GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES FOR THE NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION SECTOR

Prepared for:

American Gas Association (AGA) 10G Street, N.E., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20002

Prepared by:

innovative environmental solutions, inc. P.O. Box 177 Cary, IL 60013

April 18, 2008
Copyright © 2008 American Gas Association. All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the American Gas Association.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Purpose and Objective ........................................................................................................1 1.2. Greenhouse Gases & Global Warming Potentials ..............................................................2 1.3. Natural Gas Distribution Sector Overview .........................................................................4 1.4. Considerations for Future GHG Guidelines Updates: Current Programs to Advance the State-of-the-Art for Distribution Section GHG Emissions Estimates……………............6 2. Technical Elements ....................................................................................................................7 2.1. GHG Emissions Estimation Methodologies - Quantification Steps ...................................7 2.2. Tiered Approaches ..............................................................................................................7 2.3. Emission Factors .................................................................................................................8 2.4. Activity Data .....................................................................................................................10 2.5. Precision and Uncertainty Estimates ................................................................................11 2.6. Materiality Threshold .......................................................................................................13 2.7. Direct Emissions ...............................................................................................................14 2.7.1 Combustion Emissions...........................................................................................14 2.7.2 Vented Emissions...................................................................................................14 2.7.3 Fugitive Emissions .................................................................................................15 2.7.4 Mobile Source Emissions ......................................................................................15 2.8. Indirect Emissions ............................................................................................................15 2.9. Optional Emissions ...........................................................................................................15 3. Combustion Emissions.............................................................................................................16 3.1. Emission Estimation Methodologies Overview ...............................................................16 3.1.1 Emission Tiers for Combustion .............................................................................17 3.1.2 Data Conventions ...................................................................................................18 3.1.3 Emission Factor Selection Criteria ........................................................................19 3.2. Stationary Source CO2 Emission Estimation Methodologies ...........................................20 3.2.1 CO2 Emission Estimates Using Tier 1 Emission Factors ......................................23 3.2.2 CO2 Emission Estimates Using Tier 2 Emission Factors ......................................23 3.2.3 CO2 Emissions Estimates Determined from Fuel Consumption & Composition..24 3.3. Stationary Source CH4 and N2O Emission Estimation Methodologies ............................26 3.3.1 CH4 and N2O Emission Estimates Using Tier 1 Emission Factors .......................29 3.3.2 CH4 and N2O Emission Estimates Using Tier 2 Emission Factors .......................29 3.3.3 CH4 and N2O Emission Estimates Using Tier 3 Emission Factors .......................30 3.3.4 CH4 and N2O Emissions Estimates – Tier 3+ ........................................................34 4. Vented Emissions ....................................................................................................................36 4.1. Calculation Methods and Conversion Factors ..................................................................36 4.2. Emissions Estimation Methods ........................................................................................36 4.2.1 Tier 3 Emissions Estimates ....................................................................................39 4.2.2 Tier 2 Emissions Estimates ....................................................................................42 4.2.3 Tier 1 Emissions Estimates ....................................................................................42 4.2.4 Event-Based and Equipment Specific Venting Emissions Estimates from Engineering Data (Tier 3+) ....................................................................................43

ii

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.3. Example Calculations for Vented Emissions ...................................................................45 4.3.1 Tier 1: Vented Emissions Calculation ...................................................................45 4.3.2 Tier 2 Vented Emissions Calculation ....................................................................46 4.3.3 Tier 3 Vented Emissions Calculation ....................................................................47 4.3.4 GHG Vented Emissions Estimate Example Conclusions ......................................47 5. Fugitive Emissions ...................................................................................................................49 5.1. Background on Fugitive Emission Sources and GHG Estimation ...................................50 5.2. Emission Estimation Methods ..........................................................................................51 5.2.1 Tier 3 Emissions Estimates ....................................................................................54 5.2.2 Tier 2 Emissions Estimates ....................................................................................57 5.2.3 Tier 3 Emissions Estimates ....................................................................................59 5.2.4 Tier 3+ Facility-Specific Estimates – Screening-based Methodologies ................60 5.2.5 Other Tier 3+ Emission Estimation Approaches ...................................................62 5.3. Example Calculations for Fugitive Emissions ..................................................................64 5.3.1 Tier 1 Fugitive Emissions Calculation ...................................................................64 5.3.2 Tier 2 Fugitive Emissions Calculation ...................................................................65 5.3.3 Tier 3 Fugitive Emissions Calculation ...................................................................66 5.3.4 GHG Fugitives Emissions Estimate Example Conclusions...................................67 6. Mobile Source Emissions ........................................................................................................69 6.1. Mobile Sources and Fleet Vehicles ..................................................................................69 6.1.1 Automobiles, Trucks, and Motorcycles ................................................................69 6.1.2 Construction Equipment ........................................................................................71 7. Indirect Emissions ....................................................................................................................72 7.1. Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity.................................................................72 7.2. Methods for Calculating Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity ........................72 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: A-1. Website References A-2. References APPENDIX B: Unit Conversions APPENDIX C: Support Information for Combustion Emissions C-1. Energy Output to Input Conversions for Prime Movers C-2. Fuel Composition Conversions: Mole Percentage, Weight Percentage, Carbon Mole Percentage, and Carbon Weight Percentage C-3. AP-42 Emission Factor Quality Ratings C-4. Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Emissions Controls APPENDIX D: Acronyms APPENDIX E: Historical GHG Emissions Information for the Natural Gas Distribution Sector APPENDIX F: Example GHG Calculations for Fictional Distribution Company and Observations on Inventory Development and Emission Factor Improvement

iii

................... 33 Selected Tier 4 GHG Emission Factors for Waukesha ICEs Combustion ............................. Methane...46 ADC Tier 2 Vented CO2eq Emissions Estimate for 2005 ................ Table 3-2................. Table 4-4...39 Distribution Sector Tier 2 Emission Factors for Vented Emissions .................................. ADC Tier 3 Vented CO2eq Emissions Estimate for 2005 ............55 Tier 3 Emission Factors for Distribution M&R and Pressure Regulating Stations Fugitive Emissions .............. Table 3-1............ Table 3-7....................46 ADC Tier 3 Vented Activity Data and GHG Emissions Calculations .. Table 4-6..51 Distribution Sector Fugitive Emissions Sources and Activity Data .37 Distribution Sector Tier 3 Emission Sources for Vented Emissions ..........3 GWP (100-year) for CO2......................53 Distribution Sector Tier 3 Emission Factors for Fugitive Emissions ................. Table 5-2.....................48 Table 5-1........................19 Tier 1 CO2 Emission Factors for Combustion ........ Table 5-4..................................58 Comparison of 1996 and 2005 US Distribution System Main Pipelines .......................23 Tier 2 CO2 Emission Factors for Combustion .............................46 ADC Tier 2 Vented Activity Data and GHG Emissions Calculations .................. .. Table 3-6.......35 Distribution Sector Vented Emissions Sources and Activity Data.. Table 4-3............................ Table 3-4.................................... Heating Values. and N2O from 1995 SAR and 2001 TAR . 2008 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1....... Table 3-9........................................................................... Table 4-8......... Table 5-5.................................... ................ Table 4-7........................................ Table 4-1................... and Carbon Content for Select Liquid and Gaseous Fuels ..24 Fractional Carbon Oxidation Factors . Table 4-5.... Global Warming Potentials (100 Year Time Horizon.......3 Densities..........46 ADC Tier 1 Vented GHG Emissions Estimate for 2005 ......47 Table 4-10............... Typical Fugitive Emissions Sources Associated with the Distribution Sector ......... Table 4-2...........................42 Distribution Sector Tier 1 Emission Factor for Vented Emissions............................... Table 3-8...........................................................................55 Distribution Sector Tier 2 Emission Factors for Fugitive Emissions ...............................................................30 Tier 3 CH4 Emission Factors for Combustion ...............................................32 Tier 3 N2O Emission Factors for Combustion ............................. Table 5-6.............. Table 4-9............................25 Tier 1 CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Combustion ...........58 iv ...... Table 1-2.......... Table 3-5..........29 Tier 2 CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Combustion .................... IPCC 1995) .....AGA GHG Guidelines April 18..........................................42 ADC Tier 1 Vented Activity Data and GHG Emissions Calculations .........47 Table 4-11..... Table 3-3............. Vented Emissions Estimate Example Summary for ADC in 2005.. Table 5-3...........

..............27 Leak rate versus concentration and correlation equation estimate ......................71 Fuel Properties Used for Vehicle Emission Factor Conversion to Tonnes ...............22 ICE/Turbine CH4 and N2O emissions estimation overview ...... Comparison of 1996 and 2005 US Distribution System Service Pipelines ......S................................. Table 6-3..........66 Table 5-14.... ....76 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Natural gas industry sector diagram .......... ADC Tier 2 Fugitive CO2eq Emissions Estimate for 2005 ............................................................................................................. State-Level Emission Factors for Purchased Electricity................................................................................... ADC Tier 3 Estimate CO2eq Emissions for 2005.....75 GHG Emission Factors Based on Generation Source...........AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.....71 Tier 1 National-Level Emission Factors for Purchased Electricity ...... Table 7-4..... Mobile Source Highway Vehicles GHG Emission Factors .................................66 Table 5-13...... Table 6-2. Table 5-8..................60 ADC Tier 1 Activity Data and GHG Calculations .............. 2008 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 5-7..............21 CO2 emissions estimation fuel consumption determination .. Table 7-3..........67 Table 6-1...............5 CO2 emissions estimation overview ...............................................................65 Table 5-11.......5 City Gate M&R station schematic ...60 Methods for deriving component counts .....................................70 Mobile Source Construction Equipment GHG Emission Factors ..............................74 Canadian Province-Level Emission Factors for Purchased Electricity . ADC Tier 2 Activity Data and GHG Calculations............................................................ ...........59 Distribution Sector Tier 1 Emission Factors for Fugitive Emissions ...... ADC Tier 1 GHG Emissions Estimate for 2005............73 U........ Table 7-2.. Table 5-9..............................62 v ............ ADC Tier 3 Activity Data and GHG Calculations ............................................... ........................................................26 CH4 and N2O combustion emissions estimation overview ............ Table 7-1......................................65 Table 5-10.....................................................................................65 Table 5-12..................................................................................

Special thanks are given to Christina Sames from AGA and the members of the AGA Greenhouse Gas Task Group for review.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. vi . The support and direction provided by AGA and the member companies involved is gratefully acknowledged. 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The development of this guideline document has been sponsored by members of the American Gas Association (AGA). and technical direction on this document. comment.

. fugitives. This appendix also includes discussion on inventory objectives. mobile combustion.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. methane. and Establish a consistent framework for estimating GHG emissions for the natural gas distribution sector to facilitate inter-company comparisons and ease data aggregation for future industry reporting initiatives. These guidelines are intended to be a living document and are designed as a detailed reference for developing a GHG inventory for use by both practitioners and inventory managers. Stationary combustion sources.g. 2008 1. The source types include: • • • • • Fugitive emissions from equipment and piping leaks. Reporting programs such as the California Climate Action Registry and U. 1 . Provide practical information for designing an overall GHG emissions assessment strategy that considers a company's particular needs and circumstances. Indirect sources. the DOE 1605b program uses the terms stationary combustion. and nitrous oxide emissions from combustion and non-combustion sources for the natural gas industry distribution sector. Department of Energy (DOE) 1605b program consider the same emission sources and use similar. Appendix F provides example inventory calculations for a fictitious distribution company. In this document. and current emission factor improvement efforts for the distribution sector. To inform the reader and enhance understanding of the GHG Guidelines. and indirect emissions. data gathering challenges. identify the most appropriate emission factors and activity data for the emissions sources. Sections 3 through 6 present the emission factors and emission estimation methods for the primary source types in the natural gas industry distribution sector. an emission-source classification scheme. sections 1 and 2 present general information concerning GHG emissions.0 1. process (e. The focus of Appendix F is to illustrate emission calculations for typical source types. The GHG Guidelines: • • • • Identify and describe the different GHG emissions source types in the distribution sector. Natural gas venting. and general procedures for designing and implementing a GHG emissions inventory. This guideline document presents a detailed compilation of the select methods for estimating carbon dioxide. but slightly different terminology. Where possible. venting). emission estimate uncertainty.S. and Mobile sources. For example.1 Introduction Purpose and Objective This document presents the American Gas Association (AGA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Estimation Guidelines for Natural Gas Distribution (GHG Guidelines).

