The importance of community energy and emissions data, and how to improve the data available in British Columbia.
July 2025
AUTHORS
Stewart Somerville, Eduard Cubi and Alicia Gowan
With special thanks to Gabriel Berenguer Viera, Erin Desautels, Matt Greeno and Nicholas Heap
Climate change remains a complex and ongoing global challenge, requiring coordinated action at all levels of government. While national and provincial policies are essential, local governments play a critical role in delivering climate action, with the ability to influence land use, buildings, transportation, and waste, key drivers of energy use and emissions.
Data on energy and emissions serve as the foundation for informed and effective climate action. The provision of this data at the community level enables local governments to understand their community’s emission sources, track progress, and develop targeted policies. Accurate, consistent, and timely data can support evidence-based decision making and ensure that limited resources are directed toward the most impactful actions.
For some time now, British Columbia (B.C.) has been ahead of the curve, with community-level energy and emissions data made available through the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory, administered by the Province. Data reports were first released in 2010, with data starting from 2007. The availability of this data has been driven by initiatives from the B.C. government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, such as the BC Climate Change Accountability Act, the B.C. Climate Action Charter, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act and CleanBC, as well as ongoing advocacy from local governments.
While B.C. is leading in offering a structured, province-wide dataset, local governments still face challenges in understanding their emissions. Limited sector coverage, granularity, and spatial disaggregation, concerns around accuracy, and time lags in data releases limit the usefulness of available data. Maintaining and improving the data available to local governments is necessary to support the evolving needs of communities and ensure that local governments remain effective partners in climate action, particularly in the context of limited capacity and financial resources.
This whitepaper provides a critical assessment of the current state of community energy and emissions data in B.C. The paper explores the strengths and limitations of the current system, identifies the specific data needs of local governments, and outlines opportunities for improvement. It proposes actions that could be taken by the Climate Action Secretariat, local governments, utilities and other stakeholders to coordinate efforts, increase efficiency, and get access to better data.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are calculated by multiplying activity data by emissions factors; the calculated GHG emissions are then compiled to generate a GHG inventory. GHG inventories typically track emissions on an annual basis. The availability and collection of activity data is critical to developing and updating a GHG inventory.
The scope of a GHG inventory can be defined in different ways:
Territorial inventories include emissions produced within a geographic boundary, whereas consumption-based inventories include emissions associated with all goods and services consumed by residents who live within that boundary, regardless of where those emissions occur.
Corporate inventories track emissions from an organization’s operations and activities, whereas community inventories track emissions from all anthropogenic sources within a geographic area.
This paper focuses on community GHG inventories, specifically those completed by local governments and the community-level data required.
Local governments in British Columbia can approach a GHG inventory in one of two ways.
A third party collects and processes activity data, calculates GHG emissions, and compiles them into a GHG inventory.
In B.C., this typically refers to:
• The Province's Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI)
• Inventories completed by a Regional Government
The local government collects and processes activity data, calculates GHG emissions, and compiles their own GHG inventory.
Generally, local governments would use a third-party tool (e.g. C40 Cities’ CIRIS tool) to support the process, but may also opt to use a custom tool
In practice, many local governments combine both approaches, leveraging data from the CEEI or regional inventories and supplementing it with local activity data to improve accuracy, granularity, or sectoral coverage. If a local government is compiling their own GHG inventory, they will often source the activity data from GHG inventories that have been completed on their behalf
The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) is an internationally recognized standard developed by C40 Cities, ICLEI, and the World Resources Institute. It provides a consistent methodology for measuring and reporting GHG emissions Many municipalities use the GPC to align their inventories with global best practices and climate reporting frameworks.
C40 Cities has also developed the City Inventory Reporting and Information System (CIRIS), an Excel-based tool commonly used by local governments to compile, calculate, and report community-scale emissions data in line with the GPC. CIRIS enables cities to report their emissions in a format that can be directly uploaded to the CDP-ICLEI Track platform, supporting streamlined reporting to multiple initiatives such as ICLEI, C40 Cities, WWF, and the Global Covenant of Mayors.
