included for select years from 2000 to 2007. For both County and City government inventories, 2000 is the earliest year that complete data are available. Therefore, comparisons of emissions, energy consumption and expenditures are made using 2000 and 2007 information. A. Eastern Pima County Residential, Commercial and Industrial (RCI) Sector Energy Use Energy use for the RCI sectors only includes natural gas and electricity. Other fuel sources such as heating oil and wood are not included in this initial inventory. The relative percentages provided in this report are likely to change when additional data are obtained. The residential sector is based on household energy use for activities such as heating, cooling and lighting. The industrial sector includes energy use by the utility companies, mining and agriculture. Industrial activities include manufacturing, production and factory operations. The commercial sector encompasses fuel and electricity used in non-residential buildings such as schools, hospitals and retail facilities. Government-owned facilities and institutional activity also are included in this sector. Electricity and natural gas use data, by sector, were submitted by TEP, Trico and Southwest Gas, respectively. The Tohono O’odham Nation purchases its electricity from TEP and its emissions were determined using the annual TEP-supplied electricity coefficients. Total electricity use data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were supplied by the Tohono O’odham Utility Authority staff. Based upon their recommendation, one-third of the total use was designated as residential and two-thirds was entered as commercial. Tribal electricity-use emissions are included in the County residential and commercial sectors’ electricity totals (Table 1). Electricity for the Pascua Yaqui tribe is supplied by Trico and is included in the residential and commercial electricity data. Southwest Gas supplies natural gas to both the Tohono O’odham nation and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe; it is included in the natural gas residential and commercial totals. From 1990 to 2006, energy use by the RCI sectors remained the greatest contributor to GHG emissions (Figure 2). Emissions from total County energy use have shown a steady increase over this 16-year period (Figure 3). Combined RCI energy use during 2006 produced 64 percent of the County’s GHG emissions (Figure 4). Of total County

8

emissions, approximately 57 percent can be attributed to electricity use from these three sectors; natural gas usage is responsible for 8 percent of total CO2e emissions for 2006 (Figure 5).

Figure 1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Area

9

0

4,000,000

8,000,000

12,000,000

16,000,000

1990 2006Year

CO2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Transportation Residential Energy Use Commercial Energy UseIndustrial Energy Use Waste

Figure 2. Comparison of Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006

0

4,000,000

8,000,000

12,000,000

16,000,000

1990 1995 2000 2005Year

CO2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Residential Energy Use Commercial Energy Use Industrial Energy Use

Transportation Waste Total

Figure 3. Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions 1990-2006

10

On-Road Transportation Emissions from on-road vehicle activity only are reported here; travel and fuel use by nonroad vehicles and equipment (tractors, bulldozers, and lawnmowers) are not presented in this report. Information on the total VMT for 1990 to 2006 was developed for the County using PAG’s travel demand forecasting model. PAG’s current travel forecasting model is a standardized four-step procedure model that covers trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice and traffic assignment. VMT is one of the most widely used outputs produced and also provides the forecasting for future travel in eastern Pima County. Estimates for 1990 were based on model runs done that year for transportation planning purposes. The 2000 VMT data were obtained from model runs performed in 2002 for a 2000 On-Road Emissions Inventory (PAG, 2004). The VMT data for 2005 and 2006 reflect recent model runs done by PAG’s Technical Services Division staff for eastern Pima County (Appendix D). Based on the U.S. average and ICLEI’s staff recommendations, CACP model defaults were used to apportion the local vehicle mix.2 Specifically, 93 percent of the vehicles were assumed to be gasoline-powered and 7 percent was assumed to be diesel. The model default VMT allotted to buses was removed and replaced by actual transit data provided by Sun Tran. In addition to the VMT driven by private and commercial vehicles, the inventory also includes 1990 to 2006 VMT data from public transit (Sun Tran, Old Pueblo Trolley, Ticet, Coyote Run), rural transit and special needs paratransit and university shuttles, as available. These are referred to as “Other Transportation” in Table 1 and are listed individually in Appendix D. From 1990 to 2006, emissions associated with private, commercial and public transportation contribute significantly to County GHG totals (Table 1). Over this period, private and commercial vehicles contributed the greatest amount to transportation emissions (99.7 percent). In 2006, 34 percent of County CO2e emissions were attributed to transportation (Figure 4). In 2006, emissions from gasoline-powered private, commercial and public vehicles contributed 27 percent of total GHG emissions; diesel use was responsible for 6 percent of emissions (Figure 5).

2 Model default vehicle mix: Gasoline - Auto (full-size) = 8.5 percent; auto (mid-size) = 18.7 percent; auto (compact/subcompact) = 33.0 percent; light truck/SUV/pickup = 32.4 percent; motorcycle = 0.4 percent. Diesel - Auto (compact/subcompact) = 0.3 percent; light truck/SUV/pickup = 1.3 percent; heavy truck = 5.2 percent; bus = 0.2 percent.

11

Table

1. E

astern

Pim

a C

ounty

Gre

enhouse

Gas Em

issions (m

etric tons CO

2e) and Energ

y (m

illion Btu

) 1990 to 2006

1990

2000

2005

2006

Perc

ent CO

2e

Change

1990-2

006

CO

2e

(metric tons)

MM

Btu

CO

2e

(m

etric tons)

MM

Btu

CO

2e

(m

etric tons)

MM

Btu

CO

2e

(m

etric tons)

MM

Btu

Residential Energ

y U

se

Electricity

1,901,924

7,373,084

2,801,674

11,114,183

3,446,426

13,439,430

3,608,783

14,079,656

Natu

ral G

as

451,025

8,047,134

503,455

8,982,587

469,901

8,383912

459,469

8,197,794

Residential Tota

l 2,352,949

15,420,218

3,305,129

20,096,770

3,916,327

21,823,342

4,068,252

22,277,450

73

Com

merc

ial Energ

y U

se

Electricity

1,235,612

5,705,634

1,617,714

6,413,811

2,036,099

7,822,904

2,109,300

8,245,709

Natu

ral G

as

319,789

4,787,865

347,013

6,191,368

330,103

5,889,666

337,429

6,020,365

Com

merc

ial Tota

l 1,555,401

10,493,499

1,964,727

12,605,179

2,366,202

13,712,570

2,446,729

14,266,074

57

Indust

rial Energ

y U

se

Electricity

2,454,013

9,517,092

3,009,036

11,924,148

2,768,660

10,835,382

2,798,833

11,127,712

Natu

ral G

as

164,644

2,937,558

703,455

12,550,967

391,949

6,993.109

370,937

6,618,219

Indust

rial Tota

l 2,618,657

12,454,650

3,712,491

24,475,115

3,160,609

17,828,491

3,169,770

17,745,931

21

Tra

nsp

ortation

Private

and com

mercial v

ehicle use

3

3,415,256

43,660,650

4,298,737

55,000,983

4,839,584

62,187,638

4,915,312

63,196,348

Oth

er transp

ortation

14,540

185,018

14,673

195,283

13,534

195,307

15,477

229,228

Tra

nsp

ortation T

ota

l 3,429,796

43,845,668

4,313,410

55,196,266

4,853,118

62,382,945

4,930,789

63,425,576

44

Wast

e D

isposa

l Tota

l4

224,689

238,610

258,024

274,245

22

Tota

l 10,1

81,4

92

82,2

14,0

35

13,5

34,3

67

112,3

73,3

30

14,5

44,2

80

115,7

47,3

48

14,8

89,7

85

117,6

59,3

99

46

Oth

er

Loco

motives

89,632

5

1,216,198

84,617

1,148,674

86,620

1,175,733

Aviation G

as6

56

793

456

6,320

515

5,882

495

6,966

Je

t A

6

38,682

540,000

31,413

438,534

35,566

496,555

33,859

472,723

Pro

pane

86,242

1,282,001

92,717

1,378,254

84,343

1,253,772

Indust

rial Pro

cess

n.a.

n.a.

AZ Portland Cem

ent (p

roce

ss)

924,275

0

1,049,413

0

1,068,429

0

AZ Portland Cem

ent (fuel)

157

2,182

70

970

150

1,070

Phelp

s Dodge Sierrita M

ine

2,601

33,363

2,190

28,089

2,071

26,566

3 Tra

nsp

ortation VM

T data

for 1990 and 2000 w

ere

estim

ate

d using a differe

nt PAG tra

nsp

ortation m

odel than the m

odel u

sed for 2005 and 2006 (se

e m

eth

ods se

ction)

4 W

aste disposa

l info

rmation for 1990 repre

sents Los Reales only. O

ther landfill data

for 1990 are

not cu

rrently availa

ble.

5 2000 lo

com

otive fuel u

se are

tak

en fro

m Emission In

ventories fo

r the Tucson Air Planning Area. E

nva

ir, 2

001; 2

005 and 2006 data

were

supplie

d by UPRR.

6 A

viation G

as and Jet A tota

ls for 1990 reflect only Rya

n A

irfield

and TIA

use

resp

ectively; 2

000, 2

005 and 2006 aviation gas and Jet A tota

ls repre

sent all C

ounty

airports.

12

Residential

Energy Use

27%

Commercial

Energy Use

16%Industrial

Energy Use

21%

Transportation

34%

Waste

2%

Figure 4. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Sector

Electricity

57%

Natural Gas

8%

Gasoline

27%

Waste

2%

B-20

<1 %CNG

<1 %

Diesel

6%

Totals are the result of rounding values

Figure 5. 2006 Eastern Pima County GHG Emissions by Source Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal data for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 were collected from the Ina, Sahuarita, Tangerine and Los Reales landfills, as available (Appendix D). Waste composition for all landfill waste was determined using results from Arizona and California waste characterization studies (Cascadia, 2003; Cascadia, 2004; Cascadia, 2006) (Appendix E).

