NOLS Carbon Emissions Report - FY15 by NOLS

2015

FY 15 Carbon Em issions R epor t Page

Photo credit: Christian Jaunich

TABLE OF CON T EN T S Sustainability at N OLS

Alaska

Reporting Process

Mexico

Carbon Reduction Goals

PacificNorthwest

Schoolwide Progress

India

Alternative Energy

Scandinavia

Transportation

Yukon

Patagonia

Southwest

Teton Valley

WyssWildernessMedicine Campus

Location Reports World Headquarters

Rocky Mountain

T hreePeaksRanch

River Base

Northeast

A Little Comparison

East Africa

Concluding T houghts

Australia

New Z ealand

Sustainability at N OLS H istory In 2006, N OLS identified the need for a comprehensive, schoolwide vision to reduce our carbon footprint and evaluate our progress. We contracted with Pure Strategies in 2007 to conduct a sustainability audit for the school wherein they evaluated N OLS' current practices, established a 2006 baseline carbon footprint, and recommended improvements to reduce that footprint. In the context of human-induced climate change, monitoring a carbon footprint is particularly valuable. It allows us to measure environmental impact in specific categories, highlighting the areas in which reductions should be focused. After N OLS established its baseline environmental footprint, a sustainability coordinator position was created to manage the ongoing collection of footprint data and foster implementation of Pure Strategy's recommendations. A central goal of our sustainability program is to be a support system, assisting locations in matters of sustainability. We have worked to provide resources on a schoolwide scale, such as the 2010 Creating a Climate for Change sustainability initiatives report and N OLS Sustainability Guidelines. W ith the publication of this Carbon Emissions Report, we continue to help locations achieve their sustainability goals.

Scope of R epor t T his report addresses the state of N OLS' carbon emissions, as an entire organization and also by location. It outlines our standards for carbon reporting as well as our emissions reduction goals. Current major initiatives for reducing energy use are highlighted such as alternative energy options and changes to our transportation systems. Progress reports for the overall organization and for each location have been compiled from available carbon emissions data. T hese offer a snapshot of how carbon emissions are distributed between operations and the overall progress made towards emissions reduction over these past years. T his data can be used by locations to measure the efficacy of carbon reduction initiatives and track progress towards our goals.

Reporting Process Carbon Footpr int R epor ting O ne of the proposed ways to mitigate climate change is through the reporting by businesses on the impact of their operations. T his is commonly done through the measurement of carbon footprints, "the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused by an [individual, event, organization, product] expressed as CO 2 [equivalent]" (Carbon Trust, 2010). O nce the size and sources of the carbon footprint is determined, a strategy can be designed to reduce it. Greenhouse gas reporting is divided into three scopes. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from organization-controlled sources. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from organization-controlled sources. Scope 3 includes all other sources of emissions. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates the reporting of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, many organizations go beyond and also report Scope 3 emissions to some extent.

D efining O ur Footpr int After visiting key operating locations and interviewing staff members, Pure Strategies produced an estimated carbon footprint for each location and the entire school for fiscal year (FY) 2006. T his measurement is used as our baseline footprint against which we establish goals and track progress. T his baseline footprint considered carbon sources within the Scope 1 and 2 boundaries, such as on-site fuel combustion, emissions from N OLS owned and leased vehicles, and electricity use as well as some Scope 3 emission sources. T his allowed us to begin to establish systems to measure and track our energy use; however, this initial footprint did not account for all emission sources related to N OLS operations. In 2010 N OLS established a Scope 3 boundary based on what is realistically measurable. T he Scope 3 sources we currently track include: student travel during N OLS courses, reimbursed intown staff travel, and outsourced re-rations/evacuations/drop-offs and pick-ups, all of which fit under the broader category of non-N OLS vehicles. In FY 2015 we started including non-N OLS vehicle travel into our overall carbon footprint. T his did not effect our 2006 baseline or emissions reduction goals since non-N OLS vehicles were already included in both of those measurements.