The B.C. Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) is a province-wide dataset administered by the Climate Action Secretariat (CAS) that provides estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, on-road transportation, and solid waste at the community level across British Columbia. It supports local governments in tracking emissions and meeting their obligations under the Climate Action Charter and the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act. The CEEI currently includes data for 2007 through to 2022 (bar 2008, 2009 and 2011 in some sectors) for 161 municipalities, 28 regional districts, and one region. CAS continues to update the CEEI with new annual data and is actively working to enhance the service as noted below.
Recent Updates:
• Revised methodologies for residential wood, heating oil, and propane emissions.
• Inclusion of renewable natural gas (RNG) in the inventory for 2022, with plans to provide hindcast data for previous years.
• Disaggregation of BC Hydro electricity data by building type for 2022, again with plans to provide hindcast data for previous years.
• Updated on-road transportation data, interpolation of ICBC data for years with missing data, updated natural gas emissions factors, calibration with National Inventory Report years and updated vehicle category mapping to align with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Ongoing Improvements:
• Revisions to the on-road transportation methodology to improve the accuracy of vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT) and emissions estimates.
• Automation of data collection and processing, with a digital solution, to reduce the manual workload, reduce time-lag in data releases, improve Quality Assurance / Quality Control, and free up capacity for other improvements.
• Improving the accessibility and usability of data, with plans for a dashboard and GIS-based visualizations.
Future Improvements Under Consideration:
• Expanding sector coverage and providing supporting indicators like WalkScore and green space.
• Enhancing spatial granularity down to neighbourhood and census tract levels, building on the Tract and Neighbourhood Data Modelling (TaNDM) pilot with Kelowna.
• Advocating for enhancing sectoral granularity from additional suppliers (Fortis BC).
• Aligning more closely with B.C.’s Provincial Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Provincial Inventory).
CAS sits within B.C.’s Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and leads provincial efforts to reduce GHG emissions and support adaptation. The CEEI is administered by CAS and funded through provincial resources.
At the local level, climate action is supported through a combination of municipal budgets and provincial programs such as the Local Government Climate Action Program (LGCAP). LGCAP provides annual funding to local governments and Modern Treaty Nations to support climate action work. Many local governments spend a portion of this funding on GHG inventory work, despite the availability of data through the CEEI.
Local governments completing additional community GHG inventory work dedicate, on average, approximately 0.4 FTE employees and spend $20,000-25,000 in consultant fees annually 1 . This is a significant amount of resources that these local governments might otherwise spend on implementing GHG reduction initiatives
As it stands, local governments face a range of challenges in completing community GHG inventories. While constraints like limited staff capacity, financial resources, council prioritization, and in-house technical expertise are common, one of the prevalent challenges is access to reliable, high-quality data. This refers to both the data made available through the CEEI and the availability of quality data more generally. Issues include:
• Timeliness and Predictability: Emissions data is often released with significant time lags and without a clear schedule, making it difficult for local governments to plan inventory updates or align with reporting and policy cycles. Data for a given year is typically released two to three years later.
• Limited Granularity: Available data has limited granularity, e.g. natural gas data is only broken down into residential vs CSMI (commercial & small-medium industrial), and both utility data and transportation data could have more spatial disaggregation. The limited granularity makes it hard to understand the sources of emissions and develop target policies and programs.
• Limited Sector Coverage: Data is largely limited to buildings, on-road transportation, and solid waste, with little to no community-level data available for agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), or industrial processes and product use (IPPU).
• Protocol Misalignment: Available data is not consistently aligned with internationally recognized frameworks such as the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC), requiring local governments to spend additional time adapting data formats
• Unclear and Inconsistent Methodologies: Limited transparency around data sources and calculation methods reduces confidence in reported figures. Methodological changes over time further complicate comparisons across years, undermining the ability to track progress or evaluate impacts.
• Data Inaccuracies and Attribution Errors: Local governments frequently identify inaccuracies in emissions data, often related to incorrect attribution between neighbouring municipalities or the misallocation of energy or transportation data.