13

Waste disposal-related emissions over the 16-year timeframe have increased about 22 percent but remain a small component of total emissions (Table 1). In 2006, emissions due to waste disposal contributed 2 percent to total CO2e emissions (Figure 4). Diverted Waste Recycled waste data from the voluntary collection sites at the Ina, Sahuarita, Tangerine, Catalina, Ina and Los Reales facilities and City and County curbside pickup programs were submitted by County and City staff, as available. Data from 1990 represents voluntary drop-offs collected at Los Reales only. Totals for 2000 represent City green bin collection and voluntary drop-offs at Los Reales and Tangerine landfills. Data from 2005 and 2006 represents County and City curbside pick-ups, private recyclers and voluntary drop-offs at landfills. Savings in CO2e emissions and Btus were estimated using EPA’s WARM model (USEPA, 2006), and results from all County recycling activities are shown in Table 2. A summary of WARM emission factors are included in Appendix F. Table 2. Summary of County Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to 2006

All Pima County Facilities

and Collections7 Recycled Waste

(metric tons)

CO2e Saved (metric tons)

MMBtus Saved

1990 51,710 255,926 1,004,572

2000 30,744 49,562 506,698

2005 75,632 177,417 1,450,024

2006 92,705 231,543 2,037,664 No obvious recycling trend emerges from 1990 to 2006, which may be due to several factors. City green bin recycling started in 1992, and selected materials were collected every other week. Weekly collection of City blue barrel recyclables started in 2002, and was not fully operational until 2003 (Personal communication, Hughes, 2008). County curbside recycling programs began in 1990, but curbside recycling totals were available only for 2005 and 2006. Private hauler data were available for 2005 and 2006 only. Other Emissions from locomotives, aviation gas, jet A and propane use are shown are shown in Table 1 but not included in the calculation for total emissions or figures due to the absence of 1990 data. Appendix D shows gallons of fuel used for the various components.

7 1990 data represents only Los Reales voluntary recycling. The 2000 totals represent green bin City curbside pick-up and County landfills collections only. Totals for 2005 and 2006 represent volunteer, curbside and commercial City and County recycling activities and private hauler collections.

14

Locomotive Emissions All locomotive emissions were allotted to the County inventory due to the difficulty isolating tract sections and fuel usage only within the city limits. The 2000 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) yard and line haul locomotives’ fuel use are taken from an inventory commissioned by PAG (Envair, 2001). UPRR staff provided fuel use data for 2005 and 2006. EIA’s (2007) diesel emissions factors were used to evaluate emissions (CO2: 10.15 kg/gallon; N2O: 0.26 g/gallon and CH4: 0.8 g/gallon) were used to calculate CO2e emissions for all years. Emissions from County locomotive activity declined by 3 percent from 2000 to 2006 (Table1). Aviation Fuels: Aviation Gas and Jet A All aviation fuel emissions were allotted to the County inventory due to difficulty in portioning County vs. City airshed emissions. Aviation gas and Jet A fuel use data were collected from TIA, Ryan Airfield and Marana Airport staff for 2000, 2005 and 2006; only TIA Jet A and Ryan Airfield aviation gas estimates were available for 1990. Davis-Monthan fuel use information was not available for public release. Based upon other airport GHG studies and TIA staff guidance, only 10 percent of the total aviation gas and Jet A fuel from the three airports was used to calculate emissions produced in the County airshed. This 10 percent represents the fuel used during the landings and take-off (LTO) phase. EIA’s emission factors for aviation gas (CO2: 8.31kg/gallon; CH4: 7.26 g/gallon; N2O: 0.09 g/gallon) and for Jet A fuel (CO2: 9.57 kg/gallon: CH4: 0.27 g/gallon; N2O: 0.32 g/gallon) were used to determine fuel combustion emissions at all three airports. Individual GHG emissions were entered into the CACP model and are reported as CO2e totals. Emissions for fuel use at these airports are reported as a total CO2e by fuel type (Table 1). Aviation fuel GHG emissions increased 8 percent from 2000 to 2006. Propane State propane sales data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were obtained from the Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office (2008). As suggested by Energy Office staff, population data was used as a surrogate to determine Pima County propane use from state sales totals for 2000, 2005 and 2006. After determining Pima County totals, a population allocation factor (0.96) was used to estimate propane use for the County inventory (PAG, 2008). Emissions were estimated using a propane emission factor contained in the CACP model. Propane use declined slightly from 2000 to 2006 resulting in a 2 percent drop in emissions over this period (Appendix D, Table 1).

15

Industrial Processes At the time of this report, data from just two of the larger industries were available from the state and County regulatory agencies. Presented here are the emissions from Arizona Portland Cement and Phelps Dodge. Subsequent drafts could include emissions generated by other County industrial sources. Arizona Portland Cement (APC) Cement manufacturing generates CO2 from the fuel used in making cement and from the chemical process itself. Both types of emissions associated with cement production are included here. During cement production, an intermediate product, clinker, is produced and CO2 is a byproduct of its formation. A recommended method for estimating process CO2 emissions is based on the amount of clinker produced and using a national default emission factor (CO2 per ton of clinker produced) (IPCC, 2006). In this report, CO2 emissions were calculated following the IPCC guidance and applying the constants specified in EPA’s GHG Inventory (USEPA, 2008). In determining the emission factor, EPA assumed that the average lime fraction of clinker was 65 percent and that a constant mass of CO2 is released per unit of time. The factor used by the EPA and in this report was 0.51 metric tons of CO2 per metric ton of clinker produced. During clinker production, some precursor material remains in the kiln as cement kiln dust (CKD). It is recommended that CO2 emissions from this residual be included in the total CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2006). CKD CO2 emissions are estimated at 2 percent of the

emissions from clinker production and are included in the total (IPCC, 2006; USEPA, 2008). The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) provided APC clinker production data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 (Appendix D). Cement emission totals reflect the total CO2e emissions resulting from clinker production and CKD (Table 1). Emissions from cement manufacturing have increased by 16 percent from 2000 to 2006 (Table 1). ADEQ staff provided diesel and B-20 use for 2000, 2005 and 2006 (Appendix D). Diesel (CO2; 9.51 kg/gallon) and biodiesel (CO2: 7.52 kg/gallon) emission factors embedded in the CACP model were used to estimate CO2e emissions. Diesel fuel use was similar in 2000 and 2006, but declined in 2005, due to the availability of other fuel sources (Appendix D). Although there was a 4 percent increase in fuel use from 2000 to 2006, APC fuel emissions dropped by 5 percent due to the use of B-20 (Table 1). Phelps Dodge Sierrita Mine Data from diesel fuel used in blasting operations was submitted by ADEQ for 2000, 2005 and 2006 (Appendix D). To estimate emissions, a diesel emission factor (CO2: 9.51 kg/gallon) contained in the CACP model was used. Fuel use emissions declined by 20 percent from 2000 to 2006.

16

Pima County Synopsis

County GHG emissions increased by 4.7 million metric tons from 1990 to 2006, representing a 46 percent increase. Energy use by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors remained the major source of GHG emissions from 1990 through 2006. Combined energy use from these sectors represents 64 percent of County emissions in 2006. County residential energy use experienced a 73 percent increase over this 16-year period. Similarly, commercial GHG emissions showed a 57 percent increase over this same period. Industrial GHG emissions, however, showed more modest growth (21 percent). These trends in emissions mirror the rapid increase in County population and economic growth experienced during this period. Electricity is the major energy source used and produced 57 percent of energy-related emissions in 2006; natural gas use is responsible for a smaller portion of energy-based emissions (8 percent). Emissions resulting from on-road private, commercial and public vehicles remained the other major contributor to County emissions from 1990 though 2006. Transportation-related emissions increased by 44 percent from 1990 to 2006. A 72 percent rise in County VMT accounts for this GHG emissions increase. Transportation emissions were approximately 34 percent of the County’s total emissions in 2006. Private and commercial vehicle use produced 99.7 percent of the 2006 transportation emissions. Emissions associated with County solid waste disposal have increased 22 percent over the past 16 years but their relative contribution to County totals remains low, at about 2 percent. This may be attributed to the countywide recycling programs which divert wastes from the landfills.

B. Tucson Residential, Commercial and Industrial (RCI) Sector Energy Use The City electricity and natural gas use data were submitted by TEP and Southwest Gas by sector for several but not all years included in the report. TEP supplied City use for 2002 through 2006 and Southwest Gas supplied City use data applicable to 2000 through 2006. The City’s 1990 and 2000 electricity use values were developed based on data supplied by PAG staff and TEP. The City residential electricity use for 1990 and 2000 is based on communication with PAG’s Technical Services Division using historical data on the number of estimated TEP hookups (PAG, 2008). City commercial and industrial use data for 1990 and 2000 were estimated using the proportion of City use for calendar year 2002 using data provided by TEP. These relative proportions were applied to the County electricity use in the commercial and industrial sectors to estimate the City electricity sector use. City electricity use for 2005 and 2006 for each sector was

17

determined directly using information supplied by TEP (Table 3). The same TEP electricity annual emission factors used for County evaluations were used for estimating the City electricity use emissions. In the absence of City natural gas use data for 1990, PAG staff assumed that the City to County natural gas use proportion was constant from 1990 through 2006. This ratio is based on 2007 use data supplied by Southwest Gas. These relative proportions were applied to the RCI County gas use data to determine City use for 1990 (Table 3). Energy use from the RCI units has remained a major source of City GHG emissions from 1990 to 2006 (Figure 6). In general, there has been a steady increase in RCI energy use emissions from 1990 to 2005. However, from 2005 to 2006, there was a slight decrease in energy-related emissions in the residential and industrial sectors. These declines contribute to the overall 0.1 percent decrease in total emissions from 2005 to 2006 (Figure 7). The City’s emissions in 2006 resulting from electricity and natural gas use in the RCI sectors are responsible for 63 percent of total CO2e emissions (Figure 8). Of these energy use-related emissions, 53 percent is due to electricity; natural gas comprises 10 percent of total energy emissions (Figure 9).