while encouraging or planning to eventually include other gases. For emissions purposes. nitrous oxide (N2O). participants must report the six GHGs included in the Kyoto Protocol GHGs (CO2. methane (CH4). While included herein. 2008 Following the body of the report. the seas. For example. tonnes of CO2eq. and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). where a tonne is 1000 kg). per fluorocarbons (e. The greenhouse effect is primarily from carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor. thus the GWP for a particular gas depends upon the time period selected. Support information related to combustion emissions is included in Appendix C and a list of acronyms is provided in Appendix D. A measure of such changes in the energy available to the system caused by a gas is termed “radiative forcing”.g. not volume-based). N2O.e. For emissions from oil and natural gas systems. hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). and the complete citations for these primary references are included in Appendix A. CnF2n+2 compounds). CO2 is used as the reference gas to compare the ability of a particular gas to trap atmospheric heat relative to CO2. As noted above. including CO2. A “direct” contribution is from a gas that is itself a greenhouse gas. GHG emissions are commonly reported as CO2 equivalents (e. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of GHGs may affect the energy balance between the land. and/or when a gas affects processes that alter the atmospheric radiative balance of the earth. atmospheric increase of a GHG produces positive radiative forcing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines GWP as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a substance relative to 1 kg of the reference gas (i. Several primary references are consistently used throughout this document. Currently. the GWP is a timeintegrated factor.S. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the index that has been developed to compare different GHGs on a common reporting basis. and.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. CO2. hydro fluorocarbons. registries and voluntary reporting programs typically focus initially on reporting CO2 emissions. GHGs can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and indirectly. Methane and CO2 account for the vast majority of GHG emissions for natural gas systems. a number of gases are typically considered to be GHGs. CH4. A relative scaling factor has been developed so that different gases can be reported in a common format. and space. Common units and conversions for GHG calculations are provided in Appendix B. references cited are listed in Appendix A. perfluorocarbons (PFCs). and nitrous oxide are the gases of interest and the focus of this document.. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when the original gas undergoes chemical transformations in the atmosphere to produce other greenhouse gases. A 100- 2 . Appendix E includes estimated historical GHG losses and associated costs for the distribution sector... methane. the atmosphere.2 Greenhouse Gases & Global Warming Potentials The “greenhouse effect” is the phenomenon where atmospheric gases absorb and trap the terrestrial radiation leaving the Earth’s surface – thus causing a warming effect on earth. the California Climate Action Registry requires that for the first three years Registry participants must report at a minimum their CO2 emissions in CA or in the U. and emission factors and associated data are very limited. GWP is weight-based. as well as other references used to prepare the GHG Guidelines. 1. and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)). holding everything else constant.g. depending on the geographic scope of their inventory. Thus. when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases. N2O comprises a very small percentage of distribution system GHG emissions. Starting with the fourth year. along with other trace gases in the atmosphere..

The GWPs in Table 1-1 are from the IPCC 1995 Second Assessment Report (SAR) [IPCC 1995]. and N2O from 1995 SAR and 2001 TAR Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide GWP (SAR) 1 21 310 GWP (TAR) 1 23 296 The updated (TAR) GWPs have not been commonly applied in inventories and reporting protocols to date.400 23. Since CO2 is the reference gas. and N2O are presented in Table 1-2. and will serve as the basis for the AGA GHG Guidelines.900 Table 1-2. Global Warming Potentials (100 Year Time Horizon. and international convention and typical U. other GWPs were affected by this change. IPCC 1995) Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide HFC-23 HFC-32 HFC-125 HFC-134a HFC-143a HFC-236fa CF4 C2F6 C4F10 C6F14 SF6 GWP 1 21 310 11. 2008 year GWP is the standard that has been broadly adopted for GHG reporting. Additional data and information based on a specific GHG could also affect its GWP.300 3.S. The SAR and TAR GWPs for CO2. the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) was adopted [IPCC 2001]. Table 1-1. This update included a revision to the radiative forcing effect of CO2. In 2001. GWP (100-year) for CO2. Methane.800 6.300 6. The TAR updated the GWPs based on the most recent scientific data. methane.200 7.000 7. GWP values are listed in Table 1-1 for the three GHGs reported for natural gas systems along with some common hydro fluorocarbons and per fluorocarbons. voluntary programs rely on the 3 .800 1.500 9.700 650 2.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. and sulfur hexafluoride.

Gases other than CO2 are currently responsible for 45 percent of GHG radiative forcing. and very low levels of impurities. For the purposes of this document. Custody transfer from the transmission company to the distribution company typically occurs at a “City Gate” metering and regulating (M&R) station shown schematically in Figure 1-2. 4 . transmission and storage. If the reporting convention changes. an accurate estimate of indirect emissions of CO2 from atmospheric NMVOC oxidation requires a gas stream chemical speciation profile. and residential customers. The distribution sector receives. In addition.3 Natural Gas Distribution Sector Overview Figure 1-1 shows the four primary sectors for the natural gas industry – production. from fuel combustion to generate electricity used by the company The primary challenge in developing a GHG inventory for the natural gas distribution sector is estimating methane emissions. this can be addressed in future updates to the AGA GHG Guidelines.. The indirect CO2 produced by the oxidation of non methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) in the atmosphere has not been included in many estimation methodologies and is not contained within this document. but are a wide range of volatile hydrocarbon species with varying molecular weights and carbon contents. 1. and the relative contribution of these other gases is expected to increase in the future. Customer’s gas use is measured by individual customer meters.e. The latest IPCC documentation seeks to include other hydrocarbon emissions by accounting for the carbon content by species profile (percent carbon in NMVOC by mass) multiplied by the carbon dioxide to carbon molecular weight ratio. methyl mercaptans are typically added to the gas as an odorant at the M&R station so that downstream gas leaks are more readily detected due to the pungent smell. The M&R station measures the natural gas flow rate and reduces the gas pressure. NMVOCs represent a very small portion of the natural gas distribution sector emissions. In addition. processed natural gas that has a high methane content. and from natural gas leaks because a small fraction of natural gas is CO2. Heaters are often employed at M&R stations to compensate for temperature decreases caused by pressure reductions. 2008 SAR values for GHG reporting. processing. low heavier hydrocarbons concentrations. this can be readily addressed in an inventory by updating the methane and N2O GWP conversion factors. typically 90% (by volume) or higher for distribution systems). the GWPs from the original 1995 SAR will be used. Therefore. Carbon dioxide also results from the soil oxidation of methane from underground pipe leaks. Carbon dioxide is the principal contributor to human-induced atmospheric effects. Regarding the contribution of gases considered for natural gas systems. The gas then flows through a series of pipeline “mains.” additional M&R stations and pressure regulating stations. An inventory may also include indirect CO2 emissions. and distribution. carbon dioxide is a direct emission from combustion sources. which are especially important due to the methane GWP and the fact that natural gas is primarily composed of methane (i. commercial. from transmission pipelines. The DOE 1605b program is one example that uses the updated TAR values. and finally lower pressure service pipelines that connect the mains to industrial. If reporting related to NMVOCs advances.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. NMVOCs do not represent a single molecular species. The IPCC TAR indicates that CO2 currently accounts for 55 percent of the atmospheric radiative forcing attributed to GHGs.

City Gate M&R station schematic. 5 . Natural gas industry sector diagram.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Figure 1-2. 2008 Production Processing Transmission/ Storage Compressor Stations Direct Sales Distribution M&R Stations Main and Service Pipelines Surface Facilities Gas Plant Gas C Pipelines Pipelines C Liquids Storage Liquids C Customer Meters Underground Storage Reservoir C Compressor M Meter Pressure Regulator Figure 1-1.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008

1.4

Considerations for Future GHG Guidelines Updates: Current Programs to Advance the State-of-the-Art for Distribution Section GHG Emissions Estimates

As discussed in the following sections, the distribution sector greenhouse gas emissions sources are categorized based on the Gas Research (GRI) GHGCalc program and include emission sources from the City Gate M&R stations to the customer meters. The GHG Guidelines do not consider liquefied natural gas (LNG) systems and associated equipment such as vaporizers. LNG operations have typically been associated with natural gas transmission and storage systems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with industry associations (i.e. AGA, American Petroleum Institute, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America), is currently planning a program to develop emission characterization procedures for LNG operations. These procedures could be incorporated into future versions of the AGA GHG Guidelines for use by distribution companies with operational control over LNG systems. Another consideration for future GHG Guidelines versions is the relevance of literature emission factors to current distribution sector operations and equipment – i.e., issues with the current “state of the art” for GHG estimates from distribution systems. In general, the primary reference for GHG emission factors from the distribution sector is a 1996 GRI/EPA study titled Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry [GRI/EPA 1996]. This study is dated and may no longer be representative of standard distribution sector practices, operations, or industry averages. In addition, based on emission factor groupings, very limited data for some emission factors and data assimilation into the factors, the estimated methane losses from this sector are believed to be significantly overestimated. A separate project is currently evaluating and prioritizing emission sources and factors for distribution and is expected to culminate in 2008 in improved emission factors with reduced uncertainty for key distribution sector GHG sources. As the GHG inventory process continues to grow and mature, documentation to support assumptions & preferred methodologies, data sources, quality assurance and quality control practices, audit procedures and requirements, emission trading elements, and policy and issue considerations are likely to become more standardized. A standardized process will enhance consistency, comparability, and conformance of future inventories for this sector. Review and updates to this guideline consistent with industry practices and standards should be conducted consistent with this programmatic evolution.

6

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 2.0 2.1 Technical Elements GHG Emissions Estimation Methodologies – Quantification Steps

Most GHG emission estimates for inventory development are based on an emission factor approach, as follows: Emission Rate = Emission Factor (EF) x Activity Data (AD)

Depending upon the “tier” for the estimate, the activity data can be quite general (e.g., miles of main pipeline, number of M&R stations), or more specific (e.g., number of plastic pipeline services, number of gas-driven pneumatic control loops in an M&R station). Some emissions estimates may be based on engineering data and/or a mass balance approach. These approaches are typically more accurate than an emission factor approach, but usually require a level of effort and cost that exceeds current accepted practices. These approaches can be used at the operator’s discretion, but should not be considered a required or recommended approach. For example, vented gas volumes can be measured or accurately estimated based on equipment and process parameters. Select examples of these more advanced approaches are discussed in Sections 3 and 4. In the Sections 3 through 6, emission factors and associated activity data are provided for the various distribution sector emission sources. Practitioners and inventory managers will need to identify the methodology appropriate to meet their inventory objectives considering the availability of activity data and information for engineering estimates. Emission rates are then determined for the array of sources and breadth of facilities that comprise the complete inventory. To report a complete company inventory, emission estimates from individual processes, equipment, and facilities must be aggregated. A company will need to decide the implementation approach for preparing a rolled up inventory, and define responsibilities for compiling and inputting activity data, documenting the data sources and assumptions, calculating emissions, and rolling the equipment and facility-level emissions up into a corporate report. Each company should determine whether the emission calculations are to be completed at the facility-level (i.e., a decentralized approach) or corporate-level (centralized approach). If company-wide activity data cannot be collected at a corporate level, data from individual business units, operating units, facilities, and field locations may be required to populate the activity data input fields. In such a case, a common input template should be developed to ensure consistency. Either is acceptable and proper quality control of input data and emission aggregations should be instituted in either case. In addition, a plan should be developed for recordkeeping and supporting documentation for both the activity data and assumptions and methodologies relied upon in the current year inventory. These data and documentation will facilitate future audits and ensure continuity if staff change. 2.2 Tiered Approaches

As methods for GHG inventory development continue to evolve, a “tiered” emission calculation approach has been commonly applied based on varying levels of detail associated with user input

7

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 data on equipment and processes. Higher tier emission estimates require more detailed activity data and generate emission estimates with better accuracy and precision. Tier 1 represents the most broad emissions estimate and requires the least input information. Tier 2 and Tier 3 require progressively more data, but result in a higher quality GHG inventory and typically a less conservative estimate. The Tier rating scheme is not an absolute indicator of the fidelity of an estimate, but rather an indicator of an improved (and less conservative) estimate within an individual source category for a specific GHG. Emission factors provided in Tiers 1 through 3 are general/average factors, with higher accuracy achieved as the input data becomes more detailed. The Tier-based hierarchy can be described as follows:
• • • •

Tier 1: General estimate with minimal inputs required (e.g., emission factor based on miles of pipeline used to estimate the GHG inventory). Tier 2: Data requirements and emission factors based on facility level data or the largest emission sources at a site. Tier 3: Data requirements and emissions based on process operation or equipment level information at a site. Additional Tiers (e.g., Tier 3+, Tier 4, and beyond) involve emission determinations that require additional data – and higher costs for inventory development. Migration beyond Tier 3 estimates will occur over time as improvements in measurements and estimate accuracy progresses. These estimates will require detailed process and equipment input data in conjunction with site-specific emission factor data. These approaches are usually beyond the current practices for inventory development and are typically founded on equipment-specific measurements rather than more generic source-type emission factors. The approaches also require thorough documentation to ensure that an external reviewer/auditor can understand and validate the estimation.