It has already been discussed that local governments can approach a GHG inventory in one of two ways:
1. Using a GHG Inventory compiled on their behalf
2. Compiling their own GHG Inventory
The first could also be framed as a “centralized” approach, which, in relation to the CEEI, is coordinated by CAS, and the second, a “decentralized” approach, where local governments work independently. However, in practice, there is currently a “collaborative” approach, and this will likely continue. These concepts are explored below
Figure 2: Centralized, Decentralized and Collaborative Approaches
Centralized Approach
CAS compiles and processes province-wide datasets to generate standardized inventories for all local governments published through the CEEI.
As per the centralized approach.
Centralized
Decentralized
• Ensures consistency and comparability.
• Reduces the burden on local governments.
• Data custodians work with one recipient.
• Allows for the incorporation of local data.
Decentralized Approach
Local governments collect and process their own activity data and compile independent GHG inventories, using tools like CIRIS.
Local data is used by LGs to QA/QC the CEEI data and improve the granularity or coverage of their GHG inventories
CAS use feedback from LG to improve their methodology and data processing
Collaborative
• Enables feedback loops to improve data quality and methodology.
• May lack local specificity or granularity.
• Less responsive to community-level data needs or emerging sectors.
• Requires staff capacity and technical knowledge. Often outsourced to consultants.
• Leads to inconsistencies across jurisdictions.
• Data custodians have to respond to multiple individual requests.
• Still requires action from local governments.
A collaborative approach between CAS and local governments offers the greatest potential for improving the quality, coverage, and efficiency of community energy and emissions data in British Columbia. Local governments want to be able to trust and rely more heavily on the data provided through the CEEI. Strengthening the centralized system will increase overall efficiency and reduce duplication of effort.
CAS’s ongoing focus is to provide province-wide coverage using consistent datasets and methodologies that apply across all communities. Local governments, particularly those with greater capacity, access to local data, and that are leading the way, play an important role in providing feedback to CAS to improve the data quality. These local governments may also choose to compile more detailed GHG inventories using local data sources to complement the CEEI data.
Regardless of approach, access to activity data relies heavily on data custodians, and improving data granularity and sector coverage will require sustained effort and stronger collaboration.
CAS faces a number of persistent challenges in accessing more granular and consistent data to support the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI). Key issues include:
• Privacy and Confidentiality: Utilities, particularly FortisBC, cite privacy concerns as a barrier to sharing disaggregated data (e.g., by building type or postal code). BC Hydro now provides far more disaggregated data for the same populations.
• High Cost of Data Disaggregation: Pilots like the TaNDM project in Kelowna demonstrated that integrating BC Assessment and utility data for spatial attribution is technically feasible but costly and difficult to replicate province-wide.
• Lack of Direct Regulatory Authority: CAS cannot require utilities to provide detailed data and must rely on voluntary collaboration, which slows progress and limits access to comprehensive datasets. Any regulatory requirements for utilities have to go through the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC). An ongoing challenge has always been how to get utilities to enhance data, which will cost them money, when the current BCUC mandate is cost-effective energy. However, the provincial government could amend existing statues, introduce new legislation, or establish new policy mandates under the existing legislation to require utilities additional energy data collection and reporting
• Time-Intensive Data Agreements: Establishing an initial data-sharing agreement with custodians like utilities, ICBC, or regional authorities is often a slow and resource-intensive process, requiring repeated engagement and legal review.
• Delayed Data Delivery and QA/QC: Data is received at different times and in varied formats, requiring significant processing and validation. This contributes to the 2+ year lag between the reporting year and publication of CEEI data. The National GHG Inventory experiences a similar lag in reporting Both the National GHG inventory and the CEEI use activity data from federal ministries and, as such, are beholden to the same timelines. Moreover, while CAS conducts QA/QC, there may be errors in the source data they receive from providers, and it can take a couple of years for providers to correct their own errors.