18

Table

3. T

ucs

on G

reenhouse

Gas Em

issions (m

etric tons) and Energ

y (m

illion Btu

) 1990 to 2006

1990

2000

2005

2006

Perc

ent

CO

2e

Change

1990-2

006

CO

2e

(metric

tons)

MM

Btu

CO

2e

(m

etric

tons)

MM

Btu

CO

2e

(m

etric

tons)

MM

Btu

CO

2e

(m

etric

tons)

MM

Btu

Residential Energ

y U

se

Electricity

8

1,159,530

4,485,563

1,541,177

6,103,652

1,596,105

6,250,003

1,571,870

6,253,955

Natu

ral G

as9

218,344

3,865,675

243,726

4,348,534

227,482

4,058,711

222,432

3,968,610

Residential Tota

l 1,377,874

8,381,238

1,784,903

10,452,186

1,823,587

10,308,714

1,794,302

10,222,565

30

Com

merc

ial Energ

y U

se

Electricity

10

84,4324

3,266212

1,071,749

4,244,539

1,272,901

4,984,404

1,293,813

5,147,660

Natu

ral G

as9

173,071

3,087,921

187,805

3,350,802

178,654

3,187,519

182,618

3,258,254

Com

merc

ial Tota

l 1,017,395

6,354,133

1,259,554

7,595,341

1,451,555

8,171,923

1,476,431

8,405,914

45

Indust

rial Energ

y U

se

Electricity

10

1,002,743

3,879,044

1,263,460

5,003,788

1,086,654

4,255,102

1,053,015

4,189,603

Natu

ral G

as9

143,699

2,563,865

613,967

10,954,330

342,088

6,103,499

323,749

5,776,300

Indust

rial Tota

l 1,146,442

6,442,909

1,877,427

15,958,118

1,428,742

10,358,601

1,376,764

9,965,903

20

Tra

nsp

ortation

Private

and com

mercial v

ehicle

use

11

1,680,306

21,481,039

2,114,978

27,060,478

2,381,076

30,596,321

2,409,289

30,976,321

Oth

er transp

ortation

14,314

182,115

13,183

175,554

11,822

171,037

13,660

203,213

Tra

nsp

ortation T

ota

l 1,694,620

21,663,154

2,128,161

27,236,032

2,392,898

30,767,358

2,422,949

31,179,534

43

Wast

e D

isposa

l Tota

l 224,689

- 227,483

- 237,108

- 259,163

- 15

Tota

l 5,4

61,0

20

42,8

41,4

34

7,2

77,5

28

61,2

41,6

77

7,3

33,8

90

59,6

06,5

96

7,3

29,6

09

60,4

81,6

36

34

Oth

er

Pro

pane

n.a.

- 51,535

766,081

53,135

789,868

47,609

707,720

8 Tucs

on residential e

lectricity

use

for 1990 and 2000 is

base

d on com

munication w

ith PAG’s Tech

nical S

erv

ices Division using histo

rica

l data

on the num

ber of estim

ate

d TEP hooku

ps

9 The ratio of Tucs

on : Eastern

Pim

a County

natu

ral g

as use

for 1990 is

assum

ed to be constant from

1990 thro

ugh 2006 and is

base

d on 2007 use

data

supplie

d by South

west G

as

10 The ratio of Tucs

on : Eastern

Pim

a County

com

mercial a

nd in

dustrial e

lectricity use

for 1990 and 2000 is

ass

um

ed to be the sam

e as th

at of 2002 city use

fro

m data

supplie

d by TEP

11 Tra

nsp

ortation VM

T data

for 1990 and 2000 w

ere

estim

ate

d using a differe

nt PAG tra

nsp

ortation m

odel that th

e m

odel u

sed for 2005 and 2006 (se

e m

eth

ods se

ction)

19

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

1990 2006Year

CO

2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Transportation Residential Energy Use

Commercial Energy Use Industrial Energy Use

Waste

Figure 6. Comparison of Tucson GHG Emissions by Sector 1990 and 2006

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

1990 1995 2000 2005Year

CO2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Residential Energy Use Commercial Energy Use Industrial Energy Use

Transportation Waste Total

Figure 7. Tucson GHG Emissions 1990 to 2006

20

On-Road Transportation PAG’s Technical Services provided an estimation of City VMT based upon a 2005 transportation model analysis. In the absence of an annual City to County VMT breakout, PAG staff recommended allotting a 49.2 percent share of County VMT to the City for all years. Only miles driven within the City limits by public, paratransit and university shuttles were included in the City inventory and are listed as “Other Transportation“(Table 3). Emission trends for City travel by private, commercial and public vehicles mirror those of eastern Pima County. Transportation emissions were a major source of City GHG emissions from 1990 to 2006 (Figure 7); of these emissions, 99.4 percent can be attributed to private and commercial vehicle use (Table 3). In 2006, 33 percent of the City’s CO2e emissions were generated by on-road private, commercial and public vehicles (Figure 8). Of those emissions, 27 percent were produced by gasoline-powered vehicles and 6 percent were generated by diesel vehicles (Figure 9).

Residential

Energy Use

24%

Commercial

Energy Use

20%Industrial

Energy Use

19%

Waste

4%

Transportation

33%

Figure 8. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Sector

21

Electricity

53%

Natural Gas

10%

Gasoline

27%

Diesel

6%

Waste

4%

CNG

<1%B-20

<1%

Totals are the result of rounding values

Figure 9. 2006 Tucson GHG Emissions Percent by Source Waste Disposal Los Reales waste disposal information was collected and analyzed for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006 and entered into the CACP model to determine CO2e emissions. It was characterized using the same methods as the County wastes (Cascadia, 2003; Cascadia, 2004; Cascadia, 2006) (Appendix E). Waste-related emissions increased by 15 percent but remained a constant percentage of total City emissions (about 3.5 percent) from 1990 to 2006 (Figure 7). Similar to County trends, 2006 emissions resulting from waste disposal are small (4 percent) in comparison to those produced by energy use and transportation (Figure 8). Diverted Waste Detailed City waste data from voluntary collection bins at Los Reales, community centers, commercial and curbside recycling were submitted by City staff for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2006, as available. CO2e emissions and Btu savings due to waste diversion were estimated using EPA’s WARM model (USEPA, 2006). Benefits for landfill gas capture were included in the savings calculations for 2000, 2005 and 2006 using the national average methane capture efficiency (75 percent). No clear recycling pattern appears from 1990 to 2006 which could be attributed to several aspects. City green bin recycling started in 1992, and selected materials were collected every other week. Weekly collection of City blue barrel recyclables started in 2002, and was not fully operational until 2003 (Personal communication, Hughes, 2008). Therefore, the 1990 totals represent recyclable dropped off at Los Reales by area residents and the 2000 totals represent green bin curbside recycling and voluntary landfill drop-offs. Data from 2005 and 2006 represents full-scale curbside pick-up and Los Reales totals.

22

Table 4. Summary of City Recycled Waste Activity and Emission and Energy Savings 1990 to 2006

City Collections12 Waste Recycled

(metric tons)

CO2e Saved (metric tons)

MMBtus Saved

1990 51,710 255,926 1,004,572

2000 18,189 47,222 505,915

2005 34,279 76,306 825,355

2006 62,597 127,361 1,336,250 Other Propane Propane use and emissions are recorded in Appendix G and Table 3, respectively, but are not included in the City totals as 1990 data were not available. State propane sales data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were obtained from the Arizona Department of Commerce, Energy Office (2008). City propane use was estimated based on City/state population proportions for 2000, 2005 and 2006. City propane use has declined from 2000 to 2006 resulting in an 8 percent drop in emissions over this period. Locomotives and Aviation Fuels Emissions Note that emissions from locomotives are excluded from the City inventory due to the difficulty in isolating track segments and emissions specifically within City boundaries. Likewise, emissions due to aviation gas and Jet A fuel are not included in the City inventory due to the difficulty in isolating City air space that is affected by fuel emissions. Industrial Processes At the time of this report, data were not available for City industrial process emissions. Subsequent reports could include process emissions.

City of Tucson Synopsis

City GHG emissions have increased by 1.9 million metric tons from 1990 to 2006 representing a 34 percent increase. Over the past 16 years, City GHG emissions averaged about one-half of County emissions but the proportion of County GHG attributed to the City has been declining over the past 16 years. This is largely due to

12 Data for 1990 represents only voluntary drop-offs at Los Reales. 2000 data represents limited City curbside pickup and drop-offs; 2005 and 2006 totals include comprehensive curbside pick-ups, commercial collections and voluntary drop-offs.

23

the lower rate of population increase in the City. However, the general trends and major sources of emissions are similar. Energy use by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors is the major source of emissions, contributing approximately 63 percent to total City CO2e emissions. From 1990 to 2006, residential energy use emissions increased by 30 percent, much lower than the County during this time. City commercial energy use showed a 45 percent increase, 12 percent lower than the County rate. These differences also can be attributed to the City’s slower rate of population growth. City and County industrial energy use experienced essentially the same the rate of increase over these 16 years. Electricity is the major energy source and is responsible for 53 percent of all sector energy-related emissions while natural gas use contributes 10 percent to the City total. Like the County, on-road vehicle travel is the other major contributor to City GHG emissions. From 1990 to 2006, City GHG emissions increased by 43 percent resulting from a 71 percent increase in VMT. City VMT and GHG emissions trends mirror those exhibited in the County. In 2006, travel by private, commercial and public vehicles produced 33 percent of the City’s emissions. Private and commercial travel produced 99.4 percent of the 2006 transportation emissions. Emissions associated with City solid waste disposal have increased by 15 percent over the past 16 years but remain a small part of total emissions. By instituting a broad based recycling program in 2002, the City has been able to limit emissions associated with landfill disposal. Overview of the County and City Community Inventories The County and City exhibit similar trends in GHG emissions, energy use, transportation and waste disposal. County GHG emissions have increased by 46 percent and City emissions have increased by 34 percent from 1990 to 2006. Energy use and on-road vehicle travel are the major sources of regional GHG emissions and have shown the greatest increase over this 16 year period, and are associated with the rapid population growth in the Tucson metropolitan area over this time period. Regional energy demands by all economic sectors and the resulting GHG emissions have risen steadily from 1990 to 2006. Residential and commercial energy consumption and emissions have shown the greatest increase over this time period. These increases can be linked directly to regional population increases and growth in commercial energy use, reflecting the increased demand for services. In contrast, regional industrial energy use and associated emissions have exhibited modest increases over this same period. Electricity consumption is primarily responsible for this rise in energy use and emissions. Regional electricity use generated over 50 percent of total emissions from 1990 to 2006.

24

From 1990 to 2006, on-road vehicle travel has increased by over 70 percent at both the County and City levels. As a consequence, GHG emissions from regional transportation are approximately one-third of total emissions. Use of personal and commercial vehicles constitutes over 99 percent of all transportation emissions. Emissions resulting from waste disposal have increased both at the County and City levels but remain a small component of total GHG emissions. Establishment of region wide recycling programs has diverted waste from the landfills and has helped to modify the rate of increase despite rapid population growth.