N OL S Carbon Footpr int Com ponents Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

BU I LDIN G EN ERGY (leased and owned)

ELECT R ICIT Y

ST U DEN T T R AVEL DU R IN G COU R SE

VEH ICLES (leased and owned) WH IT E GAS FU EL

IN TOWN STAFF T R AVEL OU T SOU RCED R E-R AT ION S, EVACUAT ION S, DROP-OFFS/PICK-U PS FACU LT Y T R AVEL COM M U T IN G

Includedin our footprint and currently targeted for reduction

ST U DEN T T R AVEL TO N OLS COU R SES

Currently not included in our footprint

SH ORT-T ER M R EN T ED FACI LIT I ES EM ISSION S FROM PU RCH ASED M AT ER IALS

Calculating O ur Carbon Footpr int To improve the data-collection process, N OLS looked to Carbon Tracker, a web-based software developed by Pure Strategies. Since 2009 we have used Carbon Tracker to log our energy use. T his system relies primarily on contributions from employees at each location. Employees have been trained to input data on usage in the areas of transportation fuels, travel, and building-related energy. Carbon Tracker then converts these distinct units to a cross comparable value of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 eq). M easurements are subject to some margin of error, however this method provides us with a reliable enough estimate for us to understand our carbon footprint and keep working to reduce it.

2006 Baseline Y ear In 2006 when Pure Strategies conducted their baseline study of the N OLS carbon footprint they relied on sparse data available at that time and estimates. For this reason, some locations show inconsistent 2006 data compared to other years. H owever, we do believe that when the emissions from all the locations are accumulated that the 2006 baseline represents a decent overall representation of our footprint.

Carbon Reduction Goals Setting our Carbon R eduction Goals O ur carbon reduction goals are based on recommendations and standards set by other institutions of higher education. O ne such standard is the internationally-recognized "2% Solution" which recommends reducing absolute carbon emissions by 2 percent annually until 2050. T his would put N OLS at an 80 percent reduction in CO 2eq by 2050. T he scientific community has come to a general consensus that such a reduction level will keep the parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide below catastrophic levels. In addition to this long-term 2050 goal, N OLS decided to set some interim goals based on this same 2% Solution: a 10 percent reduction from 2006 carbon levels by 2010, and a 30 percent reduction by 2020. T hese goals are absolute, representing the total actual carbon emitted by school operations within our carbon footprint boundary, and are kept unchanged even as the school continues to grow.

Fiscal Y ears

Goals St atus Update (associated graphs to the r ight) O ur carbon reduction goals were initially set based on the FY 2006 carbon footprint. T his baseline footprint took into consideration the carbon sources of: N OLS vehicle travel, electricity, propane, natural gas, white gas, heating oil, and some Scope 3 sources. Based on these parameters, N OLS seemed to have succeeded in reaching our 2010 goal and to be progressing towards achieving our 2020 goal as well. H owever, during FY 2015, we noticed that non-N OLS vehicle travel, a component of the footprint staff have been reporting on since 2009, was not being included in the overall footprint due to lack of reporting compliance for intown staff travel. When we include non-N OLS vehicle travel emissions, as we will do from here on out, the increase in emissions shows that we did not, in fact, reach our 2010 goal but have maintained a relatively steady line in carbon emissions since 2006. N ote that non-N OLS vehicle travel was included in the 2006 baseline data from which we set our reduction goals. It is thanks to the sustainability efforts of our locations that helped to keep emissions steady even as the school continued to grow with more students, new facilities and transitioning operating locations.