• Uneven Geographic Coverage: Some data sources are only available in specific regions or pilot communities. CAS avoids using these to ensure methodological consistency across all local governments. Despite these constraints, CAS has taken steps to improve data quality by piloting new methods, updating sector methodologies (e.g., for wood, propane, renewable gas), and exploring integration with other provincial datasets. However, addressing these systemic barriers will require coordinated action across regulators, data custodians, and local governments. Together, these challenges highlight the need for coordinated advocacy, technical investment, and potentially new regulatory or funding frameworks to support province-wide data improvements.
As discussed, improving the quality and accessibility of community energy and emissions data in British Columbia requires a coordinated effort. CAS plays a central role in administering and evolving the CEEI, while local governments need to continue contributing critical feedback to CAS and put pressure on data custodians for better data. This whitepaper includes a call for action and outlines the roles of CAS and local governments
Figure 3: Roles of CAS and Local Governments
• Represent the collective interests of local governments in data-sharing negotiations, leveraging provincial influence to support broader access and consistency.
• Secure improved access to data from custodians (e.g., utilities, ICBC, Statistics Canada).
• Continue with planned improvement to CEEI data collection, processing and sharing process so that LGs have easier access to the data in a more timely manner.
• Streamline the feedback process in a “collaborative” approach, ensuring local government data and insights help improve CEEI methodologies.
• Advocate for high-quality, granular data by submitting resolutions for the annual UBCM Convention, contacting CEEI@gov.bc.ca, approaching data custodians, and participating in LGCAP reporting
• Align and coordinate advocacy with other LGs.
• Support CAS in data negotiations by clearly articulating needs.
• Provide input to CAS on data priorities, preferred formats, and emerging needs to help improve the quality and usability of CEEI.
• Use local data and studies to help CAS QA/QC and revise their methodologies.
• Continue to communicate and provide feedback on the value of the LGCAP program and the CEEI in supporting local climate action.
A matrix of potential actions has been developed to support CAS, local governments, and other key actors moving forward. These actions consider CAS’s current efforts to update and expand the CEEI platform and draw directly from insights shared through engagement with local government staff and consultants. They look to address both the practical needs of communities and the strategic direction of CAS, offering targeted opportunities to address long-standing challenges in data granularity, reliability, and sectoral coverage.
The full action matrix is provided in the Appendix. An example is provided below.
Greater spatial disaggregation of utility data
Next steps for exploring those
Utilities to provide data by FSA LGs to advocate for BC Hydro and FortisBC to share spatially disaggregated data.
CAS to strike data sharing agreements with utilities that require data by FSA.
Reliable, timely, and granular energy and emissions data is critical to supporting effective local climate action in British Columbia. The CEEI, led by CAS, provides a province-wide foundation for community-level GHG emissions data. As local governments increasingly rely on this data for planning, policy, and reporting, the importance of maintaining and improving the CEEI continues to grow.
Strengthening this system will require shared effort across CAS, local governments, and data custodians. Enhancements in sector coverage, spatial resolution, methodological transparency, and alignment with global protocols like the GPC will help ensure that data continues to support informed and equitable decision-making at the local level.
CEEI is an essential resource that provides consistent, community-level emissions data across B.C. CAS is actively working to modernize the system and improve methodologies, and is also seeking to improve sector coverage and data granularity to better meet the needs of local governments.
Timeliness, granularity, and reliability of data are key priorities for local governments, particularly for major sectors such as buildings and on-road transportation
A collaborative approach offers the greatest potential for efficiency and consistency at scale. CAS must continue to acquire data on behalf of local government and make it available through the CEEI, and local governments must continue to provide feedback and put pressure on data custodians for better data.
Local governments play a dual role as both users and contributors of data. Their feedback on the CEEI data, reflecting on local data and studies, is critical to identifying gaps, informing methodology, and improving quality.
Data custodians must be engaged effectively to provide quality, disaggregated data where feasible. This may be achieved through collective pressure from local governments and the Province, but may also require clear guidance and regulatory pathways to enable consistent sharing.