C. Pima County Government Operations Emissions generated by County government operations are summarized below. A detailed list of input data for the County government inventory can be found in Appendix H. Energy Use Energy use in this section refers to activities such as heating, cooling and lighting for County buildings and parks, wastewater treatment and street lighting. Emissions from County facilities, wastewater treatment plants and public lighting energy use are presented separately in Table 5 and in Figures 10 to 12. Emissions from these three categories are combined when comparing emissions by energy source (Figure 13). Facility Energy Use Actual County government electricity and natural gas use data were not available at the time this inventory was prepared. However, County staff provided electricity and natural gas expenditures for 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Upon County staff recommendations, an average rate per KWh ($0.088/KWh) was applied to the expenditure data to estimate facility electricity use for all survey years. Additionally, County representatives recommended that PAG staff apply the 2000 to 2007 natural gas data (cost/MMBtu) submitted by County wastewater treatment staff to the facility use and cost data to determine natural gas use for the various years.13 Facility energy use remained the predominant component of County government’s total emissions over the past seven years (Figure 10). From 2000 to 2007, County government facility electricity use rose by 27 percent and natural gas use grew by 94 percent. As a result of these increases, facility energy use emissions have experienced a 30 percent rise over this same period (Figure 11, Table 5). Electricity is the chief source of energy, averaging 91 percent of facility energy use emissions for the survey years. In 2007, facility energy use was 48 percent of total emissions (Figure 12). County staff attributes this increase in energy use to the addition of approximately 825,000 square feet of County government properties from 2000 to 2007.

13 Dollars/MMBtu: 2000: $6.00; 2005: $10.00; 2006: $10.50; 2007: $11.50

25

Figure 10. Comparison of County Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000-2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2000 2007Year

CO

2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Facility Energy Use Wastewater Treatment Energy Use Employee CommuteVehicle Fleet Public Lighting Waste

Figure 11. County Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

CO

2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Facility Energy Use Wastewater Treatment Energy Use

Employee Commute Vehicle Fleet

Public Lighting Waste

Total

26

Wastewater Treatment Energy Use County government is responsible for treating wastewater generated in the eastern portion of the County and operates three metropolitan facilities (Ina Road, Roger Road and Randolph Park) and several non-metropolitan facilities (Arivaca Junction, Avra Valley, Corona de Tucson, Pima County Fairgrounds, Green Valley, Marana, Mount Lemmon and Rillito Vista) (PCWRD, 2008). Electricity and natural gas use and expenditure totals for the 11 combined wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) for 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were submitted by County staff. Emissions due to wastewater treatment tripled from 2000 to 2007 (Table 5, Figure 10). During this seven-year period, County government WWTF have greatly expanded their flow rates and corresponding energy use to accommodate the County’s rapidly growing population. In 2007, these emissions contributed 31 percent to the County government’s GHG total (Figure 12). Public Lighting Total energy use and expenditure data for all public lighting (street and traffic lights combined) were submitted by County government staff for 2007. PAG staff used the 2007 energy use and cost information for all years, since data for 2000 through 2006 were not available (Table 5). Although electricity use was held constant for all years, emissions varied by year due to the differences in yearly TEP electricity emission factors (Appendix C). Emissions resulting from public lighting were 1 percent of total County government emissions during 2007 (Figure 12). In 2007, electricity use in government facilities, wastewater treatment and public lighting was a major contributor to total emissions and was responsible for 66 percent of total emissions (Figure 13). Two thirds of this electricity use can be attributed to facilities usage. Emissions due to natural gas use (in facilities and for wastewater treatment) contributed 14 percent to the 2007 total (Figure 13).

27

Figure 12. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Sector

Vehicle Fleet

8%

Facility Energy

Use

48%

Waste

<1%

Wastewater

Treatment Energy

Use

31%

Employee

Commute

12%

Public Lighting

1%

Figure 13. 2007 County Government GHG Emissions by Source

Electricity

66%

Natural Gas

14%

Diesel

1%Waste

<1%

Gasoline

19%

On-road Vehicle Use Emissions from on-road vehicle activity by County fleet and employee commute vehicle use are itemized in Table 5 and in Figures 10 through 12. These sectors are combined to estimate emissions by energy source (gasoline and diesel) (Figure 13). Vehicle Fleet County government staff provided VMT and expenditure data by vehicle and fuel type for fiscal years 2000, 2005 and 2007. VMT and cost information for fiscal year 2006 were interpolated using 2005 and 2007 data.

28

From 2000 to 2007, fleet VMT increased by 14 percent which resulted in an 11 percent increase in emissions (Table 5, Figure 10). Despite this increase, County fleet emissions remained a small portion of all County government emissions and represented 8 percent of the 2007 total (Figure 12). Employee Commute The Travel Reduction Program (TRP) started in 1989 to reduce carbon monoxide levels and traffic congestion in the Tucson metropolitan area. The program requires PAG staff to survey all employers who have 100 or more employees at one site. From 1989 through 2005, PAG conducted annual surveys and is currently conducting surveys biennially. The average survey participation rate for County government employees averaged 76 percent over the past 19 years. For this report, County employees’ daily drive-alone, one-way VMT survey data were used to calculate annual round-trip VMT for 2000, 2005 and 2007. County government commuter data for 2006 were interpolated using 2005 and 2007 survey data. As recommended by ICLEI staff, a model default vehicle mix was used to characterize County government commuting patterns.14 From 2000 to 2007, County employee VMT declined by 11 percent, resulting in a 6 percent drop in emissions (Table 5). These results indicate that County employees are reducing daily commuting miles through alternate modes (bus, bike, walking, and carpooling/vanpool). Employee commuting produced a consistent amount of emissions over this seven-year period. In 2007, the employee commute represented 12 percent of total County government emissions (Figure 12). Gasoline is the predominant fuel used in the County fleet and in employee commuting. Gasoline-powered County fleet and employee commuting vehicles produced 19 percent of the total 2007 emissions while fleet diesel use generated 1 percent of total emissions (Figure 13). Government-generated Solid Waste County staff submitted waste data for 2007; earlier data were not available. Based upon County staff recommendations, 2007 totals were used for 2000, 2005 and 2006. County government waste was characterized using data from a 1993 Tucson government waste study (Hughes, et al, 1993) (Appendix E). Emissions from waste disposal were a small component of emissions, contributing less than 1 percent to the 2007 total (Figure 13).

14 Commuter vehicle fleet mix: Gasoline - Auto: full-size/SUV/Pickup (36.4 percent); Auto: mid-size (18.8 percent) Auto: compact/subcompact (44.8 percent).

29

County government synopsis In 2006, emissions resulting from County government were less than 1 percent of total County emissions. County government emissions increased over 45,000 metric tons from 2000 to 2007, representing a 47 percent rise. With the exception of employee commuting, emissions from all other inventoried sources experienced growth in GHG emissions over this seven-year period. The majority of this increase can be attributed to energy use in County facilities and in wastewater treatment which exhibited the greatest rate of growth over this time. Electricity is the major form of energy consumed and was responsible for an average of 63 percent of total County government emissions from 2000 to 2007.

30

Table

5. P

ima County

Govern

ment Gre

enhouse

Gas Em

issions (m

etric tons), E

nerg

y (m

illion Btu

) and Exp

enditure

s (d

ollars) 2000 to 2007

2000

2005

2006

2007

CO

2e

(metric

tons)

M

MBtu

Cost

(d

ollars

)

CO

2e

(metric

tons)

MM

Btu

Cost

(d

ollars

)

CO

2e

(metric

tons)

MM

Btu

Cost

(d

ollars

)

CO

2e

(metric

tons)

MM

Btu

Cost

(d

ollars

)

Perc

ent

Change

CO

2e

2000-

2007

Facilities Energ

y U

se

Electricity

49,848

197,418

5,165,261

57,049

223,391

6,013,512

55,870

222,289

5,257,981

62,614

249,120

5,813,167

Natu

ral G

as

3,136

55,953

335,718

5,686

101,450

1,014,497

8,200

146,305

1,536,199

6,086

108,580

1,248,674

Facilities Energ

y U

se Tota

l 52,984

253,371

5,500,979

62,735

324,841

7,028,009

64,070

368,594

6,794,180

68,700

357,700

7,061,841

30

Wast

ewate

r Tre

atm

ent

Electricity

5,769

22,848

535,550

15,347

60,094

1,584,664

29,471

117,257

3,538,667

29,658

117,998

3,699,324

Natu

ral G

as

8,191

146,134

876,806

11,607

207,097

2,070,970

13,233

236,095

2,479,000

13,736

245,082

2,818,443

Wast

ewate

r Tre

atm

ent Tota

l 13,960

168,982

1,412,356

26,954

267,191

3,655,634

42,704

353,352

6,017,667

43,394

363,080

6,517,767

211

Vehicle

Fle

et1

5

Gaso

line

8,951

115,007

1,330,631

9,299

120,081

2,612,584

9,451

122,126

2,780,593

9,704

125,457

2,965,782

Diese

l 1,268

16,109

206,190

1,744

22,144

472,543

1,785

22,674

502,931

1,595

20,251

516,138

Vehicle

Fle

et Tota

l 10,219

131,116

1,536,821

11,043

142,225

3,085,127

11,236

144,800

3,283,524

11,299

145,708

3,481,920

11

Em

plo

yee C

om

mute

Tota

l16

17,735

227,000

- 16,394

211,135

- 16,592

213,898

- 16,702

215,448

- -6

Public Lig

hting

Electricity

1,381

5,469

116,678

1,397

5,469

116,678

1,375

5,469

116,678

1,375

5,469

116,678

Solar

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

Public Lig

hting Tota

l17

1,381

5,470

116,678

1,397

5,470

116,678

1,375

5,470

116,678

1,375

5,470

116,678

Govern

ment Solid W

ast

e

Tota

l18

269

- 42,300

269

- 42,300

269

- 42,300

269

- 42,300

Gra

nd Tota

l 96,548

785,939

8,609,134

118,792

950,862

13,927,748

136,246

1,086,114

16,254,349

141,739

1,087,406

17,220,506

47

15 2006 vehicle fleet data

was inte

rpolate

d using FY05/0

6 and FY06/0

7 data

supplie

d by Pim

a C

ounty

sta

ff.

16 2006 C

ounty

govern

ment em

plo

yee com

muting VM

T w

as inte

rpolate

d using 2005 and 2007 PAG TRP surv

ey data

. 17 2007 public

lighting energ

y use

and exp

enditure

data

were

use

d for all ye

ars.

18 2007 w

aste tota

ls and exp

enditure

data

were

use

d for all years.