In developing an emission estimate, the user must consider the intended use of the estimate and inventory, along with the availability and cost associated with collecting the necessary process inputs to complete a calculation. In general, Tier 1 estimates are very qualitative and have little practical application in development of a comprehensive GHG inventory. They are only intended for a relative magnitude estimate (e.g. national inventories prepared by third parties in the absence of activity data) and are not considered robust estimates. Tier 2 estimates also are not considered to be robust estimates, but rather indicators. In summary, Tier 1 and 2 offer the lowest fidelity estimates with the largest uncertainties, and in most cases provide more conservative estimates than inventories developed using Tier 3 or higher emission estimations; thus, Tier 1 and 2 estimates should only be used in the absence of alternative, higher fidelity, estimation techniques. 2.3 Emission Factors

Emissions factors present the mass of GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide) per unit of activity data, where the activity data are typically a process rate or equipment count (e.g. lb of CO2 per MMBtu of natural gas combusted, kg of methane leaked per mile of cast iron main pipeline.) The emission factors presented in Sections 3 through 6 are a compilation of the most current factors in the literature. The emission factors review was conducted in a recent joint Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), American

8

2008 Petroleum Institute (API). These documents in turn referenced over 60 other publications. In this circumstance. Published data and emission factors for vented and fugitive emission sources specific to the natural gas industry distribution sector were limited to the 1996 EPA/GRI Study and similar vintage Canadian studies. The uncertainty associated with the factor depends upon both the application and the technical limitations associated with the dataset that forms the basis of the factor. while fugitive emission factors are presented relative to typical types of equipment in terms of emissions per equipment count. The emission factors present a “typical” or “average” emission rate based on the industry norm. the basis for any differences and to recommend preferred emission factors and identify situations where use of alternative factors may be appropriate. as noted above. Identify and compare current published GHG emission factors for natural gas systems. These are often referred to as “default” emission factors. and 4. if possible. If circumstances indicate an issue with available emission factors (or estimation method) for a particular application. In these cases. and AGA study [INGAA/API/AGA 2005]. or reduction in emission factor uncertainty. Emission factor alternatives were found to be more abundant for combustion than for the other emission categories characteristic of gas distribution because combustion sources are common to a wide range of industries and applications. The GHG Guidelines are not intended to limit the ability of a company to use emission factors or emission estimation methods alternative to those included in this document. combustion emissions can be related directly to more precise data such as facility or equipment fuel use. identify the emission estimate approaches that can most benefit from an improved methodology or factor. thus. A particular company or site may have actual emissions that vary from the “norm” represented by the emission factor. The project t reviewed and categorized approximately 1. the inventory should document the estimate basis and include a qualitative assessment that explains the rationale for using an alternative to the default emission factors. 2.. Identify data gaps that currently exist for natural gas systems. the company can choose to use an alternative to the published emission factors – such as site-specific data. combustion CO2 emission factors have a relatively high accuracy due to the relative simplicity and direct activity data basis for combustion CO2 emissions determination. while fugitive methane emissions have a higher uncertainty due to the complexity of directly measuring fugitive emissions and relating to an appropriate activity data basis. 9 . all the vented and fugitive emission factors in sections 4 and 5 may not be representative of current operations and equipment.700 emission factors from 25 documents.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. For example. EPA/GRI 1996) and the prevalence and quality of newer data. Determine the reliance of published emission factors on data from the mid-1990’s data (e. The primary project objectives were to: 1. Emission factors for natural gas systems were compiled and compared for like/common sources to determine. The uncertainty also depends on the accuracy of the measurement methods associated with the emissions and activity data.g. Where possible. 3.

Examples of supporting data and information that may be used for activity data include: • • • • • • • Process operating conditions (e. a company can decide which estimation approach most effectively meets its needs. safety audits. multiple tiers are available. 10 . and documentation and recordkeeping.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Activity data compilation may be aided through the creative use of company resources and information such as asset management tools. insurance records. emission factor and activity data matching. 2008 2. a company should consider not only the current inventory (e. A reliable and efficient means of developing accurate facility equipment counts. Operating and maintenance practices and schedules (e. gas compositions.g. the initial inventory). This generally requires the active engagement of personnel with a good working knowledge of the equipment and facilities involved.e. For example. Multiple estimation methods are provided for all processes in the GHG Guidelines. Maintenance records. Nominal pipeline size and/or site rating. In developing initial inventories. In compiling activity data for inventory development. etc. natural gas versus compressed air). and Annual updates of equipment and pipelines installed and decommissioned.g. etc. pipeline length and material. Regardless of the tier or estimation method selected. and some processes provide more than one estimation methodology for a Tier 2 or Tier 3 estimate.g. Piping materials and age. Based on available activity data – and the data quality. throughput. permits.. pressures and flows). and of the associated operations and engineering terminology.g. The specific activity data for the distribution sector GHG estimates are identified in the sections that follow. eliminate double counting and transcription errors). should be developed and memorialized to ensure consistency in year-to-year inventory management. accuracy (i. operating hours. Supply medium used for gas-operated pneumatic devices (e. but also the procedures that are necessary to ensure efficient collection of the same data in subsequent years. activity data deficiencies or gaps should be identified so that process improvements can be considered for subsequent or updated inventories. Data collection concerns include inventory completeness. pipeline depressurization for maintenance). temperatures... purchase records (labor and materials).4 Activity Data The level of effort required for a company to compile an inventory will be most significantly affected by the desired estimate fidelity and quality and the availability of activity data associated with company processes and equipment. a certain amount of source and activity data must be collected to support inventory development..

The first two items are likely to be the greatest sources of error. and Uncertainty in the GWP (based on IPCC (2001). Measurement errors. Within the GHG literature. Uncertainty in representativeness of the source relative to the emission sources used to develop the emission factor. uncertainty for GWP values with a 100 year basis is ± 35% on a global average basis). This is largely due to uncertainty being introduced throughout each step in the estimation process. some emission factor tables present "precision" values. Representativeness of the dataset relative to the "average" source. or characterization relative to a company’s similar source. 2008 2. Data entry and calculation errors. the ability to include uncertainty estimates will progress. In general. and at some future point in time uncertainty estimates are likely to become a standardized component of the inventory process. including: • • • • • • • • Inherent uncertainties of the selected estimation techniques and (default) emission factor. and GWP uncertainty. Poor understanding of the cause of temporal and seasonal variations in the sources.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. and the overall uncertainty associated with the majority of emission inventories is typically quite large.4 of that document) provides a discussion on calculating precision values associated with emission factors and also discusses the 11 . meter accuracy). this uncertainty is only associated with the emission factor and does not consider activity data uncertainty. Uncertainty in the emission factor. default emission factors for key natural gas industry sources (vented and fugitive emissions) are relatively imprecise and attempts to characterize estimate accuracy is difficult due to the paucity of data behind most of the initial emission factors available in the literature. The API Compendium [API 2004] (see Appendix B. although all are potentially noteworthy. the precision reported is a statistical evaluation from the dataset used to derive the emission factor (usually based on a 90% confidence interval). As GHG programs mature and additional data is available. the current immaturity of GHG emissions reporting does not warrant such consideration.g. Missing or incomplete information regarding the source population and activity levels. However. Typically. In addition. which are not reported in this document.5 Precision and Uncertainty Estimates Uncertainty estimates and confidence intervals exist for most emission factors and activity data. This reported number does not indicate the dataset size or reflect additional uncertainties in the emissions factor associated with: • • • Error in the measurement (e.

introduced from: − Use of factors that are poorly researched and uncertain (e. the purpose of the GRI/EPA Study was identification of sources and quantification of U. and this precision value will likely be important in future-year inventories – when it can be used with improved emission factor precision statistics to characterize an estimate uncertainty. CH4 and N2O from combustion).. and the potential for the generic emission factor to not be representative of the specific equipment of interest. GHG inventory development is still a relatively new field of endeavor. and estimation of emission factor precision or uncertainty will mature as datasets grow. while uncertainty estimates have limited utility for the current state of the science for GHG estimation. natural gas industry methane emissions quantification... national methane emissions. Currently. However. These data were not intended to be used to develop default emission factors or industry averages for the gas industry. However. • 12 . The following should be considered when assessing the origins of emission estimate uncertainty: • • Identifying the various uncertainty sources (i. Readers are referred to that document for specific equations and derivations of precision calculations. Thus. The 1996 GRI/EPA Study remains the cornerstone for U. precision in a default emission factor may reflect an attempt to address whether the dataset is representative of the at-large source category based on a qualitative judgment). CO2 per kWh generated). where available. Therefore. most of the information regarding problematic sources. introduced from: − Calculation errors and omissions.S. This issue is similar to the concept of applying an EPA AP-42 emission factor for NOx to a piece of equipment such as an internal combustion (IC) engine. operators should attempt to characterize the accuracy or precision associated with the company's activity data (e. and − Assumptions that simplify highly complex and variable processes.g. Bias. Typically a company would not consider using the AP-42 emission factor for a NOx emission limit because of the factor’s “average’ nature. emissions data. − Deliberate estimation or interpolation to compensate for missing data. and emission factors has no equal in published reports. Two types of error in uncertainty estimation can be considered: 1.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. measured fuel flow.g.S. − Use of average factors not well matched to specific and varied operations (e. 2008 uncertainties associated with activity factors. Published precision values may contain a subjective component (e. This will ensure that a company’s documentation is complete.g. make and model of equipment) – even if only qualitative estimates are available.g.e. this will become a fundamental part of GHG development and reporting in the future. 2. Imprecision. In developing emission estimates. the activity data precision can be identified and documented during inventory compilation. inputs to the emissions estimate). this does not imply that precision or uncertainty should not be considered.

and verification issues). most of the benefit of having a threshold is lost. An example threshold that has been applied is 5 percent of the total inventory for the organization section being scrutinized. etc.e.e. once emissions are quantified. and Inventory credibility (design. but rather introduces the concept. • • Error propagation.6 Materiality Threshold The concept of “materiality” considers the point at which a discrepancy due to an error or reporting of minimal emission source becomes material to the total inventory – i.. 2008 − Insufficient frequency of measurements to account for natural variability. For example. The relative contribution of a particular source type and the uncertainty associated with emission estimates are both important factors to consider when developing a strategy for inventory improvement. 2. mile of pipeline. The threshold may be pre-defined for a particular reporting regime. However. such a threshold is simply a predefined and accepted negative bias in estimates (i. and − Imprecise measurement of activity data (e. and consistent accounting of their GHG emissions. or 13 . the materiality threshold. and implications regarding accuracy or uncertainty of the estimate associated with a methodology. the procedures documented in this guideline document represent a range of simple (or first-order) thought on best-available measurement and estimation techniques. Instead companies need to make a good faith effort to provide a complete. This is not the same as a de minimis for defining a complete inventory.. accurate. Although it appears useful in theory. hours of operation. which is an important component of inventory development and specifically defined by some registries. In order to utilize a materiality specification. For cases where emissions have not been estimated.g. A threshold is often used to determine whether an error or omission is a material discrepancy or not. line size. an underestimate). This document does not present a position regarding appropriate thresholds.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. the emissions from a particular source or activity would have to be quantified to ensure they were under the threshold. There is not a consensus position regarding the materiality issue. Technically. implementation. the practical implementation of such a threshold is not compatible with the completeness principle of the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. The intent of a materiality threshold is to identify the level at which information inclusion or exclusion influences decisions or actions of the information “users” (where “users” is broadly defined).). Defining this threshold requires a value judgment. In general. the World Resources Institute/World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) GHG Protocol [WRI/WBCSD 2004] (hereafter referred to as the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol) offers this perspective on materiality thresholds: “Sometimes it is tempting to define a minimum emissions accounting threshold (often referred to as a materiality threshold) stating that a source not exceeding a certain size can be omitted from the inventory.

IC engine and gas turbine generators and compressors. vented. Direct emissions include combustion. 2008 estimated at an insufficient level of quality. The AGA GHG Guidelines do not identify a pre-established materiality threshold. and Facility boilers.” Additional points for consideration include: • • • • A reasonable materiality threshold simplifies reporting by not requiring companies to report smaller emissions sources.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. In addition.1 Combustion Emissions Emissions of CO2. it will likely establish varying significance levels for larger and smaller companies.7. These emissions comprise a significant portion of GHG emissions from distribution. Direct emission sources are discussed in the subsections below. fugitive. and mobile source emissions directly associated with company operations.g. a materiality threshold may be a necessity to identify the need to report: for a small source. Potential emission sources include: • Pneumatic devices (isolation valves and control loops). Once a calculation is competed and compared to a threshold. and 14 . on the overall inventory report. that program may include either a pre-defined threshold or ground rules associated with both de minimis emissions and minor errors. methane.2 Vented methane emissions come from a variety of process equipment and operational practices. Note that process venting and maintenance venting (e. to define a significance level for activities or equipment that are established as trivial. Depending upon the threshold basis. 2. and For any mandated reporting. and N2O from combustion sources. as discussed above. or lack of quality. if the inventory is to be used for a particular reporting program or registry. including: • • • Pipeline heaters. 2. purge/blowdown) are included under fugitives for IPCC and some other reporting guidelines. or. it is important that this is transparently documented and justified.7.7 Direct Emissions The majority of GHG emissions from natural gas distribution equipment and processes are direct emissions. Verifiers can determine the potential impact and relevance of the exclusion. All direct emissions should be accounted for in the inventory other than emissions that are less than a defined significance threshold. the burden in adding the emissions to the reported inventory is extremely small.. for a discovered inventory error. as this value judgment is best addressed within the context of the inventory goals and intended use. Vented Emissions 2.