Coordinated advocacy and sustained investment are essential. Local governments are encouraged to continue championing the importance of the CEEI through channels such as UBCM, LGCAP reporting, and direct engagement with the Province. Ongoing advocacy can help secure funding, improve data access, and ensure that community needs remain central to future improvements. LGs should work with each other and CAS to coordinate an advocacy campaign.
A matrix of potential actions has been developed to support the Climate Action Secretariat, local governments, and other key actors in improving the quality and accessibility of data in British Columbia.
The matrix is structured into “Needs” , possible “Avenues” for addressing those needs, and potential “Actions” for pursuing each avenue. Note that the actions are not exhaustive; they are intended to provide some ideas for next steps.
Each avenue has been given an indicator of complexity This indicator is based solely on the consultant team's perception and does not reflect any quantitative analysis. It is not an indication of a successful outcome.
The avenue is directly in CAS’s or LG’s control, requires moderate effort, involves previously engaged parties and/or there are previous examples of success
1 More timely data A key issue is getting data in a timely manner, and the lag between the reporting year and the data is available.
The 2+ year time delay in obtaining data is a big restriction on timely policy development
Is it possible to expedite the QAQC process?
CEEI has been historically aligned with the provincial inventory ~2 to 2.5 year lag. CAS is working on automation and working with data providers to get information as soon as possible for quicker turnarounds. CAS noted that automation will drastically help reduce this lag
LGs are able to reach out to CAS for the raw data before it's published if they wish to.
CAS has considered making raw data more readily available and sees an opportunity here. They have considered a portal-based system with controlled external log-ins.
2 An established schedule It would be good to have a timeline so LGs can schedule their inventory updates.
3 Improved methodology and reliability
There are methodology changes year over year for CEEI.
LGs require staff to provide different numbers to the council through annual reporting, which is challenging if they are providing changing numbers.
Important to be clear about sources and the reliability of the data in the CEEI There needs to be clear methodologies to ensure communities are interpreting available data in the same way.
Communication is piecemeal, and there is no established schedule for short-term and mid-term data releases.
The last full CEEI methodology document was completed in 2017 for the 2007-2012 data.
There is some guidance on the CEEI website and on the “Read Me” sheet of each of the data downloads.
There is a full methodology document for on-road transportation capturing recent methodology updates
CAS is already working on a new website and methodologies to be released in 2025.
A Automate data collection and processing
CAS is already establishing a digital solution for data automation.
Automation will significantly free up capacity, so CAS can advance the CEEI in other areas.
The avenue involves more external actors, requires considerable work, proposes more regulatory routes and/or there have been no previous examples of success
B Share raw data before it's processed
LGs have quicker access to raw data to compile their own GHG inventories and can use more recent data to inform policy decisions.
Some processing will always be needed to make sense of the data before it can be shared.
Concern about putting draft or “wrong” data out there that is then different from the final data.
Utility providers provide CAS with the data at different times, so availability would be piecemeal.
CAS to explore the feasibility of sharing raw data.
Note: If automation of data collection and processing dramatically reduces the time lag, there may be less demand for access to the raw data.
A Communicate the CEEI schedule
Allows LGs to plan accordingly. Delivery is dependent on data custodians sharing data with CAS on time.
A Publish more detailed guidance and methodology documents Ensures LGs can interpret the data correctly and understand the reliability of the data before using it for policy and planning decisions.
None of note.
CAS to provide more communication on CEEI data releases
CAS to publish more detailed guidance and methodology documents, with a record of any annual changes to the methodology or data.
Note that alignment with the GPC (Need 4) would ensure there is a clear methodology that is well documented.
4 Alignment of data with GPC
Many local governments are taking CEEI data and putting it into the GPC format.
LGCAP allows the use of CDP reporting/data, but LGCAP is required before CDP reporting.
CAS acknowledged the popularity of the GPC and identified it as a potential next step, but noted that they want to be more confident with the existing data first.
A Revise the structure of CEEI to align with the GPC
Data is provided in a format aligned with various reporting protocols and platforms.
It may take considerable time to revise the CEEI methodology and produce hindcasted data for previous years.
CAS to explore the feasibility of aligning the CEEI with the GPC, including inquiring about technical support from C40 Cities.