31

D. City of Tucson Government Operations Emissions generated by the City government operations are summarized below. A detailed list of City government input data can be found in Appendix I. Electricity and natural gas use from city-run facilities, public lighting and all water pumping, treatment and delivery systems are included in the City government inventory. Additionally, emissions resulting from the City government employee commuting, fleet vehicle travel and government-generated waste disposal are summarized in this section. Although 2000 is the earliest year that complete data are available, 1990 facility and water energy use information were submitted and are included in Appendix I; 1990 emissions resulting from this energy use are shown in Table 6 for informational purposes. Energy Use Emissions from City government facilities, all water pumping, treatment and delivery and public lighting energy use are listed separately in Table 6 and in Figures 14 through 16. These three categories are combined when comparing emissions by source (Figure 17). Facility Energy Use The City government operates over 200 buildings, parks, golf courses, sports venues, neighborhood centers and entertainment facilities in Tucson. Electricity and natural gas use and utility expenditures for individual facilities were provided by City government staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Data were sorted and compiled by year and department; utility cost data were similarly compiled. Values in Table 6 represent the total CO2e emissions, Btus and costs by utility type for all City government facilities. A more detailed list of energy use and expenditures by department is found in Appendix I. From 2000 to 2007, facility electricity and natural gas use has declined by 29 percent and 2 percent, respectively. This decline resulted in a 28 percent drop in overall energy-associated emissions during this period (Figure 14, Table 6). However, facility energy use emissions have remained a significant contributor to total City government emissions from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 15). Facility energy use emissions contributed 20 percent to total emissions in 2007 (Figure 16). Electricity is the major energy source and was responsible for 93 percent of 2007 facility energy use emissions (Table 6).

32

Figure 14. Comparison of City Government GHG Emissions by Sector 2000 and 2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2000 2007Year

CO

2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Water Energy Use Facility Energy UsePublic Lighting Vehicle FleetEmployee Commute Waste

Figure 15. City Government GHG Emissions 2000-2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

CO

2e emissions (m

etric tons)

Vehicle Fleet Facility Energy Use Water Energy Use

Employee Commute Public Lighting Waste

Total

33

Water Energy Use TEP electricity and natural gas use and expenditures for all City water-related operations were submitted by Tucson Water staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Energy use and cost data were provided for individual potable (drinking) water and reclaimed water components and were grouped by Tucson Water staff for computation efficiency. Preliminary Trico electricity use and cost totals for the potable water and reclaimed water systems were submitted by Tucson Water staff for 1990, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007. A detailed list of energy use and expenditures by location for TEP electricity and natural gas use and total Trico electricity use by water system is found in Appendix I. Emissions, energy consumption and cost information were estimated and compiled by water system (drinking and reclaimed) and combined to reflect totals for all water-associated energy use. Potable water totals represent GHG emissions, Btus and costs resulting from energy used by all equipment in the pumping, treatment and delivery of drinking water (Table 6). The reclaimed water totals denote GHG emissions, Btus and costs for all reclaimed water treatment and delivery systems. Water energy use totals represent emissions, energy consumption and expenditures from both drinking and reclamation water operations (Table 6). a. Potable Water System Tucson Water is a department within the City government that delivers potable water to over 710,000 people, about 85 percent of the greater Tucson metropolitan area’s population. It serves customers both inside and outside the City boundaries (City of Tucson Water Department, 2006). A large amount of energy is required for the pumping, treatment and delivery of drinking water. These emissions have increased by 13 percent from 2000 to 2007 and still remain the largest source of City government emissions. Over this seven-year period, these energy use emissions averaged 50 percent of the City government total. Electricity is the main energy source and in 2007, electricity used in these operations was 42 percent of the total City government emissions (Table 6). b. Reclaimed Water System Reclaimed water is wastewater that has been treated to remove solids and impurities and is used for nondrinking uses such as irrigation. Tucson Water has been delivering reclaimed water for more than 20 years in the Tucson metropolitan area. Current reclaimed water recipients include 14 golf courses, 35 parks, 47 schools and over 700 single family homes (City of Tucson Water Department, 2006). Emissions from electricity use in the reclaimed water system have risen by 28 percent from 2000 to 2007 (Table 6). This reflects the region’s growing acceptance of treated wastewater for nonpotable uses. In 2007, electricity use in the reclamation process contributed 6 percent to total City government emissions (Table 6).

34

In summary, energy use emissions related to both water delivery systems increased by 14 percent from 2000 to 2007 (Table 6) and remain the largest source of City government emissions over this time period (Figure 15). In 2007, emissions due to all water operations were responsible for 59 percent of total City government emissions, of which 82 percent can be attributed to electricity use (Figure 16, Table 6). Figure 16. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Sector

Water Energy Use

59%

Waste

1%

Employee

Commute

4%

Vehicle Fleet

7%

Public Lighting

9%

Facility Energy

Use

20%

Public Lighting Information on the type, number, electricity use and costs for city street and traffic lights were submitted by City staff for 2007. PAG staff used the 2007 electricity use and cost data for 2000 through 2006 since public lighting data were not available (Table 6). Although energy use was held constant for all years, the resulting emissions differ due to varying TEP emission factors (Appendix C). In 2007, emissions produced by public lighting were responsible for 9 percent of total City government emissions (Figure 16). Electricity use by City government facilities, all water operations and public lighting were responsible for 75 percent of total City government emissions in 2007 (Figure 17). During the same year, natural gas use by facilities and potable water operations contributed 12 percent to total City government emissions.

35

Figure 17. 2007 City Government GHG Emissions by Source

Electricity

75%

Natural Gas

12%

Gasoline

9%

CNG

<1%

Waste

1%

B-20

3%

On-road Vehicle Use Emissions from the City fleet and employee vehicle use are summarized separately in Table 6 and in Figures 14 through 16. These sectors are combined when comparing emissions by energy source (Figure 17). Vehicle Fleet City government staff provided data on fuel costs and VMT traveled by on-road fleet vehicles by fuel and vehicle type for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Data for 2000 were estimated using the average rate of increase for City fleet fuel use and cost from 2001 to 2005. As recommended by City government staff, the 2008 vehicle fleet composition was used to estimate emissions for all years. 19 City fleet emissions have shown a 37 percent decline from 2000 to 2007 (Table 6). This reduction in emissions could be partially due to the different methods used to estimate 2000 and 2007 fleet vehicle usage. Fleet emissions have remained a small portion of the City government total, averaging 8 percent of total emissions from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 15). Employee Commute As mentioned previously, PAG TRP staff conducted annual commuter surveys from 1989 through 2005, and currently conducts surveys biennially. City employees’ daily drive-alone, one-way VMT survey data were used to calculate annual round-trip VMT for 2000,

19 2008 City fleet composition: Gasoline - Auto: full-size (32 percent); Auto: mid-size (30 percent); Heavy truck (8 percent); Light truck (5 percent); Motorcycle (5 percent). Diesel - Heavy truck (19 percent); Bus (1 percent).

36

2005 and 2007. City government commuter data for 2006 was interpolated using 2005 and 2007 survey data. The survey participation rate for City government employees is high, averaging 88 percent over the past 19 years. As recommended by ICLEI staff, a model default vehicle mix was used to describe City employee commuting patterns.20 From 2000 to 2007, City government workers drove 17 percent less miles which resulted in a 33 percent decrease in emissions (Table 6). These results indicate that City employees are reducing daily commuting miles through alternate modes (bus, bike, walking and carpooling/vanpool). Emissions generated by City employee commuting remain a small portion of total emissions (Figure 15) and in 2007, produced 4 percent of total City government emissions (Figure 16). Government-generated Solid Waste City government staff provided government-generated solid waste totals for 1993 and 2007. Waste data for 2000, 2005 and 2006 were interpolated using the 1993 and 2007 totals. Specifically, a 3.5 percent decrease per year was applied to the 2007 total and progressively to each subsequent year to estimate 2006, 2005 and 2000 wastes. City government waste was characterized using a Tucson’s government waste study (Hughes, et al, 1993) (Appendix E). Waste disposal emissions experienced a 28 percent increase from 2000 to 2007. Despite this increase, waste disposal emissions remain a small portion of emissions and contributed 1 percent to the 2007 total (Figure 17).

20 Commuter vehicle fleet mix (all gasoline-powered): Auto: full-size/SUV/Pickup (36.4 percent); Auto: mid-size (18.8 percent) Auto: compact/subcompact (44.8 percent).

37

Table

6. C

ity of Tucs

on G

overn

ment Gre

enhouse

Gas Em

issions (m

etric tons), E

nerg

y (m

illion Btu

) and Exp

enditure

s (d

ollars) 1990-2

007

38

City Government Synopsis

In 2006, City government emissions were approximately 3 percent of total City community emissions. From 2000 to 2007, City government emissions declined by over 14,000 metric tons, representing a 6 percent reduction. Emissions from facility energy use, fleet and commuter vehicle travel decreased during this period while water energy use and waste emissions increased. Emissions generated from energy used in pumping, treating and distributing drinking water remain the greatest contributor to City government emissions from 2000 to 2007, averaging 50 percent of total emissions. Facility energy use emissions, another significant component of City government emissions, averaged 20 percent of the totals over this same period. Energy use in reclaimed water systems and public lighting, City fleet and employee vehicle use and waste disposal combined, make up the remaining 30 percent of City government emissions over this seven-year period. Overview of the County and City Government Inventories For the most part, County and City government emissions are generated by similar sources. Energy use, particularly electricity, is responsible for the majority of emissions by both government groups. Specifically, energy use in City water operations and County wastewater treatment activities make up a significant portion of their respective emission totals. Facility energy use also is responsible for a substantial share of total GHG emissions in both government entities for all survey years. Emissions due to on-road vehicle travel, waste disposal and streetlight energy use are minor contributors to total County and City government emissions. Although there are several similarities between the two governments’ emission profiles, a major difference occurred in their trends over the past seven years. From 2000 to 2007, County government emissions have shown a 47 percent increase while City government emissions have shown a 6 percent decline. This differential can be attributed to the need to provide services to the County’s population which is expanding at a greater rate than populations within the City. County population grew by 19 percent from 2000 to 2007 while City population grew at a slower rate (11 percent) over this same time. 6. Inventory Role and the Next Steps The goal of this initial report is to provide a regional, broad-based GHG emission estimate data from 1990 and select years through to 2007. It provides baseline information identifying the major sources of County and City GHG community and government emissions. These data can serve as a guide to assist the region and government agencies in evaluating emissions and assist them in developing programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions.

39

This report is intended to be a living document and will be periodically updated as new data become available.