7. and Construction equipment. and Maintenance and inspection. and assists in the understanding of tradeoffs between onsite power generation and purchased electricity. 2008 • Purge or blowdown from routine operations or upsets. this is typically not the case for gas distribution. Indirect Emissions 2.1 includes methods for estimating indirect emissions. Reporting protocols such as the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol and International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). and other piping connectors. reporting indirect emissions from electricity helps provide a more complete picture of company emissions. and N2O include: • • Gasoline and diesel powered fleet vehicles – autos and trucks. methane.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. and Customer meters. While indirect emissions can be a substantial emission source for some industrial sectors. is “optional emissions”. The emission sources and activity factor basis for fugitive emissions are based upon primary equipment that includes subcomponents.7. Mobile Source Emissions 2.9 Optional Emissions Another type of emissions. M&R station venting.4 Mobile sources combustion emissions of CO2. This requirement is common for many reporting programs. Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions [IPIECA 2003] (hereafter referred to as the IPIECA Guidelines) include additional background on indirect emissions from purchased power. which are typically comprised of additional indirect emission sources. In addition. indirect purchased power emissions are typically required for current voluntary reporting programs. provides an understanding of opportunities available for GHG reductions from energy efficiency. flanges. including: − − − Pipeline venting. 2.3 Fugitive GHG emissions are methane leaks from pipelines and system components such as valve packing. Indirect emissions should be reported separately from direct emissions in company reports. such as: • • • Piping and associated components. Fugitive Emissions 2. Section 6. These are referred to as “Scope 3” emissions in the 15 .8 Indirect emissions are reported from power consumed at a facility that is produced by a third party. M&R stations. In general.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Natural gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion engines and gas turbines are the most prevalent combustion sources throughout the natural gas industry. “other” potential combustion sources may include: • • • Gas/combustion turbines: simple.e. and. and cannot follow the calculation methodologies outlined below. CO2 is formed from fuel carbon oxidation. and Gas-fired heaters and boilers. The general equation for this estimation is: EmissionsGHG (mass/unit time) = AD * EF Eqn. and N2O is formed by oxygen-nitrogen reactions that are promoted by cooler flame temperatures.1 Combustion Emissions Estimation Methodologies Overview GHG emissions from a single combustion source or group of sources (facility) can be directly measured (e. employee commuting. Pipeline heaters are often the most common combustion emissions source. CH4. Volume 1 – Emissions Estimation Methodologies And Procedures. The combustion equipment typically employed at distribution facilities includes: • Stationary sources firing natural gas (processed/pipeline quality). diesel fuel. and diesel fired. most companies do not further compress the gas after custody transfer from the transmission pipeline. 4stroke lean burn. and waste transportation. line heaters). gas turbines and IC engines may be used by distribution companies for power generation. outsourced activities. and 4-stroke rich burn. primarily used for gas compression. and Emergency generators. 3-1 16 . however. 3. and gasoline: − − External combustion sources (i.0 Combustion Emissions Greenhouse gases are emitted from combustion equipment used at natural gas facilities. fleet vehicles and construction equipment) are included in Section 6.g. 2008 WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol. and N2O. gasoline-fired. Reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines: Natural gas-fired 2-stroke lean burn. In the distribution sector.e.and combined-cycle. Reporting on these activities – and thus delineation of estimation methods – has been limited to date and is not discussed further herein. Note that mobile source emissions from combustion (i. the reader is referred to either the API Compendium or the INGAA Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Guidelines For Natural Gas Transmission And Storage. 3. CO2 emissions can be determined from the fuel carbon content and mass flow rate) or they can be estimated from a source-specific emission factor (EF) and corresponding activity data (AD). For “other” combustion sources not listed or presented here. Less prevalent and not common throughout the distribution sector. waste disposal. CH4 is a product of incomplete combustion – typically CH4 in the fuel escapes oxidation. Examples include: transportation related activities such as employee business travel.. and combustion emissions include CO2.

and combustion technology category (e. activity data and operating information may be available to conduct a more refined emission estimate. The EF * AD calculation estimates the GHG emissions from combustion for an entire facility. The metered fuel consumption and fuel carbon content provide the means to accurately estimate CO2 emissions. For combustion. available GHG literature includes considerably more data and detailed methods for estimating emissions – as the approaches are common across industrial sectors. Emissions estimated using facility-level Tier 2 EFs based on total fuel combusted in a facility and corresponding AD. or industry.g. There is a unique EF for each GHG. while leading reporting and accounting documents such as the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol do not offer methods for natural gas system estimates of vented or fugitive emissions. Tier 2.2 is as follows: • Tier 1. There is a unique EF for each GHG and fuel type. in order of increasing accuracy (i. For example. process. decreasing uncertainty). the emission factor is a published “default” factor based on typical facility. pipeline length) and a corresponding AD. Emissions estimated using equipment-level Tier 3 EFs based on total fuel combusted in a piece of equipment and a corresponding AD. or facility data per unit time and the EF is GHG mass or volume per equipment. and/or fuel characteristics. The fidelity of the available emission factor would indicate the relative 17 .1 Emission Tiers for Combustion A general hierarchy of emissions estimation approaches. • In this scenario. Examples of “Tier 3+” level estimates follow: • CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using equipment-level EFs based on total fuel combusted in specific equipment and corresponding AD. 2-stroke lean burn ICEs. The EF * AD calculation provides a GHG emissions estimate from combustion of the fuel type in the defined make and model equipment. process. The EF * AD calculation estimates the GHG emissions from combustion of the fuel type for an entire facility. For CO2. and Tier 3. Emissions estimated using system or facility-level Tier 1 EFs based on GHG emissions per unit production or other facility data (e. methane and N2O would be estimated based on fuel usage (Activity Data) and an emission factor. equipment.1. • • For Tiers 1 through 3. There is a unique EF for each GHG. external combustion/heaters). For combustion. The EF * AD calculation estimates the GHG emissions from combustion of the fuel type in an equipment type (or bank of similar equipment). supplements are available that specifically address combustion emissions. emissions are estimated using facility or equipment-level (or equipment bank) fuel usage and fuel composition data from a facility fuel (e. 3. The EF is derived from combustion equipment manufacturer data or emissions monitoring/testing of the specific equipment model.e.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.g. company. 2008 These AD are equipment. natural gas) analysis.. and equipment make and model. for natural gas distribution. fuel type. or facility data increment. fuel type.g. There is a unique EF for each GHG. Increased emissions estimation accuracy requires more detailed AD and calculations. consistent with the discussion of “tiers” in Section 2.

9 was used to convert lower heating value (LHV) based EFs to HHV-based EFs for natural gas unless otherwise noted: EFHHV = 0.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.e..1. 3-4 P = pressure (in atm.6 ºC and a pressure of 1 atm /14.3 standard cubic feet (scf)/lbmole or 23. individual fuel meter volumes and fuel analysis) and emission measurements associated with specific combustion equipment may provide the opportunity for very refined combustion equipment estimates of CH4 and N2O emissions. along with a discussion of estimation approaches that address Tier 3 level estimates and beyond. However. a Tier 3 estimate based on an average default emission factor would be most likely.9 * EFLHV Eqn. 3-3 Standard Gas Conditions . 18 . The CO2 estimation hierarchy is discussed further below. A factor of 0. K) Equation 3-4 was used to convert gas volumes to a mass or weight basis. In the Tables below.05 • Eqn.69 liters/gmole.The ideal gas law: PV = nRT Where: Eqn.325 kPa These conditions give a standard volume of 379. In the future. • Fuel Heating Value – Emission factors are reported based on the fuel’s higher heating value (HHV).g.73 psi ft3/lbmole ºR.unless otherwise noted: EFHHV = EFLHV/1. 2008 “Tier” of this estimate – e.696 psia/101. because fuel consumption and fuel composition data are more accessible. or kPa) V = volume (ft3.05 was used to convert LHV-based EFs to HHV based EFs for liquid fuels – diesel fuel and gasoline .06 atm cm3/gmole K T = temperature (ºR.2 Data Conventions Combustion emission factors in the literature are typically reported in tonnes/MMBtu.73 atm ft3/lbmole ºR. tonnes/TJ. Standard gas conditions are a temperature of 60 ºF/15. The CO2 estimate approach above is one of several that are recommended in available literature. CO2 estimates from combustion can be completed with a higher degree of certainty than fugitive and venting GHG emissions. CO2 emissions are the primary emission source from combustion. 3-2 A factor of 1. 3. and the original units reported in the referenced source. Calculation procedures and recommended EFs and AD for Tiers 1 and 2 are detailed below. psia. 0. Fuel heating values listed in Table 3-1 were used unless otherwise noted.. In general. 82. improved operational data access (i. cm3) n = number of gmoles or lbmoles R = 10. the following conventions are used to convert the emission factors from the referenced source units to tonnes/MMBtu and tonnes/TJ.

Emission estimation methodologies were documented and EFs tabulated for CO2. HHV) were provided to perform the conversion calculations. Densities. 2003-03. Heating Values.75*106 5. Table 3-1.).. Section 1. Fluid Flow. C. Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Volume 1. B. Volume I: Combustion Fuels. combustor type and specifications (design. 1986.3-12. These values were used for EF conversions and calculations unless values were specified in the referenced source. and other applicable information. Table 1.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Heat Transfer. 19 . densities. and carbon contents are listed in Table 3-1. B Btu/bbl Btu/bbl 5.3 A Btu/bbl Btu/bbl 5. A three step process was used to identify the most appropriate EFs for estimating GHG emissions from natural gas distribution combustion systems: 1. applicable operating conditions (e.17 lb/gal 85.4. 1998.g. If insufficient data (e. 2. Entries also included fuel type and heating value.3 Emission Factor Selection Criteria Emission factor alternatives are more abundant for combustion than for the other emission categories characteristic of gas distribution. EF rating and uncertainty.1. CAPP Publication No. 3rd Ed.5 A. 3. CH4. 1998 D. Natural Gas Combustion.05 lb/gal 87. North American Combustion Handbook. reference (if EF originated from another document). and Carbon Content for Select Liquid and Gaseous Fuels Carbon. EPA AP-42. April 2003. Stoichiometry. In these instances.46*106 5.39*106 Kerosene 6.67*106 5. air pollution controls (APCs). B Btu/bbl Btu/bbl Natural Gas 1 lb/23. 2008 • Fuel Properties – Default fuel heating values.76 lb/gal 87 A. and N2O. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).g. All EFs were converted to common activity factors of tonne/MMBtu or tonne/TJ based on HHV for comparison purposes. etc.7 scf 1020 Btu/scf 918 Btu/scf 76 C (processed/pipeline) Natural Gas ~1 lb/19 scf 1240 Btu/scf 1110 Btu/scf ~77 D (raw/unprocessed) HHV – Higher Heating Value LHV – Lower Heating Value A. Documents with GHG EF and emissions estimation methodologies were reviewed. the referenced fuel properties were noted and used for calculations.19*106 Gasoline/ Petrol 6. % Fuel Density HHV LHV Ref by Weight 5.46*106 Diesel 7. EPA AP-42. load range). default values from Table 3-1 were applied.