Fiscal Y ears

Schoolwide Progress A bsolute Carbon Footpr int O ur carbon footprint goals are absolute; they are a reflection of the total actual carbon emitted by schoolwide operations within our carbon footprint boundaries. O ver time we have built, renovated, moved, closed, and expanded our campuses. T hese aspects of a developing organization effect our carbon footprint directly. Plus, we are always trying to improve upon our reporting systems which may entail correcting for prior years' data. Amidst all of this, our absolute goal for carbon reduction remains the same. N o matter how much we change as a school we want our net impact on the climate to go down. T he FY 2015 carbon footprint graph to the right and the emission trend graphs on page 3 represent the absolute values of our schoolwide footprint. When we assess the data, we see that more than half of our carbon emissions come from travel and nearly a third from electricity use.

N or m alized Carbon Footpr int N ormalized carbon reporting shows how much carbon is used per student day* . T his method better illustrates "carbon intensity." M easuring carbon intensity may be particularly useful if the school grows significantly in a short period of time. T he chart below shows that the amount of carbon emitted per student day has fluctuated over the past years. Fiscal year 2015 shows a slight increase from the previous year, however still follows a generally downward trend since FY 2010.

Fiscal Y ears

Student D ays

Tot al kg of CO 2 Equivalent

2009

136,836

1,620,176

2010

135,946

1,873,731

2011

144,220

1,835,486

2012

141,154

1,858,876

2013

147,509

1,806,908

2014

152,334

1,817,906

2015

154,625

1,851,308

* Student days are derived from field and classroom days hosted by N OLS campuses. Fiscal Y ears

Alternative Energy = Total power used from grid and solar combined = Total solar power produced at facility = Amount of solar power used at facility = Amount of solar power returned to grid

T he initial phase of achieving our conservation and reduction goals called for locations to explore alternative energy options. As of the date of publication for this report, N OLS has installed photo-voltaic solar arrays at nine locations. T he following graphs describe solar production at seven of these locations during FY 2015. N ot displayed here are Australia and M exico which are mostly powered by solar (see corresponding location pages for more information). You will notice that at times, even when the solar panels are feeding power back to the grid, that there is still unmet power consumption at the facility. T his is because we are taking into consideration the entire power consumption of all the buildings on site and not only the power reading on the meter with the solar panels. N ighttime electricity use and current wiring of the campus also contribute to imbalances. T his year we refined our accounting methods for solar energy. N OLS solar power projects funded through Rocky M ountain Power grants can only claim ownership of renewable energy credits (R ECs)? or the associated environmental benefits of renewable energy? proportional to the amount that N OLS funds the project. T herefore, N OLS owns 20 percent of R ECs at World H eadquarters, 26 percent at the Rocky M ountain, and 45 percent at the N oble. T his stipulation reduces the amount of emissions reduction we can claim, but still lessens our reliance on fossil fuels.

Alternative Energy (cont.) O n-site renewable energy expansion faces some constraints. Grants have become scarcer and more competitive, and states like Wyoming set low caps on the size of array that an entity may connect to the grid. T he Pacific N orthwest and Rocky M ountain campuses are currently purchasing green power through their respective utility companies, a great way to support renewable energy development and offset our emissions at the same time. O ptions to reduce our carbon footprint include purchasing R ECs which are a less expensive alternative in unregulated carbon markets like Wyoming. A large-scale option would be to invest in alternative energy through a small-scale Power Purchasing Agreement. T his would entail N OLS signing a multi-year agreement with an alternative energy seller who would develop additional alternative energy infrastructure. A feasibility study is currently underway to further explore this option.

= Total power used from grid and solar combined = Total solar power produced at facility = Amount of solar power used at facility = Amount of solar power returned to grid

Transportation 15- Passenger Vans As safety standards have improved for 15-passenger vans, N OLS has been able to reincorporate them into our fleet? as opposed to 12-passenger vans, which have been the primary large-capacity vehicle (excepting buses) through FY 2015. T here is great potential to reduce our carbon footprint with this development. Reinstating 15-passenger vans ensures that we can accommodate more students and, when combined with the capability of hauling a trailer, we will be able to transport some courses with one vehicle instead of two. T his transition will take place as opportunities for replacing vehicles arise.