References Cited

Arizona Executive Order 2006-13 Climate Change Action. 2006. http://www.governor.state.az.us/dms/upload/EO_2006-13_090806.pdf Arizona Department Commerce, Energy Office. First Sales of Petroleum Products into Arizona for Consumption. 2008 Arizona Department of Economic Security. Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places and Balance of County. 2007. http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/econinfo/FILES/EEC-06.pdf Bailie, A., Lazarus, M., Peterson, T. Hausker, K., Kuch, P. Williams, E., Colburn, K., Roe, S. The Centre for Climate Strategies, Final Arizona Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020. 2006. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Characterization of Waste from Single-family Residences. Report for the City of Phoenix Public Works Department. 2003. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Contractor’s Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2004. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. Contractor’s Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. Contractor’s Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. City of Tucson Water Department Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006. http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/ar2006.pdf Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy. Fuel Emission Factors. 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/excel/Fuel%20Emission%20Factors.xls Fuller, D. J. M. and Rauluk, V. J. City of Tucson Greenhouse Gas Reduction Campaign: Local Action Plan. 1998. Hughes, W.W., Tani, M., Aller, S. and Rathje, W.L. A Characterization of the Solid Wastes of City of Tucson Governmental Agencies. 1993. Hughes, Wilson. City of Tucson. Personal communication. 2008.

40

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use. Chapter 2: Mineral Industry Emissions. 2006. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007 – Synthesis Report. 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm Pima Association of Governments (PAG). 2000 On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. 2004. http://www.pagnet.org/documents/Air/2000onroadei.pdf Pima Association of Governments (PAG). 2008. Technical Services, personal communication. Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCWRD) 2007 Effluent Generation Report. 2008. http://www.pima.gov/wwm/reports/pdf/Effluent_gen_2007.pdf. U. S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. 2008. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T001; http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Waste Reduction Model (WARM). 2006. http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006. USEPA #430-R-08-005. 2008. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf

41

Appendix A: Data Sources

Com

munity Invento

ries

Invento

ry Sourc

e

Nam

e/A

ffilia

tion

Type o

f Data

Residential, Commercial, Industrial Energy Use

Tucs

on Electric Power

Jeff Yock

ey, TEP

County electricity

use

by se

ctor

City of Tucs

on electricity

use

by se

ctor

Em

issions factors by fu

el a

nd plant ty

pe

Trico

Electricity

Coopera

tive

Rom

i Wittm

an, T

rico

County electricity

usa

ge by se

ctor

Arizo

na Electric Power

Coopera

tive

Michelle

Fre

eark, A

rizo

na Electric Power

Coopera

tive

Em

ission coefficients by fu

el a

nd plant ty

pe for Trico

Tohono O

'odham

Utilit

y Auth

ority

Lore

n N

ixon

Tribal e

lectricity use

by se

ctor

South

west G

as

Dave N

augle, S

outh

west G

as

City and County natu

ral g

as use

by se

ctor

Transportation

VM

T

Aichong Sun, P

ima A

ssociation of Govt.

County and City VM

T estim

ate

s

Cat Tra

n

Tom

Am

para

no, U

niversity of Arizo

na

City VM

T estim

ate

s by fu

el typ

e

Coyo

te Run

Aim

ee Ram

sey, Town of Oro

Valle

y VM

T by fu

el typ

e

Old

Pueblo Tro

lley

Eugene Cayw

ood

City VM

T estim

ate

s

Rura

l Tra

nsit and Special N

eeds

Patrick M

cGowan, P

ima County

County and City VM

T by fu

el typ

e

Sun Tra

n

Georg

e Caria, C

ity of Tucs

on

Pim

a County

VM

T by bus fu

el typ

e

Tom

Fisher, City of Tucs

on

City of Tucs

on VM

T by bus fu

el typ

e

TIC

ET

Kare

n M

iller, City of Tucs

on

VM

T by fu

el typ

e

Van Tra

n

Georg

e Caria, C

ity of Tucs

on

City and County VM

T by fu

el typ

e

Wast

e and R

ecy

cled M

ate

rials

Judy Tovar, Pim

a County

Wastes, recy

cled (dro

p-o

ff) m

ate

rials tonnage and typ

e

Ina, S

ahuarita

, Tangerine

landfills; C

ata

lina Tra

nsfer Sta

tion

Eastern

Pim

a County

Recy

clin

g

Milena Sousa

, Pim

a County

County private

hauler re

cyclin

g tonnage, typ

e

Los Reales

Wilso

n H

ughes, City of Tucs

on

Wastes and recy

cled tonnag

e by ty

pe; c

hara

cteriza

tions

City of Tucs

on Recy

clin

g

Donald G

ibso

n, C

ity of Tucs

on

Curb

side recy

cled tonnage by ty

pe; c

hara

cteriza

tions

42

Oth

er

Pro

pane

Mark H

ope, A

Z D

ept. of Com

merce,

Energ

y Office

Gallons of pro

pane sold

in A

rizo

na

Jet A fuel

Fre

d Brinke

r, TIA

Gallons of Je

t A fuel u

sed at TIA

and Rya

n A

irfield

Ron H

erb

ert, M

ara

na A

irport

Gallons of Je

t A fuel u

sed

Aviation gaso

line

Fre

d Brinke

r, TIA

Gallons of aviation gaso

line use

d at TIA

and Rya

n A

irfield

Ron H

erb

er, M

ara

na A

irport

Gallons of aviation gaso

line fuel u

sed

Loco

motives

Jon G

erm

er, U

nion Pacific Railro

ad

Diese

l fuel u

se (2005, 2

006)

Envair Consu

lting

Diese

l fuel u

se (2000)

Industrial Processes

Arizo

na Portland C

em

ent

Lath

a Toopal, A

DEQ

Clinke

r pro

duction, d

iese

l fuel u

sed

Phelp

s Dodge Sierrita M

ine

Lath

a Toopal, A

DEQ

Diese

l , biodiese

l fuel u

sed

Govern

ment Invento

ries

Invento

ry Sourc

e

Nam

e/A

ffilia

tion

Type o

f Data

Facility Energy Use

Govern

ment-ru

n Facilit

ies

Paul G

uerrero

, Pim

a County

County govern

ment electricity

, natu

ral g

as use

and costs

Asia Philb

in, C

ity of Tucs

on

City govern

ment electricity, n

atu

ral g

as use

and costs

Je

rem

y M

ohr, City of Tucs

on volunte

er

City govern

ment natu

ral g

as use

and costs

Wast

ewate

r Tre

atm

ent and W

ate

r Syst

em

Energ

y U

se

Wastewate

r Tre

atm

ent Facilities

Wendy Gort, P

ima County

County govern

ment electricity

, natu

ral g

as use

and costs

Pota

ble and Reclaim

ed W

ater

Asia Philb

in, C

ity of Tucs

on

Electricity, n

atu

ral g

as use

for pota

ble and reclaim

ed

system

s and costs

Vehicle Fleet

Govern

ment vehicles

Venesa

Hartley, Pim

a County

County govern

ment fleet VM

T and costs

Robert Padilla, P

ima County

Marc Cru

m, C

ity of Tucs

on

Tony Le

on, C

ity of Tucs

on

City govern

ment fleet VM

T and costs

City govern

ment altern

ate

fuel fleet VM

T and costs

Employee Commute

Rita H

ildebra

nd, P

AG TRP

Don Fre

em

an, P

AG

Jeff H

ildebra

nd, P

AG

County and City govern

ment em

ploye

e com

mute

r data

County and City govern

ment em

ploye

e com

mute

r data

County and City govern

ment em

ploye

e com

mute

r data

43

Public Lighting

Don Pitte

nger, Pim

a County

Ray Quihuis, C

ity of Tucs

on

Ern

ie Encinas, City of Tucs

on

County govern

ment energ

y use

and costs

City govern

ment lig

hting energ

y use

and cost

City govern

ment lig

hting e

nerg

y use

and costs

Government-generated Solid W

aste

Eric Ponce

, Pim

a County

Wilso

n H

ughes, City of Tucs

on

County govern

ment waste tonnage and costs

City govern

ment waste tonnage, c

hara

cteriza

tion and

costs

44

Appendix B: Population Estimates 1990-2007

United States21

Arizona22 Eastern Pima

County2

Tucson2

1990 248,709,873 3,665,339 643,814 405,371

2000 282,194,308 5,130,632 814,468 486,699

2005 295,895,897 6,077,740 924,405 529,770

2006 298,754,819 6,305,210 947,230 534,685

2007 301,621,157 6,500,194 968,423 541,132

Appendix C: Emission Factors for Electricity Use

1990 2000 2005 2006 2007

lbs. CO2 per MWh

Tucson Electric Power23 1,945.1 1,899.9 1,921.5 1,891.2 n.a.

Trico Electric Cooperative24 1,846.8 1,846.8 2,036.8 2,511.4 2,024.8

n.a. - Data not available

21 U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-

ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T001; http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt (1990) 22 Source: Arizona Department of Commerce http://www.azcommerce.com/EconInfo/Demographics/ 23 Based on emissions and generation data representative of the fuel type/plant type combinations used by TEP to generate electricity. Data supplied by TEP staff.

24 Based on emissions and generation data representative of the fuel type/plant type combinations used by Trico to generate electricity. Data supplied by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative.

45

APPENDIX D: Pima County Data Inputs

1990 2000 2005 2006

Residential Energy Use

Natural Gas (therms) 80,471,344 89,825,869 83,839,115 81,977,939

Electricity (GWh)

TEP 2,070 3,041 3,633 3,778

Trico 91 194 274 299

Tohono O'odham Utility Authority n.a. 21 31 33

Commercial Energy Use

Natural Gas (therms) 57,056,342 61,913,682 58,896,658 60,203,648

Electricity (GWh)

TEP 1,357 1,763 2,097 2,220

Trico 46 74 133 131

Tohono O'odham Utility Authority n.a. 43 62 65

Industrial Energy Use

Natural Gas (therms) 29,375,582 125,509,673 69,931,089 66,182,190

Electricity (GWh)

TEP 2,650 3,418 3,145 3,203

Trico 139 76 30 29

Transportation (annual County miles)

Pima County VMT 4,863,931,878 6,932,920,462 8,162,682,272 8,344,955,346

Other transportation

Cat Tran25 0 132,939 222,105 235,757

Coyote Run5 0 0 140,717 145,069

Old Pueblo Trolley5 0 6,864 6,864 6,864

Rural Transit5 0 329,094 416,465 450,831

Special Needs 417,978 590,664 617,067 660,427

Sun Tran 6,884,993 7,896,625 7,899,630 7,987,433

TICET5 - 37,841 109,652 105,247

Van Tran 1,441,338 2,149,240 3,145,893 3,584,387

Waste (short tons)

Ina n.a. 23,809 30,279 26,203

Sahuarita n.a. 39,156 1,217 583

Tangerine n.a. 100,664 151,450 133,550

Los Reales 516,000 550,200 627,699 674,018

Other (gallons)

Propane n.a. 14,087,926 15,145,652 13,777,713

Jet A fuel26 4,000,000 3,248,398 3,678,189 3,501,655

Aviation Gasoline26 6,600 52,582 48,934 57,956

Railroad fuel n.a. 8,749,627 8,263,844 8,458,508

Industrial Processes

AZ Portland Cement (metric tons clinker) n.a. 1,776,769 2,017,325 2,053,881

AZ Portland Cement (gallons diesel) n.a. 15,700 6,981 9,578

AZ Portland Cement (gallons biodiesel) n.a. 0 0 6,753

Sierrita Mine (gallons diesel) n.a. 240,027 202,082 191,129

25 Transit was not operational in 1990. Coyote Run not operational until 2002. 26 1990 represents aviation gas and Jet A from Ryan Airfield and TIA, respectively. 2000, 2005 and 2006 represents totals from TIA, Ryan Airfield and Marana Airport.