In these instances. compressor building). AP-42 EF quality ratings or reported uncertainties. Selection of the most applicable EFs was based on the following criteria. Quite often EFs were redundant. irrespective of the combustor type. Age. and the most recent IPCC inventory guidelines no longer apply this correction. For example.g. combustion technology. Stationary Source CO2 Emission Estimation Methodologies Fuel carbon is almost completely oxidized to CO2 during combustion. the literature reference is identified in the sections that address GHG from sources other than stationary combustion. N2O assumed to be 1. EFs in a recent report had been referenced from a previous report. Thus. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 outline the methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from combustion at a natural gas distribution facility. It was generally assumed that newer EFs are based on more recent and more reliable data.e.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. this is the Tier 2 approach for CO2 emissions estimation. the CO2 emissions “estimate” would be a direct “Tier 3+” calculation. equipment bank (e. if the fuel consumption for a facility. 2008 3. The complete combustion equation for a hydrocarbon is: CxHyOz + (x + y/4 – z/2) O2 = xCO2 + y/2 H2O Eqn. EF development methodology. known or estimated fuel composition (carbon content). and.5% of NOx).. CO2 emissions can be estimated from the fuel consumption. the original reference was cited. Activity Data availability and expected accuracy. the emission factors presented in this section include identification of the specific reference. The AP-42 ratings methodology is presented in Appendix C-3. GHG directly measured or estimated from another measurement (e.g. It was generally assumed that US and North American based EFs are more pertinent to natural gas distribution facilities than foreign based EFs. etc. fuel. and a carbon oxidation factor. the available emission factors are very limited and based on a few key studies or reports. Consistency with other reported EFs (is it an outlier and why?). For example. venting and fugitives). For later sections (e. 3. Common EFs (based on GHG.. but less reference detail is provided in the emission factor tables.g. including the approach for determining which Tier to use for 20 . or individual unit is known or can be reasonably estimated. using carbon oxidation factors is optional. As indicated in Table 3-4. i. Specificity to natural gas distribution facilities. 3-5 Therefore.. Specificity to the United States and/or North America.) were compared to determine the factor most applicable to natural gas distribution facilities. If the activity data are at the facility level and a default fuel analysis is used. • • • • Numerous references in the available literature include emission factors and estimation methods for combustion. particularly for fuel sensitive EFs such as CO2. Thus.2. If equipment specific fuel use and fuel analysis are used. generally in the order presented: • • • Quality rating.

natural gas. If different compositions of a fuel type. are fired during a reporting period. based on measured/known values for fuel composition or heating value. Use default Tier 2 EFs in Table 3-3 for natural gas. Use Tier 2 EFs from Table 3-3 for diesel and gasoline/petrol. CO2 emissions estimation overview. Preferred approaches are indicated in the figures. The total consumption of each fuel fired at a facility must be determined (diesel fuel. No Estimate CO2 emissions from Tier 1 EFs (Table 6-2). e. Use default HHVs in Table 3-1. and Eqn 3-6. and/or gasoline). Can the annual facility consumption of a fuel be estimated? Refer to Figure 3-2. Yes* Is the fuel composition (Carbon content & MW (gas) or density (liquid)) known or accurately estimable? No Is the fuel HHV known or accurately estimable? No Estimate CO2 emissions with Eqn 3-7 or 3-8.g. 21 . corresponding Activity Data. Apply fractional carbon oxidation – optional (Table 3-4).” This approach is based on the hierarchy provided in the IPIECA Guidelines. Use HHVbased EFs in Table 3-3 for natural gas. * Preferred approach.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 2008 estimating a facility’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Yes* Estimate CO2 emissions with Eqn 3-7 or 3-8. Apply fractional carbon oxidation – optional (Table 3-4). Figure 3-1. Apply fractional carbon oxidation – optional (Table 3-4). Yes* Determine CO2 emissions from Eqn 310 or 3-11. Use Tier 2 EFs from Table 3-3 for diesel and gasoline/petrol. The Figures 3-1 and 3-2 hierarchy recommends fuel consumption estimation methods consistent with different emissions estimates “Tiers. these compositions should be considered separately. natural gas.

Total facility consumption of each fuel type by summing fuel consumption by individual combustors. 2008 Can total facility consumption of each fuel type be determined from a single point metering and integrated mass flow (e. corresponding Activity Data.g. Yes* Use total facility fuel consumption for CO2 emission estimates – refer to Fig.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. natural gas). Use total to determine CO2 emissions estimate – refer to Fig. 3-1. e. Use total to determine CO2 emissions estimate – refer to Fig. or measured energy balance for boilers & heaters (vendor data)? No Are there alternative methods for estimating fuels consumption. diesel. 3-1. CO2 emissions estimation fuel consumption determination.g. fuel consumption at a similar facility? No Estimate CO2 emissions from Tier 1 EFs (Table 3-2). 22 .g. and/or tank measurements or purchase records for * commodity fuels (e. from fuel flow meters and integrated mass flow and/or purchase records or tank measurements? No Can fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment be determined from ratings and measured operation hours & loads for ICEs & turbines (App A-1). Yes* Use total facility fuel consumption for CO2 emission estimates – refer to Fig.g. 3-1. . and measured energy balance for boilers & heaters (vendor data)? No Can fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment be determined from ratings and estimated operation hours & loads for ICEs & turbines (App A-1). Yes* Yes* Total facility consumption of each fuel type by summing fuel consumptions by individual combustors. 3-1. and Eqn 3-6. 3-1. Yes* Total facility consumption of each fuel type by summing fuel consumption by individual combustors. * Preferred approach Figure 3-2. gasoline)? No Can fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment be determined? e. Use total to determine CO2 emissions estimate – refer to Fig.

The use of COX is optional.e. tonne CO2 = Activity Data * EF where: Eqn 3-6 tonne CO2 = estimated annual CO2 emissions from combustion (tonne/yr) Activity data = transmission pipeline length or storage stations Table 3-2. Tier 1 CO2 Emission Factors for Combustion Activity Data GHG EF EF Units pipeline length CO2 5.0 Emission Factor Documentation. If the fuel is natural gas. CO2 emissions from each fuel are estimated and total emissions are then determined by summing the individual fuels emissions using equation 3-9. It should be noted that this emission factor is based on pipeline heater emissions. Recommended COXs are listed in Table 3-4. the annual CO2 emissions are estimated using an EF from Table 3-3 and equation 3-7 for natural gas and equation 3-8 for liquid fuels.1 CO2 Emissions Estimates Using Tier 1 Emission Factors Tier 1 CO2 emissions are estimated from a Tier 1 CO2 emission factor and corresponding activity data as shown in equation 3-6. a conservative approach is to assume 100% carbon oxidation to CO2 (i.0).GRI GHGCalc Version 1.7*10-1 Tonne/mile-yr Segment Distribution 3. This emission factor is from GRI-GHGCalcTM. tonneCO2j = Activity Data * EF * COX Eqn. a higher tier estimation approach is recommended. 3-7 (natural gas) tonneCO2j = estimated annual facility CO2 emissions from combustion of fuel j (tonne/yr) Activity Data = QGFj * HHVGj * 10-6 = MMBtu/yr QGFj = scf fuel j combusted at facility/yr HHVGj = Btu/scf fuel j 10-6 = MMBtu/106 Btu EF = tonnes CO2/MMBtu COX = COX is the fractional carbon oxidation factor.2.2 Reference GRI 2001 GRI 2001 . a heating value based EF from Table 3-3 is recommended. Table 3-2 lists the Tier 1 CO2 emission factor. July 2001 CO2 Emissions Estimates Using Tier 2 Emission Factors If the annual fuel consumption can be estimated. fuel composition (carbon content and molecular weight/density) is not known and the fuel heating value is known or can be reasonably estimated. If a distribution system operates compressors or other combustion equipment.2. tonneCO2j = Activity Data * EF * COX where: Eqn. 2008 3. COX = 1. If more than one fuel is fired.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 3-8 (liquid fuels) where: Activity Data = QLFj * HHVLj * 10-6 = MMBtu/yr QLFj = gal fuel j combusted/yr HHVLj = Btu/gal fuel j 23 .

CO2 emissions are estimated using a default EF from Table 3-3. and the fuel heating value is not known or cannot be reasonably estimated. 2008 tonnes CO2 = ∑ tonneCO2j where: j = number of different fuels combusted at facility tonne CO2 = estimated annual facility CO2 emissions (tonne/yr) Eqn. Table 33 includes default EFs for both pipeline and raw natural gas. but the fuel composition (carbon content and molecular weight) is not known.3*10-2 EIA 2004 Pipeline/Processed yr MMBtu* 109 Btu) NG: HHV = 975 – MMBtu/ tonne/ 54. 3-9 If the annual fuel consumption can be estimated.4*10-2 EIA 2004 1100 Btu/scf yr MMBtu* 109 Btu) NG: HHV > 1100 MMBtu/ tonne/ 14. and equation 3-7 for natural gas and equation 3-8 for liquid fuels. December 2002. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001. Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002.01 (tonne/ CO2 5.4*10-2 EIA 2004 1000 Btu/scf yr MMBtu* 109 Btu) NG: HHV = 1000 – MMBtu/ tonne/ 52. 3.2.72 (tonne/ CO2 5.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Activity Reported EF Fuel GHG EF EF Units Reference Data (Units) MMBtu/ tonne/ Diesel CO2 7. Fuel analysis sample 24 . EIA 2002 . January 2004).06 (tonne/ CO2 5. Default – CO2 5.91 (tonne/ CO2 5.92 (MMTC/ Btu/scf. Tier 2 CO2 Emission Factors for Combustion.8*10-2 Calculation Table 3-1 yr MMBtu* NG: Default – MMBtu/ tonne/ 52. a default heating value from Table 3-1. DC. DOE/EIA-0573(2001).3*10-2 EIA 2004 1075 Btu/scf yr MMBtu* 109 Btu) NG: HHV = 1075 – MMBtu/ tonne/ 53.3*10-2 EIA 2004 1050 Btu/scf yr MMBtu* 109 Btu) NG: HHV = 1050 – MMBtu/ tonne/ 53.91 (tonne/ CO2 5.3*10-2 EIA 2004 1025 Btu/scf yr MMBtu* 109 Btu) NG: HHV = 1025 – MMBtu/ tonne/ 53.46 (tonne/ CO2 5. CO2 emissions are estimated using a mass balance approach shown with equation 3-10 for natural gas and equation 3-11 for liquid fuels. Variability in fuel composition is typically very low for combustion sources in distribution.Energy Information Administration (EIA). and changes in fuel composition are unlikely to materially affect the CO2 emissions estimate.5*10-2 EIA 2002 yr MMBtu* 1015 Btu) Raw/Unprocessed * HHV EIA 2004 .4*10-2 Calculation Table 3-1 yr MMBtu* MMBtu/ tonne/ Gasoline/Petrol CO2 6. Table 3-3. (Washington.3 CO2 Emissions Estimates Determined from Fuel Consumption and Composition If the annual fuel consumption can be estimated and the fuel composition (carbon content and molecular weight/density) is known.Energy Information Administration (EIA).

for natural gas-fired sources. Volume II: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October 1999. registry materiality threshold).6 lb Table 3-4.. it may be reasonable to occasionally review the fuel composition to ensure reporting objectives are being met. analysis at the receipt point from transmission should be considered. 25 . Guidance for Emissions Inventory Development.66 * 10-3 * QLFj * ρLFj* Cj wt%/100 * COX Where: Eqn. For natural gas.g. IPPC 1996 . Volume 3. monthly) gas analysis may be warranted to better characterize variability. composition is typically provided with fuel delivery and this can be reviewed.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.g. Depending upon the reporting objectives (e. If the analysis does not indicate variability above the target threshold. If variability exceeds desired targets (e. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference Manual: IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPPC 1996 Fuel Diesel Gasoline Natural Gas EIIP 1999 . and experience indicates that variability is typically less than any reasonable materiality threshold.38 * 10-6 = Mol Vol (lbmole fuel/379. 2008 frequency is not well-defined for current GHG inventory practices. If more than one fuel is fired.6 lb Procedures for calculating fuel molecular weight and carbon weight percent are in Appendix C-2.. quarterly or semiannual review of a fuel analysis relative to the original composition used in the calculation is reasonable. IPPC 1996 0. then less frequent fuel composition review (e. Fractional Carbon Oxidation Factors*. then the carbon content in the calculation may need to be updated and more frequent (e.995 EIIP 1999. Fraction of Fuel C Oxidized (COX) Reference 0.66 * 10-3 = 1/MWC (lbmole C/12 lb C) * lbmole CO2/lbmole C * MWCO2 (44 lb CO2/lbmole CO2) * tonne/2204.EIIP.38 * 10-6 * QGFj * MWFj * Cj wt%/100 * COX Eqn. the most recent IPCC inventory guidelines no longer apply this correction.99 EIIP 1999. then CO2 emissions from each fuel are estimated and total emissions are then determined by summing the individual fuels emissions using equation 3-9.3 scf fuel) * 1/MWC (lbmole C/12 lb C) * lbmole CO2/lbmole C * MWCO2 (44 lb CO2/lbmole CO2) * tonne/2204. 1996 *Use of carbon oxidation factors is optional. 3-10 (natural gas) Where: tonneCO2j = estimated annual CO2 emissions from combustion of fuel j (tonne/yr) QGFj = scf fuel j combusted/yr MWFj = fuel molecular weight = lb fuel j/lbmole fuel j Cj wt%/100 = carbon weight percent/100 = lb C/lb fuel j 4. tonneCO2j = 1. For example. 3-11 (liquid fuels) QFLj = gal fuel j combusted/yr ρLFj = fuel density = lb fuel j/gal fuel j 1. For liquid fuels..99 EIIP 1999.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPPC 1996 0.g. annual) is warranted. tonneCO2j = 4. a registry materiality threshold).g. EIIP Greenhouse Gas Committee.

and operation are available. if the facility fuel consumption cannot be reasonably estimated. age. design. Provided a reasonable energy output estimate can be made. Figure 3-4 outlines the methodology for estimating CH4 and N2O emissions from all other combustion equipment and for estimating N2O emissions from IC engines and turbines. as well as fuel properties. 2008 3. Methane emissions are minimal from combustion sources other than natural gas-fired IC engines. it may be possible to apply a Tier 3+ emission factor. then a Tier 2 emissions estimate can be used. but data is very limited. and maintenance. CH4 and N2O emissions are impacted by combustor type. equipment-specific emissions estimation methodologies are needed for CH4 and N2O if precision is desired. This approach does not apply for N2O because hp-hrs based emission factors have not been developed for N2O. If detailed information about combustion equipment’s make. 26 . If fuel consumption by individual combustors cannot be estimated and total facility fuel combustion by fuel type can be estimated. air pollution control(s). then a Tier 1 methodology should be used. more detailed.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. however. Figure 3-3 outlines the methodology for estimating CH4 emissions from ICEs and turbines using hp-hrs as the activity data. However. N2O emissions are typically minimal from combustion. Post-combustion catalytic NOx control may increase N2O in some cases.3 Stationary Source CH4 and N2O Emission Estimation Methodologies While CO2 emissions are primarily determined by fuel consumption and carbon content and are irrespective of combustor type. Tier 3 emissions estimates are used if energy output and/or fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment can be estimated. Therefore. hp-hrs are the preferred activity data for IC engines and gas turbines. model. operation. Methane emissions from IC engines and gas turbines can be estimated using either annual energy output measured as horsepower hours (hp-hrs) or fuel consumption measured as MMBtu as the activity data.