Com pressed N atural Gas Fiscal year 2015 marked the first test run for the new Compressed N atural Gas (CN G) full-sized truck at our R iver Base location in Vernal, U T. According to the U .S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas emits about one quarter of the CO 2 emissions that gasoline emits (U .S. Energy Information Administration, 2015). We hope to be realizing those reductions in the coming years and look towards increased availability of this fuel in other locations. Feedback from the primary driver of this vehicle is that the duel fuel compatibility of the vehicle, running on both gasoline and natural gas, is a plus. T he one noticeable downside was the decreased hauling power while pulling a full raft trailer. CN G within the N OLS fleet may be more valuable for transit purposes.

Bio- diesel Two locations are currently experimenting with bio-diesel: N OLS Pacific N orthwest and N OLS Southwest. T he Pacific N orthwest tractor occasionally runs on a B20 blend (containing 20 percent bio-diesel) and the Southwest bus fills up with either a B5 or B10 blend, depending on the filling station. Both locations face the challenge of sourcing from a dependable supplier of bio-diesel as the availability of the fuel constantly fluctuates. Expanded use of bio-diesel is uncertain due to lack of infrastructure where we operate. T he Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability department of N OLS will update on the performances of these vehicles as they get more use this coming season.

Green Fleet T his past January we revived the sustainability transportation committee to share fleet status between locations. T hree locations participated including the Rocky M ountain, Pacific N orthwest, and Teton Valley. T he ability to collaborate on the needs of each location and to share visions for a greener fleet were some of the reported benefits of the gathering. Sustainability also contributed to the conversation by providing data on fuel usage and emission trends. T he sustainability program is looking to make this meeting an annual occurrence.

World H eadquarters W ith no surprise, our World H eadquarters maintains one of the largest carbon footprints at N OLS. Staff here are more likely to fly for business and the building itself has many structural energy inefficiencies. Together, air carbon and electricity make up the largest components of the World H eadquarters footprint. We began internally tracking air travel in FY 2010, accounting for the jump in emissions that year. In FY 2015 we experienced our lowest record of electricity consumption and second lowest of air carbon. A major priority going forward will be focusing on energy efficiency improvements, such as continuing the transition to LED lights.

Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

Rocky M ountain Rocky M ountain here includes the N oble H otel and the Rocky M ountain facility in Lander. Since the buildings on this campus are large and sections of them quite old, it is natural that the gas and electricity components constitute over half of the overall emissions. Vehicle transportation from both N OLS vehicles and outsourced re-rations, accounts for nearly the rest of the Rocky M ountain footprint with 43 percent of the emissions. N either air carbon nor ground carbon are visible on these graphs since the amounts are too small to register. Carbon intensity is calculated a little differently for Rocky M ountain. Since much of the re-rations support for Rocky M ountain's backpacking courses comes from T hree Peaks horse packers, and several course sections for Rocky M ountain's semester courses take place rafting at the R iver Base, we've combined the emissions and student days for all three locations. Even with this larger footprint, Rocky M ountain fairs well when compared to carbon intensities of other N OLS locations.

Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

T hree Peaks R anch T hree Peaks has a unique footprint in that many of its emissions are associated with re-rationing Rocky M ountain courses and not solely from T hree Peaks horse packing courses. O perations at T hree Peaks rely heavily on diesel trucks for hauling horse trailers, carrying out ranch chores, and transporting students to and from the field. Diesel use surged in FY 2012 due to a new larger F550 truck used for hauling a ten horse capacity trailer. We plan to sell this truck and the trailer in FY 2016 because of the unforeseen need for our drivers to obtain a CDL license when hauling long trailers. O nce we downsize to an eight horse capacity trailer there will no longer be a need for such a heavy duty truck. Since the operations of the T hree Peaks and Rocky M ountain locations are so tightly intertwined, a carbon intensity by student day measurement by itself would be misleading. T herefore, T hree Peak's student days and carbon emissions have been included into the Rocky M ountain carbon intensity graph on page 9.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

