Message-ID: <25784805.1075858658634.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: stacey.bolton@enron.com To: richard.ring@enron.com Subject: RE: CA emissions factor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Stacey Bolton <Stacey Bolton/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON> X-To: Richard Ring <Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES> X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \RRING (Non-Privileged)\EESIRenewableEnergy X-Origin: Ring-R X-FileName: RRING (Non-Privileged)1.pst Many thanks. Want to discuss the contract language this morning? I've got an 8:30, but should be back at my desk by 9:15. Stacey Bolton Environmental Strategies Enron Corp 713-853-9916 direct 713-303-2632 cell sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com> -----Original Message----- From: Ring, Richard Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:58 PM To: Bolton, Stacey Subject: CA emissions factor FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:57 PM --------------------------- Heather Mitchell 08/21/2000 05:23 PM To: Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc: cmckalip@yahoo.com Subject: CA emissions factor Richard, I forgot one conversion: To convert from MT of CO2, multiply by 1.1.02 to get to tons of CO2. (The trees planted and miles driven are based on tons of CO2.) Also, Catherine McKalip-Thompson is working on a spreadsheet with several conversions that might be helpful to you. It should be complete in the next day or so. While it might be too late for the letter going out this week, it may be useful to keep in your files for future reference. Thanks, Heather ---------------------- Forwarded by Heather Mitchell/HOU/EES on 08/21/2000 05:12 PM --------------------------- Heather Mitchell 08/21/2000 04:41 PM To: Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc: cmckalip@yahoo.com Subject: CA emissions factor Richard, The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh. The source is below. As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the appropriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc. However, most groups accept state level emissions factors as the best available. Also, it is my understanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime during 2000. However, I haven't seen any announcements regarding the release of new numbers, nor did I see mention of it on the DOE Voluntary Reporting website. I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for trees planted and miles driven. While it does not list a source for the conversions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the Environmental Law and Policy Center. I will bring a copy of both by your desk. Let me know if I can help with anything else. FYI, in the past I've been a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees planted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed by trees. - Heather ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:57 PM --------------------------- Heather Mitchell 08/21/2000 04:41 PM To: Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc: cmckalip@yahoo.com Subject: CA emissions factor Richard, The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh. The source is below. As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the appropriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc. However, most groups accept state level emissions factors as the best available. Also, it is my understanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime during 2000. However, I haven't seen any announcements regarding the release of new numbers, nor did I see mention of it on the DOE Voluntary Reporting website. I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for trees planted and miles driven. While it does not list a source for the conversions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the Environmental Law and Policy Center. I will bring a copy of both by your desk. Let me know if I can help with anything else. FYI, in the past I've been a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees planted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed by trees. - Heather <Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)> <Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)> <Embedded Picture (Metafile)> <Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)> <Embedded Picture (Metafile)>