5 Incorporation of population indicators
It would be good to have data which considers population and growth CEEI does not currently incorporate data on population, households, building floor area or vehicle population.
The transportation does include Policy Years Earned (PYE) for vehicles which can be interpreted as vehicles insured over the reporting year
Population and per capita data will be included in the forthcoming CEEI Dashboard
A CAS collects extra data to provide normalized metrics.
Population and household data are readily available from Statistics Canada, and vehicle population is readily available through ICBC.
Ensures consistency across LGs for normalized metrics.
Data on building floor areas requires lots of processing.
CAS to continue integrating population data into the CEEI and establishing normalized metrics (e.g. per capita, per household, per floor area, per vehicle)
CAS to work with Statistics Canada, ICBC and BC Assessment to establish data-sharing agreements.
B LGs calculated their own normalized metrics.
Population and household data are readily available from Statistics Canada, and vehicle population through ICBC.
An easy step for LGs.
6 Greater spatial disaggregation of utility data
There is a significant need for greater spatial disaggregation Energy and utility data are provided as total per fuel type for each community.
Data is not broken out for First Nation reserves and some unincorporated areas.
CAS has piloted spatial disaggregation through the Tract and Neighbourhood Data Modelling (TaNDM) pilot with Kelowna
A Revisit TaNDM or explore alternative methodologies
Already some success with the pilot TaNDM project
Data on building floor areas requires lots of processing. Inconsistency is the way normalized metrics are derived.
LGs to continue calculating their own normalized metrics as needed.
LGs to continue working with BC Assessment data to provide data in more regular and consistent formats
The TaNDM project was made possible with significant voluntary time and input from multiple organizations. NRCan has paused this project for now, so its future and scalability are very uncertain Full-scale rollout of TaNDM-like disaggregation depends on data access from utilities like FortisBC.
CAS to engage with the Integrated Cadastral Information Society (ICIS) and other mapping services to understand the latest developments and opportunities with spatial mapping.
CAS to continue pursuing TaNDM or alternative methodologies for spatial disaggregation.
LGs to initiate and advocate for more pilot projects to support methodology development and demonstrate proof of concept.
CAS, LGs, BC Hydro, Fortis BC, ICIS
B Utilities to provide data by FSA
Many precedents of utilities sharing data by FSA.
FSA should be a readily available data point for utilities.
FSA boundaries are not always aligned with municipal boundaries.
FSA doesn’t provide that much more granularity.
LGs to advocate for BC Hydro and FortisBC to share spatially disaggregated data.
CAS to strike data sharing agreements with utilities that require data by FSA
CAS, LGs, BC Hydro, FortisBC, other utilities. 2
7 Breakdown of natural gas data by building type
Unable to get disaggregated natural gas data by area, building type or age cohort.
BC Hydro is now providing a breakdown of energy use by building type, but FortisBC is not.
Would like natural gas data that is consistent with BC Hydro. It would be helpful if FortisBC provided data by building type.
It is understood that FortisBC lack existing systems to provide this breakdown, which poses cost implications, and they don’t have the regulatory mandate to address this.
FortisBC has previously engaged in providing this breakdown for the TaNDM pilot.
A FortisBC to provide a breakdown of natural gas data by building type for each community.
BC Hydro have now set the precedent for providing a breakdown of energy data by building type.
FortisBC have been seemingly unwilling to explore data disaggregation.
It is potentially a lot of work, at a cost, for FortisBC to provide this breakdown if there are not already existing systems or processes that can be leveraged. FortisBC is regulated by the Utilities Commission (BCUC), whose mandate includes ensuring energy is provided safely and at the lowest reasonable cost.
CAS and LGs to continue advocating for and requesting data from FortisBC to show demand.
CAS and LGs to advocate to and work with the BCUC to highlight that this data is in the “public interest” and should be provided by Fortis BC.
LGs to seek opportunities and initiate pilot projects with FortisBC, exploring natural gas data disaggregation to demonstrate proof of concept and support process development.