R iver Base N OLS vehicle travel makes up over 60 percent of the R iver Base's carbon emissions in FY 2015, the majority of that coming from diesel. T his past year marked the first year of use for the Compressed N atural Gas (CN G) truck at the R iver Base. W ith CO2 emissions estimated to be about 25 percent lower than gas vehicles, this truck is welcomed into the fleet. Fiscal year 2014 marked the lowest carbon emissions for the R iver Base due to reduced consumption levels in almost every category. A major renovation of the main bay started in FY 2015 and will be completed in FY 2016. T his renovation's main purpose is to improve operational efficiency, but there are some energy efficiency improvements such as upgrading to LED light bulbs and more energy efficient appliances in the kitchen. M any sections of Rocky M ountain courses are run by the R iver Base. Since resources and student days are regularly shared between the two locations, we've combined both of their carbon intensity measures into the Rocky M ountain graph located on page 9.

Fiscal Y ears

Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

N ortheast T he N ortheast's largest emissions source is through N OLS gas vehicles. Before we purchased a N OLS vehicle to be permanently stationed at the N ortheast location in FY 2014, we relied heavily on the private shuttling services of Paul Smith's College where our campus was located. Some of the annual gas use is from driving cross country from Wyoming to N ew York in a borrowed N OLS Rocky M ountain vehicle to transport staff and supplies at the beginning and end of each season. Starting in 2016 with a change in campus location, the N ortheast will begin tracking emissions associated with utilities. T his will raise the carbon footprint we account for, but in the end, will better reflect our resource use.

Fiscal Y ears

Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

East Africa East Africa has the smallest carbon footprint out of any location because of its size. In FY 2014, the land cruiser use was less due to not running the fall semester course. Transportation is likely to continue to be the largest emission source as long as we do not account for electricity consumption at our rented facility. Between FY 2014 and FY 2015 the carbon intensity (CO 2eq/student day) of operations increased. An increase in student enrollment translated into an increased need of transportation to get students into the field.

Fiscal Y ears

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

Australia Since the installment of solar panels at Australia in FY 2011, every year thereafter has resulted in substantially reduced electricity. N ow we have built up enough on-site solar generation that, through net metering, we are meeting our electricity demand. Year-to-year diesel and course air travel fluctuations have a unique story in Australia. During a wet season, the sandy terrain of northwest Australia is too flooded to travel via ground so courses must travel by plane to the course drop-off site. When the roads are passable during the dry season the courses can use a N OLS vehicle for drop-offs . Student days in FY 2012 did not go down dramatically yet we see a huge reduction in emissions. T he cause of this is two fold. As mentioned above, our electricity footprint became non-existent plus both air travel and N OLS vehicle diesel saw dramatic reductions.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

N ew Z ealand In FY 2012 we changed locations within N ew Z ealand from Christchurch to outside of N elson. We bought the property and the following year constructed a majority of the buildings on-site. W ith the new buildings up and running, stationary sources of emissions (i.e. electricity) increased only slightly. Fiscal year 2011 experienced a peak in student day numbers due to an additional semester which corresponds to the peak in emissions that year. We see in the student day carbon intensity graph that the trend almost perfectly matches that of the carbon footprint graph. T his indicates a strong relationship between the number of student days and the carbon emissions generated to run those courses in N ew Z ealand.

Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

Alaska In Alaska, course travel accounts for over half of total emissions. If we add intown staff travel (air and ground carbon), transportation accounts for a little over 70 percent of total emissions. Fiscal year 2015's emissions leapt up considerably, departing from the slow upward trend of emissions since FY 2009. All emission sources increased in FY 2015 besides natural gas. Air carbon for intown staff travel and propane use contributed most significantly to this increase. Better compliance with intown staff travel reporting is the cause for the additional air carbon.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

M exico M exico has a vehicle dominant carbon footprint, but is incredibly efficient on facility use. In FY 2015, N OLS vehicle gas and diesel use accounted for 81 percent of the M exico carbon footprint. If we look at that vehicle use since FY 2009, diesel has been on a downward trend. In fact, almost every emission source decreases each year. O ne of M exico's strong suits, which has grown out of necessity, is its power independence with electric solar panels. T he carbon intensity of M exico's operations (CO 2eq/student day) is lower than it was in FY 2009 with slight increases in FY 2013 and FY 2014. Fiscal year 2014 differs from other years in that we ran shorter courses.