For individual ICEs & turbines.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 27 . ICE/Turbine CH4 and N2O emissions estimation overview. can annual hp-hrs of operation be reasonably determined from a combination of measured and estimated operating hours and loads? No For individual ICEs & turbines. can annual hp-hrs of operation be determined from measured operating hours hrs and loads? No For individual ICEs & turbines. can annual hp-hrs of operation be reasonably determined from estimated operating hours and loads? For example. otherwise. 2008 Note – this flowsheet is only applicable for estimating CH4 emissions from ICEs & turbines. Yes* Yes* Figure 3-3. No Use procedures outlined in Figure 3-4 to estimate CH4 emissions from ICEs and tubines. * Preferred Approach Yes* Use annual hp-hrs and Tier 3 tonne/hp-hr EFs (Table 3-7) to estimate CH4 emissions (Eqns. & 3-19). Figure 3-4 applies for estimating CH4 and N2O emissions from other combustion equipment (where hp-hrs is not a common reporting methodology) and for estimating N2O emissions from ICEs & turbines. 3-16. use engine rating to estimate load if the engine usually operates at or near full load. This flowsheet should be used if annual hp-hrs can be reasonably estimated. proceed to Figure 3-4.

fuel consumption at a similar facility? No Use Tier 1 GHG estimation procedures. If hp-hrs cannot be estimated. 2008 Note – this flowsheet can be used to estimate CH4 and N2O emissions from all combustion equipment.3.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 3-17. and measured energy balance for boilers & heaters (vendor data)? No Can total facility fuels consumption be determined from a single point metering and integrated mass flow (e. then this flowsheet should be used. natural gas).4. CH4 and N2O combustion emissions estimation overview. 28 . Eqn. Use total facility fuels consumption and Tier 2 EFs (Table 3-6) to estimate GHG emissions (Eqns. However. procedures in Figure 3-3 are recommended for estimating CH4 emissions from ICEs & turbines if annual hp-hrs can be estimated. 318.g. 3-12 and Table 3-5 EFs. * Preferred Approach ** Tier 3+ EFs are applicable if required operating data are measured – refer to section 3. gasoline)? No Are there alternative methods for estimating facility fuels consumption. Figure 3-4. 3-14 & 3-15). e. & 3-19) Yes* Yes* Yes* Use total facility fuels consumption and Tier 2 EFs (Table 3-6) to estimate GHG emissions (Eqns.g. and/or purchase records or tank measurements for commodity fuels (diesel. Can fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment be determined from a designated meter and integrated mass flow and/or purchase records or tank measurements for commodity fuels? No Can fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment be determined based on measured hours of operation and loads for ICEs & turbines (App C-1). Yes* Yes* Use fuel consumption and Tier 3 EFs ** (Tables 3-7 & 38) to estimate GHG emissions (Eqns. 3-14 & 3-15). and measured energy balance for boilers & heaters (vendor data)? No Can fuel consumption by individual combustion equipment be determined based on estimated operating hours & loads for ICEs & turbines (App C-1).

Tier 1 CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Combustion Operation Activity Data GHG EF EF Units Reference pipeline length Distribution CH4 1. If the fuel heating value is not known then a default value from Table 3-1 should be used.3.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0 Emission Factor Documentation. 3-12 GHG = CH4 or N2O tonnes GHG = estimated annual GHG emissions from combustion (tonne/yr) Activity data = pipeline length Tonnes of CO2 equivalents are estimated using equation 3-13.2 CH4 and N2O Emissions Estimates Using Tier 2 Emission Factors Tier 2 emissions for a facility are estimated using total facility fuel flow. then a higher tier estimation approach is recommended. It should be noted that these emission factors are based on pipeline heaters emissions. 2008 3. 3-14 (natural gas) tonnes GHGj = estimated annual GHG emissions from combustion of fuel j (tonne/yr) GHG = CH4 or N2O Activity DataGFj = QGFj * HHVGFj * 10-6 (MMBtu/yr) QGFj = scf fuel j combusted at facility/yr 29 .3. This emissions estimate is for the entire facility or system.3*10-6 Tonne/mile-yr GRI 2001 (A) (miles) GRI 2001 . Table 3-5. 3-13 tonnes CO2eq = estimated annual emissions of the GHG as CO2 equivalents (tonne/yr) GWP – Global Warming Potential (Table 1-1) Table 3-5 lists Tier 1 emission factors for CH4 and N2O. tonnes CO2eq = tonnes GHG * GWP Where: Eqn. and equation 3-14 for natural gas and equation 3-15 for liquid fuels. tonnes GHG = Activity Data * EF Where: Eqn.GRI GHGCalc Version 1. an EF from Table 3-6 for CH4 or N2O.5% of NOx emissions 3.1 CH4 and N2O Emissions Estimates Using Tier 1 Emission Factors Tier 1 GHG emissions are estimated from a Tier 1 GHG emission factor and corresponding activity data as shown in equation 3-12. If a distribution system operates compressors or other combustion equipment. tonnes GHGj = Activity DataGFj * EF where: Eqn.5*10-5 Tonne/mile-yr GRI 2001 (miles) pipeline length Distribution N2O 7. July 2001 A – N2O estimated to be 1.

5*10-8 IPCC 1996 yr (HHV) (LHV) IPCC 1996 . (April 2005) 3. then CO2 emissions from each fuel are estimated and total emissions are then determined by summing the individual fuels emissions using equation 3-9.6 (kg/TJ) Gasoline/Petrol N2O 6. EPA 430-R-003. hp-hrs (or MW-hrs) are the preferred activity data for IC engines and gas turbines.3 CH4 and N2O Emissions Estimates Using Tier 3 Emission Factors As noted above.1 (kg/TJ) Natural Gas N2O 9.0*10-7 IPCC 1996 yr (HHV) (LHV) MMBtu/ tonne/MMBtu 1 (kg/TJ) EPA Inv Natural Gas CH4 4.0*10-6 IPCC 1996 yr (HHV) (LHV) MMBtu/ tonne/MMBtu 0. tonnes CH4i = Activity Datai * EFi where: tonnes CH4i = annual CH4 emissions from equipment i (tonne/yr) Activity Datai = hp-hrs/yr for equipment i. D.US Emissions Inventory 2005: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 . Table 3-6.. Tier 3 methane emissions estimates for IC engines and gas turbines can be calculated using either annual energy output measured as horsepower hours (hp-hrs) or fuel consumption activity data measured as MMBtu.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.C.Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Reference Manual) EPA Inv 2005 .2003.7*10-6 yr (HHV) (LHV) 2005 MMBtu/ tonne/MMBtu 0. 2008 HHVGFj = Btu/scf fuel j 10-6 = MMBtu/106 Btu tonnes GHGj = Activity DataLFj * EF where: Activity DataLFj = QLFj * HHVLFj * 10-6 (MMBtu/yr) QLFj = gal fuel j combusted at facility/yr HHVLFj = Btu/gal fuel j Eqn.0*10-7 IPCC 1996 yr (HHV) (LHV) MMBtu/ tonne/MMBtu 3 (kg/TJ) Gasoline/Petrol CH4 3. Tier 2 CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Combustion Activity Reported Fuel GHG EF EF Units Reference Data EF (Units) MMBtu/ tonne/MMBtu 5 (kg/TJ) EPA Inv Diesel CH4 5. 3-15 (liquid fuel) GHG emissions as CO2 equivalents can be determined from equation 3-13.3. IC engine and gas turbine methane emissions are estimated using equation 3-16 and the appropriate tonne/hp-hr emission factor from Table 3-7.0*10-6 yr (HHV) (LHV) 2005 MMBtu/ tonne/MMBtu 0. Provided a reasonable energy output estimate can be made. If more than one fuel is fired.6 (kg/TJ) Diesel N2O 6. Washington. US Environmental Protection Agency. Eqn 3-16 30 .

are estimated using a generic combustion technology-based EF from Table 3-7 for CH4 or Table 3-8 for N2O and equation 3-17 for natural gas or equation 3-18 for liquid fuels. Equation 3-19 totals the facility emissions for each GHG. = GHG emission factor for equipment i (tonne/hp-hr) Tonnes of CO2 equivalents are estimated using equation 3-13. 31 . 2008 EFi. then a default value from Table 3-1 should be used.j = scf of gaseous fuel j combusted in equipment i/yr HHVGFj = Btu/scf fuel j 10-6 = MMBtu/106 Btu EFi. Boiler/Heater” CH4 and N2O emission factors in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 are applicable for Distribution sector line heaters. QGFi. The total estimated annual GHG emissions from combustion are the sum of emissions from the individual combustion equipment. that are not estimated using equation 316. QLFij = gal liquid fuel j combusted in equipment i/yr HHVLFj = Btu/gal fuel j Tonnes of CO2 equivalents are estimated using equation 3-13.j = GHG emission factor for equipment i firing fuel j (tonne/MMBtu) tonnes GHGij = Activity DataLFij * EFi j Eqn 3-18 (liquid fuels) where: Activity DataLFij = QLFij * HHVLF * 10-6 = MMBtu/yr of fuel j fired in equipment i. tonnes GHGij = Activity DataGFij * EFij where: Eqn 3-17 (natural gas) tonnes GHGij = annual GHG emissions from equipment i firing fuel j (tonne/yr) GHG = CH4 or N2O Activity DataGFij = QGFij * HHVGFj * 10-6 = MMBtu/yr of fuel j fired in equipment i. tonnes GHG = ∑ tonnes GHGij (summed over equipment i and fuels j) where: Eqn 3-19 tonnes GHG = estimated annual GHG emissions from combustion (tonne/yr) The “External Combustion. If the fuel heating value is not known. Tier 3 emissions for individual combustion equipment.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.

Supplement D. A – assumed that BSCF = 7.7E-3 GRI/EPA 1996 hr scf/hp-hr EF Units tonne/ MMBtu* 2.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.2 E+2 tonne/ EEA/CITEPA kg/TJ MMBtu* (CORINAIR94) (LHV) tonne/ hp2. Boiler/Heater * HHV AP-42 . DC.45 AP42 (7/00) MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ 0. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry.1E-3 AP42 (10/96) MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ 0.6*10-6 5.26E-3 AP42 (7/98) lb/MMBtu Gasoline/ ICE 4-Stroke Petrol Gasoline/ ICE 2-Stroke Petrol NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG ICE ICE ICE 4.Stroke Lean Burn ICE 2-Stroke Lean Burn ICE Large Dual Fuel Gas Turbine Gas Turbine External Combustion.6*10-5 1. B. Vol. EEA/CITEPA (CORINAIR94) . 5th Edition.American Petroleum Institute (API).3E-1 AP42 (8/00) MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ 1. 2000 API 2004 .858 Btu/hp-hr 32 .0*10-6 Reported Reference EF (Units) tonne/ 8.7E-3 GRI/EPA 1996 MMBtu* scf/hp-hr (A) tonne/ hp5.GRI/EPA Reports. API.Stroke Rich Burn ICE 4. 1996. 3rd Edition.4E-1 GRI/EPA 1996 hr scf/hp-hr tonne/ 2. “Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry”.035 API 2004 MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ 3.2*10-4 4. AP-42 (GPO 055-000-005-001).4E-1 GRI/EPA 1996 MMBtu* scf/hp-hr (A) tonne/ 2.9 E+1 EEA/CITEPA tonne/ kg/TJ (CORINAIR94) MMBtu* (LHV) 1.7*10-6 1.7*10-4 1.7*10-4 6.US EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.4*10-5 1.6 AP42 (10/96) MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ 5. Washington. Tier 3 CH4 Emission Factors for Combustion Fuel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Comb Technology ICE (>600 hp) ICE (<600 hp) Boiler. CORINAIR90. US EPA OAQPS. Jan 1995 with Supplements A.0*10-4 5. GRI/EPA 1996 .1*10-7 1.8*10-4 1. Supplement E. June 1996.7*10-7 ND 3.25 AP42 (8/00) MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ 1.8E-4 AP42 (9/98) MMBtu* lb/MMBtu tonne/ ND AP42 (4/00) MMBtu* 3. 2004. 1999. 2008 Table 3-7. and Supplement F.CORINAIR 2005: Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long Range transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe/The Core Inventory of Air Emissions in Europe (EMEP/CORINAIR) “Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook.6*10-4 2. C.9*10-5 1. 12/31/2005 update. Ext Combustion Gas Turbine Activity Data MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr hp-hr/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr hp-hr/yr MMBtu/yr GHG CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 EF 3. 1998 errata updated 4/28/00.