46

Appendix E: Waste Characterizations

Waste Categories: Percent Composition

Commercial Waste27

Paper Products 28

Food Wastes 26

Plant Debris 2

Wood/Textiles 11

All Other Wastes 33

Construction and Demolition28

Paper Products 3

Food Wastes 0

Plant Debris 1

Wood/Textiles 20

All Other Wastes 76

Government-generated Waste29

Paper Products 15

Food Wastes 4

Plant Debris 37

Wood/Textiles 6

All Other Wastes 38

Private Self-Hauler Waste30

Paper Products 7

Food Wastes 1

Plant Debris 5

Wood/Textiles 22

All Other Wastes 65

Residential Wastes31

Paper Products 18

Food Wastes 17

Plant Debris 28

Wood/Textiles 6

All Other Wastes 31

27 Based on Waste Disposal & Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006 28 Based on Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.

29 Based on A Characterization of the Solid Wastes of City of Tucson Governmental Agencies. Hughes, W. et al, 1993.

30 Based on a Statewide Waste Characterization Study - Contactors' Report to the California Board. Cascadia Consulting Group. Dec. 2004.

31 Based on Characterization of Waste from Single-family Residences for the City of Phoenix Public Works Dept. Cascadia Consulting

Group. Nov. 2003.

47

Appendix F

WARM Model per metric ton estimates of GHG Emissions for Alternate Management Scenarios (EPA, 2006)

Material

GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Source

Reduced (MTCO2E)

GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Recycled (MTCO2E)

GHG Emissions per Ton of Material

Land filled

(MTCO2E)

GHG Emissions per Ton of Material

Combusted (MTCO2E)

GHG Emissions per Ton of Material

Composted (MTCO2E)

Aluminum Cans -8.23 -13.57 0.04 0.06 NA

Steel Cans -3.18 -1.79 0.04 -1.53 NA

Copper Wire -7.34 -4.92 0.04 0.05 NA

Glass -0.57 -0.28 0.04 0.05 NA

HDPE -1.79 -1.39 0.04 0.93 NA

LDPE -2.27 -1.69 0.04 0.93 NA

PET -2.09 -1.54 0.04 1.08 NA

Corrugated Cardboard -5.59 -3.11 0.4 -0.65 NA

Magazines/third-class mail -8.65 -3.07 -0.3 -0.47 NA

Newspaper -4.87 -2.79 -0.87 -0.74 NA

Office Paper -8 -2.85 1.94 -0.62 NA

Phonebooks -6.32 -2.66 -0.87 -0.74 NA

Textbooks -9.17 -3.11 1.94 -0.62 NA

Dimensional Lumber -2.02 -2.46 -0.49 -0.78 NA

Medium Density Fiberboard -2.22 -2.47 -0.49 -0.78 NA

Food Scraps NA NA 0.72 -0.18 -0.2

Yard Trimmings NA NA -0.22 -0.22 -0.2

Grass NA NA -0.01 -0.22 -0.2

Leaves NA NA -0.18 -0.22 -0.2

Branches NA NA -0.49 -0.22 -0.2

Mixed Paper, Broad NA -3.54 0.35 -0.65 NA

Mixed Paper, Residential NA -3.54 0.25 -0.65 NA

Mixed Paper, Office NA -3.42 0.47 -0.59 NA

Mixed Metals NA -5.26 0.04 -1.06 NA

Mixed Plastics NA -1.49 0.04 0.99 NA

Mixed Recyclables NA -2.91 0.14 -0.61 NA

Mixed Organics NA NA 0.24 -0.2 -0.2

Mixed MSW NA NA 0.42 -0.12 NA

Carpet -3.99 -7.18 0.04 0.39 NA

Personal Computers -55.47 -2.26 0.04 -0.2 NA

Clay Bricks -0.28 NA 0.04 NA NA

Concrete NA -0.01 0.04 NA NA

Fly Ash NA -0.87 0.04 NA NA

Tires -3.98 -1.82 0.04 0.18 NA

48

APPENDIX G: City of Tucson Data Inputs

1990 2000 2005 2006

Residential Energy Use

Natural Gas (therms) 38,956,747 43,485,339 40,587,109 39,686,100

TEP Electricity (GWh) 1,314 1,788 1,831 1,832

Commercial Energy Use

Natural Gas (therms) 30,879,205 33,508,024 31,875,194 32,582,544

TEP Electricity (GWh) 957 1,244 1,460 1,508

Industrial Energy Use

Natural Gas (therms) 25,640,426 109,550,901 61,039,230 57,767,010

Electricity (GWh) 1,137 1,466 1,247 1,228

Transportation (annual City miles)

City VMT 2,393,054,494 3,410,996,867 4,016,039,678 4,090,363,312

Other transportation

Cat Tran32 0 132,939 222,105 235,757

Old Pueblo Trolley32 0 6,864 6,864 6,864

Rural Transit32 0 16,455 20,823 22,541.

Special Needs 167,191 236,266 246,827 264,171

Sun Tran 6,884,993 7,253,929 7,086,526 7,177,224

TICET32 - 37,841 109,652 105,247

Van Tran 1,441,338 2,149,240 3,145,893 3,516,284

Waste (short tons)

Los Reales 516,000 550,200 627,699 674,018

Other (gallons)

Propane n.a. 8,418,476 8,679,866 7,777,139

32 Transit was not operational in 1990

49

APPENDIX

H: P

ima C

ounty

Govern

ment Data

County

Govern

ment Opera

tions Data

Expenditures (dollars)

2000

2005

2006

2007

2000

2005

2006

2007

Facility

Energ

y U

se

Electricity

(KW

h)

57,843,129

68,453,996

65,129,324

72,992,897

5,165,261

6,013,512

5,257,981

5,813,167

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

559,530

1,014,500

1,463,046

1,085,803

335,718

1,014,497

1,536,199

1,248,674

Wast

ewate

r Tre

atm

ent

Electricity

(KW

h)

6,696,337

17,612,538

34,366,059

34,583,254

535,550

1,584,664

3,538,667

3,699,324

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

1,461,343

2,070,970

2,360,952

2,450,820

876,806

2,070,970

2,479,000

2,818,443

Vehicle

Fle

et (m

iles/

fisc

al year)

33

Gaso

line vehicles

14,387,937

15,398,472

15,772,593

16,245,101

1,330,631

2,612,584

2,780,593

2,965,782

Diese

l vehicles

839,369

1,164,743

1,193,041

1,122,953

206,190

472,543

502,931

516,138

Em

plo

yee C

om

mute

(m

iles/

year)

34

Gaso

line vehicles

31,446,828

29,753,238

29,972,305

30,189,499

0

0

0

0

Public Lig

hting (KW

h)3

5

Electricity

1,602,440

1,602,440

1,602,440

1,602,440

116,978

116,978

116,978

116,978

Solar

241

241

241

241

0

0

0

0

Govern

ment Solid W

ast

e (sh

ort tons)

36

1,800

1,800

1,800

1,800

42,300

42,300

42,300

42,300

n.a. - D

ata

not availa

ble

0 - N

o use

33 2006 VM

T and costs inte

rpolate

d using FY05/0

6 and FY06/0

7 data

34 2006 Em

plo

yee com

mute

VM

T w

as in

terp

olate

d using 2005 and 2007 TRP surv

ey data

35 2007 public

lighting energ

y use

and cost data

were

use

d for all years

362007 w

aste tota

ls and exp

enditure

data

was use

d for all years; c

osts base

d on $23.50 tip

pin

g fee per sh

ort ton

50

APPENDIX

I: C

ity o

f Tucs

on G

overn

ment Data

City G

overn

ment Opera

tions Data

Expenditure

s (d

ollars

)

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

Facility

Energ

y U

se

Adm

inistration Build

ings

Electricity

(KW

h)

5,475,525

3,780,863

4,032,921

4,766,890

5,240,735

394,806

337,835

359,632

428,383

466,933

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

60,440

38,172

55,630

61,697

60,526

31,645

28,917

72,187

96,626

61,241

Fire D

epartm

ent

Electricity

(KW

h)

2,163,694

2,448,094

2,862,067

3,044,828

3,651,745

161,579

217,703

259,041

273,871

335,017

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

24,988

42,066

42,608

51,274

72,511

14,993

34,915

46,642

71,412

100,826

Libra

ries3

7

Electricity

(KW

h)

3,920,347

4,150,933

3,732,657

2,888,381

0

292,748

368,580

333,913

259,843

0

Opera

tions

Electricity

(KW

h)

1,834,590

2,912,740

3,569,320

3,205,888

3,850,638

138,447

254,067

311,294

280,163

337,220

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

24,418

5,361

5,922

4,563

5,124

16,424

4,601

6,985

6,906

8,252

Park

s

Electricity

(KW

h)

1,097,038

1,105,080

1,800,763

1,666,503

1,729,951

81,541

97,606

161,163

149,367

155,749

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

65,100

60,576

43,863

59,703

50,413

33,477

43,340

45,234

73,362

70,624

Park

s & Recreation

Electricity

(KW

h)

7,098,142

12,173,673

12,311,181

12,266,814

12,724,207

5,299,943

1,080,952

1,102,408

1,101,169

1,146,576

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

125,478

251,571

297,786

580,564

276,248

67,879

190,368

313,478

424,685

309,689

Police

Electricity

(KW

h)