Fiscal Y ears

Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

Pacific N orthwest In FY 2015, N OLS Pacific N orthwest started accounting in Carbon Tracker for green power purchases it had been purchasing through the power company. T his monthly purchase of 3,200kWh in renewable energy greatly reduces our footprint and helps fund the development of regional renewable energy projects in the N orthwest. W ith the exception of the FY 2006 footprint, yearly carbon emission totals have hovered around 100 metric tons of CO 2 equivalent and the carbon intensity (CO 2eq/student day) of operations has steadily decreased since FY 2009. Pacific N orthwest has been able to take on more students while maintaining or lowering overall emissions. We see a reduction in carbon intensity during FY 2015 due to increased student day numbers.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

India India has seen a substantial increase in electricity these past couple of years. T his is due to the inclusion of the operations office, instructor quarters, and main office electricity sources in FY 2014. Since we rent this facility, it is more difficult to justify large energy efficiency improvements to reduce these emissions. During FY 2015 we saw a decline in the number of courses run yet an increase in overall diesel use. T his is because diesel use increased from intown staff using N OLS vehicles for travel. Course-related diesel followed student day trends for FY 2015.

* Fiscal Y ears

Fiscal Y ears

Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

Scandinavia N OLS Scandinavia was established in FY 2008 in N orway. H owever, it was not until after our relocation to Sweden in FY 2013 that we started to track our carbon footprint. All but four percent of Scandinavia's carbon emissions come from transportation sources. Air carbon makes up the largest portion of the Scandinavia footprint due to travel by seasonal staff to the Scandinavia campus from other N OLS locations and to the U nited States. All of the vehicles used by the campus are either rented or public transportation. N OLS Scandinavia courses can occasionally take advantage of public transportation, such as buses, ferries, and trains, to transport courses. Some backpacking courses can even set out on foot straight from campus. T here are also emissions associated with power consumption, but since utilities are included in the rental price of the building and the property is shared with other users, it would be difficult to parse out this part of the footprint.

Fiscal Y ears

Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

Yukon N OLS vehicle use is up from the first couple years of reporting, but air carbon (intown staff travel) is down. Starting the winter of FY 2012, Yukon did a better job of winterizing the facility during the off-season which shrank our heating oil use, a very carbon-intensive fuel, to almost zero. T hen in FY 2014, with the change of location, heating oil became obsolete and Yukon instead switched to using wood stoves for heat. We do not currently account for wood burning stoves in our carbon calculations. T he dip in carbon emissions and carbon intensity during FY 2013 came from a slimming down of operations. T hat year Yukon offered one less semester course and shortened a couple of typically longer courses. From FY 2014-FY 2015 more students meant a drop in carbon intensity (CO 2eq/student day) with an increase in absolute carbon emissions during those same years.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

Patagonia In Patagonia, the long drives for course drop offs account for the reliance on diesel. Diesel consumption is not predicted to diminish due to the environmental impacts that come from concentrating too many courses in one area. T here is yet another influence on vehicular travel that adds to the unpredictability of fuel use. N OLS Patagonia instructors of courses over two weeks can help design their course route. T his is a big perk but also may add up to longer drives. N ow that the geothermal system is working in Patagonia, as of FY 2015, the hope is to see a decrease in propane demand for building heating. H owever, we may not be able to see a difference in overall propane consumption because of the increased number of cooked meals served to the students. We will have a better idea of the new demands for propane this coming year.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