CAS to explore franchise agreements or regulatory mechanisms through BCUC to require the provision of granular data
Province of BC to explore avenues to include energy data collection/sharing mandates for utilities E.g., Utilities Commission Act, Clean Energy Act
8 Non-building electricity use estimates
BC Hydro could provide LGs with information on non-building electricity use (e.g., private EV charging)
BC Hydro does not provide utility data broken out by use type This would require consistent submetering, which does not exist.
A Conduct a research study to establish a methodology for estimating nonbuilding electricity use.
Only viable route, as collecting fulsome data on end-use is not possible.
Likely to be a one-off study. CAS and LGs to seek opportunities and initiate a pilot project with researchers into a methodology for estimating non-building electricity use.
BC Hydro to provide available data insights.
9 Renewable energy generation estimates
LGs want to understand solar energy production in each community (either direct numbers from utilities or estimates using satellite imagery and land classification).
BC Hydro does not currently publish renewable energy generation data disaggregated by municipality and there is no data on community-level solar generation.
FortisBC does provide data on renewable natural gas consumption through the CEEI. Renewable energy generation may not be appropriate for CEEI, as the CEEI focuses on consumption
A Conduct a research study to establish a methodology for estimating renewable energy generation.
Only viable route, as collecting fulsome data on solar generation is not possible.
Likely to be a one-off study. BC Hydro will only have data on outflow to the grid, and only for self-generation that is connected to the grid.
CAS and LGs to seek opportunities and initiate a pilot project with researchers into a methodology to estimate renewable energy generation at the community level. This may incorporate satellite data, BC Hydro selfgeneration reports (if available), permit data and custom data requests to utilities.
BC Hydro to provide available data insights.
Transportation
10 More accurate VKT data. There needs to be better transportation data, specifically VKTs for all registered vehicles GHG data needs to be informed by statistically robust sampling of VKT data
The Province can and should direct ICBC to collect annual odometer data from vehicles (or at least a statistically valid sample of them) to inform vehicle GHG modelling efforts.
Transportation-specific studies for municipalities often involve creating their own VKT model due to the unreliability of CEEI.
The Translink Trip Diaries are useful, but the frequency is a challenge.
CAS undertook a large update to the on-road transportation methodology with Licker Geospatial Consulting and is looking to make further improvements.
Vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) estimates are currently calculated using a combination of data sources, including bottom-up sources that are attributed to individual vehicles (AirCare records) and top-down sources that estimate total VKT for given years and communities (Trip Diary Surveys and NRCan records). It is noted that VKT numbers have high uncertainty
A ICBC to collect and share odometer data
Would track the VKT of vehicles registered in a given jurisdiction.
ICBC does not currently require customers to disclose their odometer readings; it is only collected for customers looking to access a low-kilometre discount.
Likely to require a more regulatory route.
CAS to work with ICBC to explore the feasibility and business case of collecting and sharing VKT data.
LGs to advocate for the collection and sharing of odometer data.
CAS to work with BCUC to explore the regulatory requirements for ICBC to collect VKT information and make this available for the purposes of the CEEI
Province of BC to explore potential additions to the Insurance Corporation Act to include odometer data collection
B Fuel sales data
Some jurisdictions have already had success with fuel sales data.
C More frequent trip surveys, especially for regions outside of Metro Vancouver Already considered in the VKT estimate methodology.
D Google Energy Insights Explorer Google is actively engaging already.
May have issues of attribution (Location and vehicle type).
Will require data-sharing agreements with fuel distributors.
CAS to explore the integration of fuel sales into the VKT estimate methodology and the viability of establishing data-sharing agreements.
11 More accurate data on Transit services (fleet, VKT, fuel usage)
Regular data on transit would show how transportation trends are changing or not changing.
There is not enough data granularity, both from a time and geographic perspective, to inform policy changes.
Public transportation data, especially on buses that cross municipal boundaries, is unreliable.
Vehicle emissions are attributed to the postal code of the insurance record. This is especially relevant for buses because the Lower Mainland buses are all registered in New Westminster.