4,126,030

6,270,420

3,918,750

3,607,353

3,902,462

290,415

509,156

323,638

295,264

333,228

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

5,066

74,465

70,020

63,239

94,238

3,310

59,441

80,921

92,940

114,874

Solid W

aste

Electricity

(KW

h)

53,760

248,399

310,795

324,570

317,602

4,015

6,898

28,105

29,382

28,748

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

385

409

839

651

666

389

553

1,125

1,148

1,451

Tra

nsp

ortation

Electricity

(KW

h)

628,592

1,305,901

1,387,711

2,216,741

2,484,724

46,945

115,566

124,129

196,886

219,925

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

15,689

17,825

14,269

13,489

2,925

9,670

13,403

15,013

17,200

4,535

Tucs

on C

onvention Cente

r

Electricity

(KW

h)

5,921,560

4,212,000

4,581,600

4,316,900

4,702,800

442,234

371,986

405,736

384,439

419,414

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

0

6,722

7,565

8,864

6,869

0

5,266

10,750

15,351

5,536

Zoo

Electricity

(KW

h)

348,860

1,061,780

912,150

952,210

970,920

26,078

93,054

80,606

84,447

86,199

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

2,134

3,486

3,533

3,670

3,889

1,451

3,334

4,459

5,770

6,751

Oth

er3

8

Electricity

(KW

h)

5,052,948

4,350,840

4,442,971

5,733,500

6,744,204

382,900

386,640

396,052

508,504

596,485

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

79,939

96,772

67,063

97,619

11,419

41,344

67,566

65,018

112,286

19,383

51

City G

overn

ment Opera

tions Data

Expenditure

s (d

ollars

)

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

Pota

ble

Wate

r Energ

y U

se

All Pota

ble Sys

tem

s

Trico

Electricity

(KW

h)

3,159,398

5,568,637

34,230,466

27,990,416

40,157,421

322,471

575,861

2,403,124

2,595,652

3,871,996

Cath

odic Pro

tection

Electricity

(KW

h)

2,702

16,293

29,827

33,885

34,960

202

1,526

2,682

3,029

3,063

CAP C

anal P

um

p Sta

tion

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

0

197,541

52,568

44,274

30,496

0

92,729

53,704

59,698

40,186

Lighting

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

3,270

700

650

580

0

448

122

59

52

Hayd

en U

dall W

ate

r Tre

atm

ent Plant

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

3,911,840

3,143,300

2,996,980

3,280,100

0

206,185

165,496

158,143

173,341

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

0

37,242

12,971

14,034

8,729

0

44,645

19,160

23,417

8,361

Plant 1

Electricity

(KW

h)

485,890

440,546

501,284

470,534

490,019

36,280

39,515

45,638

42,996

44,796

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

28,702

12,185

13,410

14,581

14,361

15,755

10,779

15,926

21,361

23,246

Plant 2

Electricity

(KW

h)

23,000

49,360

52,164

54,091

59,015

1,718

4,405

4,956

5,142

5,583

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

0

762

254

310

273

0

923

546

729

732

Plant 3

Electricity

(KW

h)

27,370

47,910

0

0

0

2,048

4,278

0

0

0

Plant 4

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

0

39,960

35,350

41,820

0

0

3,607

3,204

3,784

Sys

tem

Booster Pum

ps

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

70,790

431,877

1,500,107

1,302,331

1,428,808

51,171

261,549

1,343,933

1,491,289

2,242,794

Tucs

on A

irport Rem

ediation Pro

ject

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

0

47,031

16,030

41,311

32,958

0

32,207

18,189

48,631

16,883

Wate

r Distrib

ution

Electricity

(KW

h)

15,117,545

19,608,347

21,130,979

22,433,648

21,403,035

893,174

1,540,898

1,628,148

1,724,106

1,612,005

Wate

r Distrib

ution &

Tre

atm

ent

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

354,920

212,120

350,400

340,560

0

19,862

12,060

19,866

19,305

Wells - Avr

a Valle

y North

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

146,565

776,822

446,055

558,247

252,865

113,917

500,053

514,058

829,659

409,789

Wells - Avr

a Valle

y South

Electricity

(KW

h)

1,437,120

2,746,640

2,529,520

2,870,080

2,910,000

68,524

150,879

139,525

158,684

161,484

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

552,817

559,015

605,826

648,575

589,440

326,175

355,610

660,101

903,773

876,514

Wells - CAVSARP

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

0

0

1,741,900

1,364,394

1,578,327

0

0

1,863,028

1,819,490

2,379,371

52

City G

overn

ment Opera

tions Data

Expenditure

s (d

ollars

)

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

Pota

ble

Wate

r Energ

y U

se (Continued)

Wells - Central

Electricity

(KW

h)

26,955,136

28,867,614

10,817,171

13,396,705

9,251,160

1,622,872

2,025,405

739,161

925,937

641,214

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

192,177

83,594

0

0

0

107,513

46,084

568

6

0

Wells - East

Electricity

(KW

h)

7,519,660

8,520,084

6,041,016

5,499,764

5,042,660

435,294

551,429

366,010

339,893

310,592

Wells - Northwest

Electricity

(KW

h)

164,730

2,151,680

1,306,040

1,579,320

882,800

12,086

133,778

82,712

97,217

58,612

Wells - Oth

er

Electricity

(KW

h)

1,105,650

1,775,570

2,638,025

2,047,662

2,314,470

68,901

156,996

234,885

183,270

204,745

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

23,050

20,771

0

0

0

12,145

11,485

0

0

0

Wells - Park

Electricity

(KW

h)

407,776

234,357

401,035

349,687

399,114

30,417

20,902

36,030

31,434

35,237

Wells - Rillito

Electricity

(KW

h)

3,514,538

6,123,740

4,961,870

4,836,711

3,807,264

242,942

463,541

384,320

371,693

307,810

Wells - Santa

Cru

z

Electricity

(KW

h)

4,620,220

3,203,084

2,954,049

3,150,322

2,491,395

287,692

219,182

210,210

229,247

182,953

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

243,512

155,079

175,251

193,433

155,642

122,233

77,438

187,687

259,475

209,063

Wells - South

Electricity

(KW

h)

3,144,540

11,223,906

9,067,346

9,276,859

8,517,304

233,056

835,751

653,628

667,860

615,484

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

43,483

33,248

30,675

7,095

21,121

22,687

18,427

34,116

9,992

28,793

Wells South

side &

TARP

Electricity

(KW

h)

2,496,770

4,050,204

2,162,340

3,763,374

3,043,205

155,792

241,374

122,138

218,675

173,315

Natu

ral G

as (therm

s)

41,370

37,706

32,626

39,965

24,693

21,754

20,569

36,234

54,870

35,816

Wells - Tanque Verd

e

Electricity

(KW

h)

6,232,470

6,009,343

2,223,409

3,051,109

2,118,461

393,032

418,727

155,121

201,215

145,321

Reclaim

ed W

ate

r Energ

y U

se

All Reclaim

ed Sys

tem

s

Trico

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

980,710

1,111,063

1,649,667

1,868,696

0

99,167

90,404

182,008

214,169

Alvern

on

Electricity

(KW

h)

3,760

1,440

1,100

1,400

1,340

280

127

99

118

120

Northeast

Electricity

(KW

h)

530,740

970,240

1,064,260

961,680

1,094,183

38,193

53,489

59,141

53,529

61,051

Northwest

Electricity

(KW

h)

25,020

170,240

62,340

407,660

387,309

1,106

9,540

3,521

23,166

22,284

Silverb

ell

Electricity

(KW

h)

400,480

1,055,907

1,295,073

2,089,676

3,041,480

29,467

59,348

73,896

147,512

217,158

South

east

Electricity

(KW

h)

6,600

92,878

65,220

79,412

78,579

493

8,151

5,744

7,021

6,967

South

west

Electricity

(KW

h)

340,420

1,114,450

848,140

723,880

730,320

24,617

67,549

52,453

48,305

48,182

53

City G

overn

ment Opera

tions Data

Expenditure

s (d

ollars

)

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

1990

2000

2005

2006

2007

Reclaim

ed W

ate

r Energ

y U

se (Continued)

Speedway

Electricity

(KW

h)

217,790

200,540

207,670

182,050

182,040

16,260

17,868

18,775

16,432

16,496

Sweetw

ate

r

Electricity

(KW

h)

3,862,380

8,658,820

8,557,660

8,443,360

8,739,580

192,448

528,999

513,679

519,105

526,526

Thorn

ydale

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

0

0

195,196

712,584

0

0

0

20,912

62,115

12th

Avenue

Electricity

(KW

h)

0

0

0

1,600

47,920

0

0

0

260

4,465

Vehicle

Fle

et (m

iles/

fisc

al year)

39

Gaso

line vehicles

n.a.

14,430,006

15,435,097

15,726,626

n.a.

1,424,508

3,068,344

3,428,333

3,742,401

Diese

l vehicles

3,070,951

2,045,879

0

833,309

2,878,285

2,859,033

0

CNG vehicles

0

499,568

377,500

161,782

0

1,531,950

1,372,072

1,314,739

B-2

0 vehicles

0

0

2,169,703

4,167,616

0

0

3,325,132

3,911,984

Gaso

line (gallons)

1,581,063

Diese

l (gallons)

1,064,241

Em

plo

yee C

om

mute

(m

iles/

year)

Gaso

line vehicles

n.a.

24,928,617

24,309,216

20,518,913

16,957,524

0

0

0

0

0

Public Lig

hting (KW

h)

Streetlights

n.a.

20,008,582

20,008,582

20,008,582

20,008,582

n.a.

1,400,601

1,400,601

1,400,601

1,400,601

Tra

ffic Lights

4,608,922

4,608,922

4,608,922

4,608,922

322,625

322,625

322,625

322,625

Govern

ment Solid W

ast

e (sh

ort tons)

40

n.a.

16,321

19,504

20,211

20,945

n.a.

375,387

448,582

464,852

481,737

n.a. - D

ata

not availa

ble

0 - N

o use

37 O

n July 1, 2

006, C

ity lib

raries beca

me C

ounty

facilities; subse

quent electricity

use

and costs are

included in

2007 C

ounty

use

and costs

38 O

ther facilities in

cludes TOPSC Build

ings 2, 3

and 5 and W

ate

r Sto

res

39 Vehicle fleet data

for 2000 repre

sents gallons of fu

el a

nd costs base

d on 2001 to 2005 percent ch

ange in

fuel u

se and costs

40 W

aste disposa

l cost base

d on $23.00 tip

pin

g fee per sh

ort ton