-7 4.2*10-6 MMBtu* (tonne/gal) 2003 (A) tonne/ 1.4*10-6 tonne/MMBtu MMBtu* API 1999 tonne/ 1.3 E-2 GTI 2002. -5 1.1 E-3 GTI 2002. January 2002. January 1995 with Supplements A. 1996.6*10-5 MMBtu* (LHV) 2005 tonne/ 1. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2001.4 E-6 1.1*10-5 MMBtu* (tonne/TJ) 2003 tonne/ 1. Based on DL (upper limit) 33 . 12/31/2005 update. GRI 2002 .46.4*10-6 MMBtu* (tonne/TJ) API 1999 (C) tonne/ 2. LoNOx Burner Activity Data MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr NA MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr GHG N2O N2O N2O N 2O N2O N2 O N2O N2O N2O N 2O N2O N2O N2O Reported EF Reference (Units) (Notes) tonne/ 3. -6 2.3*10 MMBtu* (tonne/TJ) API 1999 (C) tonne/ GTI 2002. Ext Combustion Gas Turbine ICE 4-Stroke ICE Dual Fuel ICE 4.6*10-7 MMBtu* (lb/MMBtu) tonne/ 1.Stroke Rich Burn ICE 4.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0 E-2 Env Canada 1. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.17E-7 Env Canada -7 9. August 2003.27E-4 (lb/MMBtu) AP42 (7/98) AP42(7/98) CAPP 2003 * HHV AP-42 . Draft Memorandum.75. 1. 3rd Edition. AP-42 does not list an N2O emission factor. Fifth Edition. Supplement D. AP-42 (GPO 055-000-005-001). US EPA OAQPS. API 1999 CAPP 2003 . 2000 Environment Canada 2003 .0 E-4 GTI 2002. B. 1.Environment Canada.03E-7 Env Canada 2. C.4*10 MMBtu* (tonne/TJ) API 1999 EF EF Units 9. 1999. Greenhouse Gas Division.9E-3 AP42 (4/00) 8.8*10-7 tonne/ MMBtu* tonne/ MMBtu* 2.6E+1 kg/TJ CORINAIR 1.Stroke Lean Burn ICE 2-Stroke Lean Burn Gas Turbine Gas Turbine w/ SCR External Combustion Boiler/Heater Ext Comb. tonne/ 4.16E-3 (lb/MMBtu) 6. Tier 3 N2O Emission Factors for Combustion Fuel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gasoline/ Petrol NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG Comb Technology ICE (>600 hp) ICE (<600 hp) Boiler. and C. gas HHV = 5.US EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) Guide: Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. and Supplement F. 2008 Table 3-8.0*10 MMBtu* (tonne/gal) 2003 (B) None Recommended. Diesel HHV = 5. GRI.3 E-3 GTI 2002. A. Environment Canada.Nitrous Oxide Emissions form Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. B. 1998 errata updated 4/28/00. April 2003 CORINAIR 2005: Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long Range transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe/The Core Inventory of Air Emissions in Europe (EMEP/CORINAIR) “Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook.5*10 MMBtu* (tonne/TJ) API 1999 tonne/ 1. Supplement E.8*10-7 2.

however. that can impact GHG emissions. Tier 3+ emissions for individual equipment are estimated using equation 3-20 for natural gas. For the purposes of this discussion. equipment i firing fuel j at operating condition k (tonne/MMBtu) tonnes GHGijk = Activity DataLFijk * EFijk Eqn. model.) a piece of equipment’s emission factor will depend on the equipments make. equation 3-21 for liquid fuels. The primary differences between a Tier 3 and a Tier 3+ emissions estimation are: 1. and actual operating point or range. age and maintenance history. 2008 3. and equation 3-22 to total the facility emissions for each GHG. 3-21 (liquid fuels) 34 . etc. QGFijk = scf of gaseous fuel j combusted in equipment i at operating condition k /yr HHVGFj = Btu/scf fuel j EFijk = GHG emission factor. thus. 3-20 (natural gas) where: tonnes GHGijk = estimated annual emissions of GHG from equipment i firing fuel j at operating condition k (tonne/yr) Activity DataGFijk = QGFijk * HHVGFj * (10-6 MMBtu/Btu) = MMBtu/yr of fuel j fired in equipment i at operating condition k. Tier 3+ emission factors are not available for all types of equipment. Tier 3+ emissions estimation procedures are presented along with selected published Tier 3+ emission factors. if the fuel heating value is not known. Tier 3+ emissions for individual combustion equipment are estimated using equipment fuel consumption activity data and a Tier 3+ emission factor. An example of Tier 3+ emissions factors for Waukesha ICEs are listed in Table 3-9. it is anticipated that Tier 3+ emission factors will become more prevalent as GHG emissions data are collected in the support of emission inventory development and more precise data are warranted – especially for categories such as methane emissions from natural gas-fired reciprocating IC engines. an “operating condition” could be an age range or range of operating hours since the most recent maintenance. This table has been provided primarily to illustrate the “variability” or range in EFs. maintenance. Tier 3+ emission factors are typically provided by equipment manufacturers or developed from emissions testing data. air pollution controls. such as equipment make. then a default value from Table 3-1 should be used. For such an estimation. rather than just the combustion technology category (e. At this time. The key point is that the parameter differentiates GHG emissions from the combustion equipment. including age. For example. an “operating condition” can be any of the aforementioned parameters that can impact emissions from an individual combustor. Therefore. tonnes GHGijk = Activity DataGFijk * EFijk Eqn. 4-cycle ICE). emissions from a combustor may be expected to change as the equipment ages or as operating hours accumulate from the most recent maintenance. and 2. operating conditions.g.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.3.4 CH4 and N2O Emissions Estimates – Tier 3+ Tier 3+ emission factors have greater specificity than Tier 3 emission factors by considering parameters. model. age. Published Tier 3+ emission factors are scarce and beyond the scope of this document.) more than one EF may apply to a piece of equipment over a data collection period if its operation varies sufficiently to impact emissions.

Carburetor Setting B.16 (g/kWh) AT25GL Ultra Lean MMBtu/yr CH4 3.27 (g/kWh) F 1197G G Catalytic Conv.31 for naturally aspirated engines and 0.44 (g/kWh) Economy MMBtu (B) CAPP 2003 .61 (g/kWh) F 1197G G Equal NOx & CO MMBtu/yr CH4 2. operating conditions k) Eqn. N2O emission factor estimated as 0.4*10-5 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 Lowest Manifold/ -3 3. Waukesha engine specifications are thermal efficiencies of 0. MMBtu/yr CH4 2.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) Guide: Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions.5*10 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 0.6*10-4 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 -3 2.28 (g/kWh) F 1197G G Equal NOx & CO MMBtu/yr N2O 2. fuels j.28 – 0. Reported emission factors units. tonnes GHG = ∑ tonnes GHGijk. 2008 where: Activity DataLFijk = QLFijk * HHVLFj * 10-6 = MMBtu/yr of fuel j fired in equipment i at operating condition k.2*10-4 0.27 (g/kWh) Economy MMBtu (B) Standard/ Best tonne/ CAPP 2003 F 1197G G MMBtu/yr N2O 4.030 (g/kWh) AT25GL Standard MMBtu/yr N2O 2.31 – 0. MMBtu/yr N2O 2.20 (g/kWh) F 1197G G MMBtu/yr N2O 1.7*10-3 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 0.31.2*10 MMBtu (B) Best Power tonne/ CAPP 2003 Lowest Manifold/ 0. QLFijk = gal liquid fuel j combusted in equipment i at operating condition k /yr HHVLFj = Btu/gal fuel j Tonnes of CO2 equivalents are estimated using equation 3-13. 3-22 where: tonnes GHG = estimated annual GHG emissions from combustion (tonne/yr) Table 3-9. April 2003 A.35 (g/kWh) F 1197G G MMBtu/yr CH4 3. The total estimated annual GHG emissions from combustion are the sum of emissions from the individual combustion equipment.36 for lean burn engines.025 (g/kWh) AT25GL Ultra Lean MMBtu/yr N2O 2.5*10 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 0.9*10-4 MMBtu (B) Best Power tonne/ CAPP 2003 -3 2.03 (g/kWh) AT25GL Standard MMBtu/yr CH4 5.9*10-3 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 0.015 * NOx EF. C.61 (g/kWh) F 1197G G Catalytic Conv. Reported EF units converted to tonne/MMBtu assuming thermal efficiency of 0. (sum for equipment i.2*10 1.6*10-4 MMBtu (B) Standard/ Best tonne/ CAPP 2003 -3 F 1197G G MMBtu/yr CH4 1. Selected Tier 4 GHG Emission Factors for Waukesha ICEs Combustion Reference (Notes) tonne/ CAPP 2003 6.8*10-5 MMBtu (B) tonne/ CAPP 2003 4. Model GHG EF (B) EF Units Operating Condition (A) Activity Data Reported EF (Units) (C) 35 .

4-1 AD is the Activity Data. and Planned or non-routine maintenance venting or blowdowns. and CF is the lb to tonne conversion factor (4. or at an accidental release location. or occur with a less than annual frequency. or are produced when emergency situations require or produce a rapid reduction in process pressures.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. routing vented emissions into low pressure lines or combustion equipment. such as a line purge or dig-in. methane content. Minimizing vented emissions often requires varying the process that produces the emissions or where possible. An example of a process change includes replacing a natural gas driven pneumatic controller with a compressed air actuated controller.1 Calculation Methods and Conversion Factors Tier 1 through Tier 3 GHG emissions from vented sources are based on default emission factors and are calculated using the standard equation of: tonneGHG = AD * EF * CF Where: Eqn. line pressure.0 Vented Emissions Methane emissions from venting differ from fugitive emissions in that these emissions are typically a deliberate action associated with station activities. Vented releases can also be impacted by preventative work practices. Vented GHGs can be a continuous emission. Table 4-1 lists conventional vented distribution sector emissions sources and 36 . Distribution sector vented emission sources include: • • • Pneumatic devices such as controllers and isolation valves. such as avoiding pipeline breakage by inspecting work sites before excavation. Vented emissions take place either in known locations such as in the case of pneumatic actuators. Eqn. sporadic. EF is the Emission Factor from each source. both tonnes CH4 and tonnes CO2eq are typically calculated. 4. 2008 4. tonneCO2eq = AD * EF * CF * GWP where: 4. it is necessary to modify equation 4-1 to include the Global Warming Potential and determine CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) emissions according to equation 4-2. scope. 4-2 Emissions Estimation Methods Vented emissions can be estimated using an emission factor calculation or from engineering data.54*10-4 tonne/lb). Atmospheric pressure relief valves. For GHG other than CO2.2 GWP is 21 for CH4. Vented emissions can vary significantly in size. For methane reporting. and the frequency of venting events. and severity and depend on parameters such as vented natural gas volume (vented equipment size). Vented sources usually emit natural gas that is composed primarily of methane with small quantities of CO2 and other hydrocarbons.

temperature. and the sporadic nature of unscheduled/emergency venting events. For each event: gas volume released: evacuated station M&R Station volume and/or event duration and Blowdowns (Station average leak rate. Sector (Main Length) Pipeline Maintenance/Upsets For each PRV release: gas volume Length) (Mains & Services released: evacuated equipment Length) Pressure Relief Valves volume and/or event duration and (Main Length) average leak rate. & average gas pressure. 2008 corresponding activity data for Tiers 1 – 3 and corresponding engineering data (Tier 3+) requirements. Distribution Sector Vented Emissions Sources and Activity Data Tier 1a Tier 2 a Tier 3 a Engineering Data (Tier 3+) Pipeline Dig-ins For each event: gas volume Pipeline Dig-ins (Mains (Mains & Services released: evacuated pipeline & Services Length) Length) volume and/or event duration and average leak rate.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. some of these factors may not represent current U. a Tier 3+ engineering approach is preferred for GHG inventory development whenever the requisite data can be defined or estimated. A literature survey [INGAA/API/AGA 2005] identified few alternatives to the vented GHGCalcTM default emission factors for the distribution sector. & gas composition. M&R Station Pneumatic Control Loops (Gas Driven-Device Count) For each device: actuation M&R Station Pneumatic frequency. as applicable. & gas composition. Table 4-1. & composition M&R Station Odorizer & Sampler Vents (Station Count) a. vented emission factors have high uncertainties due to variability in equipment and company practices. distribution sector equipment and operations. as discussed below.S. Emission Source (Activity Data) 37 . or assumptions were not available during the development of this guideline document. aggregations. begin & end Pipeline Blowdowns: pressure. temperature. gas volume emitted per Isolation Valves (Gas actuation. Driven-Device Count) temperature. The Tiered emissions source “accounting system” and emission factors are based on the GRI-GHGCalcTM [GRI 2001] GHG emissions estimation program. However. & gas Distribution (Mains & Services composition. Therefore. The GRI factors have become the industry de facto standard for U. begin & end Count) pressure. It should be noted that the “raw” GRI or alternative Canadian measurement data. In general. temperature.S distribution systems. begin & end pressure.