Southwest T he most noticeable difference in the Southwest's carbon footprint since FY 2009 is the decrease in emissions associated with electricity. Emissions from electricity have been cut in half from 33 percent of the total footprint in FY 2009 to 15 percent of the footprint in FY 2015. Refer to the solar graphs on page 6 for more data on solar. N OLS Southwest drivers have access to a fueling station in Tucson where alternative fuels such as biofuels and ethanol are available. T hese fuels, ethanol more so than biodiesel, are slowly becoming a part of this fleet's fuel mix. After more experience with these fuels and the possibility of expansion in alternative fueling stations where we operate, Southwest will be able to serve as a valuable resource to other N OLS locations.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

Teton Valley Course travel currently accounts for just over 60 percent of total emissions. Starting in FY 2016 we are establishing better systems to track air and ground carbon entries (intown staff travel) into Carbon Tracker. It is predicted that these emissions amounts will be pretty low. Teton Valley is the only location that still uses heating oil. H eating oil contains about 14 percent more carbon emissions than propane and about 27 percent more carbon emissions than natural gas, making it a relatively inefficient fuel. A new propane furnace is in the works to replace the heating oil system. Carbon intensity generally follows the same trend lines as the overall carbon emissions. H owever, when we compare years FY 2015 and FY 2010, FY 2015 had the second highest overall carbon emissions behind 2010 yet the carbon intensity was much lower.

* Fiscal Y ears Air Carbon = intown staff air travel

Fiscal Y ears (Incomprehensive 2006 student data.)

Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation * Refer to 2006 baseline year explanation.

Wyss W ilderness M edicine Campus T he Wyss campus carbon footprint differs dramatically from the other N OLS locations since most of the classroom settings are on-site. T here are many off-site (non-Wyss campus) N OLS W ilderness M edicine courses, but we do not account for emissions at those facilities, nor do we currently track emissions from instructor travel to off-site locations. H eating and cooling of Wyss facilities is powered by a geothermal system and electricity instead of other fuels, such as natural gas or propane. T his will make it easy for us to reduce our footprint in the future with more installations of solar panels or larger renewable energy investments. If the Wyss campus continues its current trajectory of hosting more student days each year while maintaining an even carbon footprint, we will see the trend of lower carbon intensity continue as well.

Fiscal Y ears

Air Carbon = intown staff air travel Ground Carbon = intown staff ground transportation

A Little Comparison

If we take into consideration the number of occupants of World H eadquartersand substitute that in place of student days, World H eadquarters' carbon intensity (CO 2eq/occupant day) supersedes that of the operating locations. T his number would crowd the graph and is therefore left out. T hree Peaks and R iver Base carbon intensity measures are included with that of Rocky M ountain since student days between those three locations are so closely linked. 26

Concluding T houghts Fiscal year 2015 came with many new challenges and opportunities for sustainability at N OLS. When we discovered the gaps in our carbon accounting and realized where that put us in relation to our goals, the initial reaction was discouragement. We thought we were on track with all of the hard work our N OLS locations have put in to building efficiencies. But it's important in these instances to turn the situation around and create positive action. T his report is a first step in that positive action. By creating a feedback loop to N OLS locations and operations staff on how operational decisions affect the location's footprint, we can better budget and plan for improvements and celebrate lasting successes. Carbon emission reports serve an important role in increasing the transparency of our impact. Whether the audience is potential students, current students, N OLS employees, or the N OLS Board of Trustees, increasing understanding of our footprint is key and helps to continue the discussion of sustainability. If you have any questions or comments after reviewing this report, please contact us.

N OLS Sustainability Coordinator, K ara Colovich sustainability@nols.edu

Special thanks to Cat Cook, our Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability intern, for compiling the data and organizing content for this document. Also, a big thank you to those N OLS staff whose drive for sustainability has inspired new ways of living and working at our locations. Photo credit: anonymous