The only data made available to CAS was VKT for 2019. This was applied across all years, so changes in VKT across time could not be captured.
A Transit agencies provide odometer and service data by vehicle type.
Would provide actual VKT for different forms of transit.
Surveys can require significant resources and are unlikely to be completed at regular intervals.
CAS and LG to advocate for regional governments to conduct more frequent trip surveys.
Methodology is likely to be a black box.
CAS to work with Google to understand the availability of province-wide data, attribution and methodology
LGs to conduct pilots with Google to support CAS is the potential adoption.
Will require data-sharing agreements with multiple operators.
CAS to coordinate advocacy and establish datasharing agreements with transit operators to share data on fleet, VKT and fuel consumption.
Province of BC to consider tying transit data reporting requirements to funding
LGs
CAS, BC Transit, TransLink, and municipal transit authorities
12 Understanding trip boundaries Transportation data that helps us understand modes/origindestination/transboundary vs inregion
Public transportation data, especially on buses that cross municipal boundaries, is unreliable
CEEI does not provide any spatial element to its transportation data.
VKT data and fuel sales data typically used to calculate transportation GHG emissions, do not give insights into where trips originate and terminate. This requires GPS data.
Some LGS have explored Google EIE but noted that attribution was different from CEEI / GPC protocols, and the methodology was a black box.
A Use GPS and environics data to better define trip origin and destination.
The only real way to explore trip origin and destination at scale.
There is a lot of uncertainty around the methodology and accuracy of these data collection processes.
CAS to explore the use of GPS and environics data in updates to the CEEI transportation methodology, working with data collectors, such as Google and the cellular networks.
LGs to continue exploring GPS and environics as part of their local transportation studies, with an eye to how the process could be scaled.
13 Recycling and Organics Waste
There is no data on recycling and organics tonnage.
CAS provides data on solid waste only.
Some regional governments completed detailed waste studies regularly as part of their waste management plans.
A Collect data from regional districts, waste programs, waste facilities and waste haulers.
Will provide actual activity data Often hard to attribute waste data to municipalities, and waste services operate across municipal boundaries.
Waste typically represents a small proportion of community GHG emissions. Efforts for better data may be better focused elsewhere.
CAS to consider province-wide data-sharing agreements with regional districts, waste facilities and private waste haulers requiring them to report annual quantities of recycled and organic waste
14 Data on AFOLU emissions (LandUse and Livestock)
Seeking emissions data for land use/land cover change
There's a need for good agricultural data.
CAS used to provide GHG emissions data related to landuse changes as a result of deforestation, but no longer does.
Some LGs have been able to estimate agricultural emissions for their community following the GPC protocol.
B Estimate using composition studies and surveys
It can be driven by local governments. It can be integrated with educational campaigns.
The survey process is likely to require considerable effort from participants and conductors.
Samples from a handful of municipalities may not be sufficient to produce estimates for all communities in BC.
A Leverage data collected by federal departments and agencies
Data is generally publicly available and potentially easier for CAS to strike data sharing agreements with other government bodies.
The different data sets are collected on different timelines and intervals. Unknown whether there is data collected annually that can be leveraged.
LGs to carry out periodic composition studies that can be used to inform estimates.
CAS to explore financial or technical support for local governments to conduct such surveys.
CAS, regional governments, waste facilities, waste programs (e.g. RecycleBC), private waste haulers 3
B Investigate satellite services that could be used to derive activity data
Likely to be able to find more sophisticated systems that identify activity and collect data.
It is unlikely to be high enough priority to investigate, procure and integrate such a service into the CEEI.
CAS to explore data that is available through federal departments and agencies (e.g. Canada Forest Services, Environment Canada, Agriculture Canada, and Statistics Canada).
CAS to explore studies completed by others on methodology, including the Coastal Douglas Fir Conservation Partnerships and UBC Botanical Gardens Biodiversity Mapping work.
CAS, Canada Forest Services, Environment Canada, Agriculture Canada, and Statistics Canada
CAS to consider alternative services for collecting activity and GHG emissions data for AFOLU emissions. CAS