This study and the resulting factors do not consider the contribution of M&R station pneumatic devices. This list does not include the odorizer and sampling vents emission factor.S. In addition. The 1996 GRI/EPA study measured M&R stations total “continuous” emissions (i. and Canadian equipment and operations are generally considered to be similar. and odorizer and sampling vents. This classification and the Canadian study-based emission factors discussed above have the following impacts on the emissions accounting and inventory development: − • • The inclusion of M&R station pneumatic control loops and pneumatic isolation valves in the inventory likely causes some duplicate emissions accounting (with the M&R station fugitive emissions factor) and a more conservative Tier 3 emissions estimate. and odorizer and sampling vents emission factors originate from a Canadian GHG emissions study [CGA 1997]. equipment and operations. there are some notable issues for the vented GHG emissions factors and accounting system. data.e. M&R station blowdowns. It is not known if the Canadian equipment and operations are fundamentally different than U. Fifty percent of the Canadian data (average gas emissions per pipeline mile per year for three companies) are the same order of magnitude as the U. There are efforts underway to improve distribution emission factors. The GHGCalcTM Tier 2 distribution vented emission factors were developed from the 1996 GRI/EPA study.S.S. data points and the remaining three data points are approximately 50 times higher than the U. [GRI/EPA 1996] and Canadian [CGA 1997] distribution companies.S. this emission factor is from the GHGCalcTM Canadian-specific default vented emission factors list. the GHGCalcTM Tier 2 “Maintenance/Upsets” emission factor includes pipeline blowdown emissions (Table 4-1) but is only based on the 1996 − 38 . M&R station blowdown. fugitives and pneumatic devices) because separately quantifying fugitive and pneumatic vented emissions for many M&R stations was not feasible due to station design and accessibility. The M&R station pneumatic isolation valve emission factor is the transmission sector intermittent bleed isolation valve operator emission factor. or if the Canadian data included pipeline blowdown scenarios that could also occur in the U. The 1996 GRI/EPA study included pipeline blowdown data from four companies (four data points). annual average blowdown emission factor [GRI/EPA 1996]. The basis for the remaining emission factors is the 1996 GRI/EPA study. GHGCalcTM classified these emissions as fugitives (refer to Section 52). although U. The result of this bimodal distribution is an emission factor that is about 17 times greater than an emission factor based solely on the U.S. but were not captured by the small sample. this should result in updated emission factors (and possibly factor – activity data pairings) or alternative calculation approaches that mitigate some of the issues identified here: • The M&R station pneumatic control loop. Ultimately.S.S.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. The pipeline blowdown emission factor is from the GHGCalcTM default vented emission factors list and is based on ten data points from both U. It is important to note that GHG emission factors for distribution sector venting are primarily based on very limited data that result in high uncertainty for many of the vented and fugitive emission factors. The M&R station pneumatic control loop and M&R station blowdown emission factors are from the GHGCalcTM default vented emission factors list. 2008 Detailed descriptions of the emission sources and emission factor development are provided with the following emission factor tables. The representativeness of these emission factors for the United States Distribution sector is currently not established. In addition..

These emission factors are based on a natural gas methane content of 93. This source category has been included in the accounting for conservatism. the Tier 3 pipelines blowdown emission factor includes the significantly higher Canadian pipelines blowdown data (i. Vented CO2 emissions can also be estimated with these emission factors by multiplying the emission factor by the ratio of the actual CO2 concentration and 93.4 * 44/16 Eqn. Consequently. 2008 GRI/EPA study pipelines blowdown data.e. This emission factor is two orders of magnitude smaller than the M&R station blowdown emission factor (Table 4-2) and therefore will not have a material effect on the final inventory totals. CO2 emission factor = CH4 emission factor * %CO2/93. the emission factor should be multiplied by the ratio of the actual methane concentration and 93. 39 . M&R station odorizer & sampler vents emissions are included in the Canadian-specific GHGCalcTM vented sources but not included in the United States GHGCalcTM vented sources. three of ten data points). Activity Data Gas-Driven Device Count Gas-Driven Device Count Mains & Services Length Mains & Services Length Main Length Station Count Station Count GHG Emission Factor EF Units CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 7. it is very likely that an emission estimate developed relying upon the Tier 2 emission factors will be biased low.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.322 43.2 incorporating Canadian EF’s.9 70. For these reasons. a recommendation for preferred Tier 2 emission factors for inventory development cannot be made at this time.12 2. As a result of the deficiencies discussed here. the Tier 2 emission factor is approximately an order of magnitude smaller than the Tier 3 factor. For emissions of natural gas with a different methane concentration. 4-3 Table 4-2.4% and the CO2 to CH4 molecular weight ratio per equation 4-3. Emission Source M&R Station Pneumatic Control Loops M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Pipeline Blowdowns Pipeline Dig-ins Pressure Relief Valves M&R Station Blowdowns M&R Station Odorizer & Sampler Vents A.43 lb/device-yr lb/device-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/station-yr lb/device-yr From GHGCalcTM V1.1 Table 4-2 lists the Tier 3 emission sources for vented emissions with their methane emission factors and corresponding activity data.2. − The Tier 1 emission factor was developed from the same data as the Tier 2 emission factors and thus has a similar low bias and uncertainty and cannot be recommended as a preferred emission factor for inventory development at this time.111 5. Distribution Sector Tier 3 Emission Sources for Vented EmissionsA. As discussed above.4 percent. Tier 3 Emissions Estimates 4.4%.92 67.584 795. • As noted above.

the pipeline blowdown emission factor was derived from combined data from the 1996 GRI/EPA study and a 1995 Canadian GHG emissions study [CGA 1997]. compressed air and electricity are generally not available and natural gas is the driving force. The valves are typically actuated pneumatically by pressurized natural gas or compressed air although some isolation valves are actuated by an electric motor. M&R Station Pneumatic Control Loops Pneumatic control loops for M&R stations are gas-driven devices that typically include a level controller that outputs to a control valve or a downstream pressure reading device that outputs to a control valve. the entire control loop counts as one device. repair. Devices that are powered by compressed air or that have self-contained (i. The amount of gas released depends on the pipeline volume (diameter and length depressurized). The pneumatic isolation valves emission factor is from the 1996 GRI/EPA Study and applies to gas-driven devices only. Under these circumstances the time required to detect and repair the leak may be quite long because the pipe may be reburied if there is not an 40 . the pipeline gas pressure and temperature. which could be a backhoe. GHGCalcTM assumes the transmission sector and distribution sector control loops have similar characteristics. there is no separate power gas) downstream pressure regulators do not emit natural gas. As discussed above. A pipeline leak may not occur immediately because the blow may only cause a pipe wall weakening and the weak spot may fail over time. 2008 Descriptions of the emission sources and the emission factors development follow. the initial and final gas pressures and temperatures. The emission factor is based on the weighted average of turbine operated and pneumatic/hydraulic rotary vane operated intermittent bleed isolation valves in the transmission sector. The natural gas release will vary considerably depending on the pipeline size (diameter and length). Pipeline Blowdowns Pipeline blowdowns are maintenance activities for pipeline installation. and the time required to repair the leak. A dig-in occurs when an existing pipe is unknowingly hit and punctured or ruptured during placement of new natural gas pipeline or during other excavation activities by the digging implement. The pneumatic control loop emission factor is a 1995 Canadian GHG emissions study [CGA 1997] transmission sector emission factor and applies to gas-driven devices that are not self-contained. At remote M&R stations.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.e. and abandonment that can release natural gas to the atmosphere.. For emission estimations. M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Pneumatic isolation valves block pipeline gas flow to or from a station and are used to isolate the station in the event of an emergency or for maintenance work. GHGCalcTM assumes the transmission sector and distribution sector isolation valves have similar characteristics. tractor or shovel. Pipeline Dig-ins Dig-ins are unintentional damage to a buried gas pipeline.

• City Gate – City gate M&R stations transfer gas custody from a transmission pipeline to a distribution company. The M&R station blowdown emission factor is from a 1995 Canadian GHG emissions study [CGA 1997] and applies to four distribution sector M&R station categories. are considered fugitive emissions. The dig-in emission factor was derived from data collected for the 1996 GRI/EPA Study. Subsets of these stations are called header stations. Receipt/Sales Meter Stations – These are meter only facilities without pressure regulation for receipt of sales gas. relative density. The PRV emission factor was derived from data collected for the 1996 GRI/EPA study. Natural gas delivered from the transmission company to the local distribution company is odorless and colorless. The sampling events can result in vented gas releases. 2008 immediate leak. The station may have multiple meter runs. High pressure transmission pipeline gas is reduced to a pressure suitable for the local distribution company pipelines. and other physical characteristics for determining quality. PRVs are designed to reseat after an overpressure event when the gas pressure has returned to a normal level.g. chattering or malfunctioning relief valve resulting from sealing surfaces that are not properly mated). Gas “passing” relief valve seals. 41 . Metering and Pressure Regulation Stations Metering and Pressure Regulation (M&R) stations measure and control natural gas flow and decrease the gas pressure. Natural gas samples are periodically collected for analysis to ensure that product meets or exceeds moisture. PRVs open to release or vent gas when equipment pressures exceed a setpoint. the distribution system district regulator stations further reduce the gas pressure. that occurs following an overpressure event due to improperly seated valve surfaces (e. These facilities are a small fraction of the M&R station population. • • • Natural Gas Odorization Equipment and Sampler Vents An emission factor was developed to account for vented emissions from natural gas odorizing and sampling activities that occur at M&R stations. heat of combustion. Odorant is added to enable customers to easily detect gas leaks. Odorized gas leaks are more frequently detected and are less likely to go unnoticed. The pressure regulating station can be located above ground or in an underground vault.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Industrial Meter Stations – These stations contain meter and regulator sets for sales to industrial facilities. These stations are usually not metered and only used for pressure regulation.Located downstream of city gate stations. PRV emissions can also be classified as fugitive emissions if the gas escapes due to a leak rather than an overpressure event. District Regulator Stations . also referred to as “valve blowby”. Pressure Relief Valves Pressure relief valves (PRV) are used to prevent pipelines from over-pressure and are usually found in use with a pressure regulator as backup over-pressure protection if the regulator fails.

Thus. blowdowns. 42 . those due to maintenance and process upsets. Table 4-4. Distribution Sector Tier 2 Emission Factors for Vented Emissions. a recommendation for a preferred Tier 1 emission factor for inventory development cannot be made at this time. 4. Table 4-3.2 Tier 2 Emissions Estimates The Tier 2 vented emissions are divided into two different categories.3 Tier 1 Emissions Estimates The distribution sector Tier 1 vented emission factor listed in Table 4-4 is based on pipeline main miles and is from the GHGCalcTM program. which is contrary to the typical results from Tier 1 versus higher tier estimates.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. the Tier 2 emission factors do not consider the contribution of M&R station pneumatic devices. Activity Data Mains & Services Length Mains & Services Length GHG CH4 CH4 Emission Factor 5. Emission Source Distribution Sector A. As noted above. and odorizer and sampling vents and may under represent pipeline blowdown emissions.2. and those due to pipeline dig-ins. which is in turn are based on the 1996 GRI/EPA study.667 67. it is very likely an emission estimate developed from this emission factor will be biased low.1 EF Units lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr From GHGCalcTM V1. 4. which is contrary to the typical results from Tier 2 versus Tier 3 or higher estimates.2. Emission Source Maintenance/Upsets Pipeline Dig-ins A. a recommendation for preferred Tier 2 emission factors for inventory development cannot be made at this time. which is in turn based on the 1996 GRI/EPA study. Activity Data Main Pipeline Length GHG Emission Factor CH4 106.3 EF Units lb/mile-yr From GHGCalcTM V1. and odorizer and sampling vents and may under represent pipeline blowdown emissions. the Tier 1 emission factor does not consider the contribution of M&R station pneumatic devices. Consequently. Distribution Sector Tier 1 Emission Factor for Vented Emissions. As noted above. The Tier 2 vented emission factors listed in Table 4-3 are based on pipeline mains plus services miles and are from the GHGCalcTM program. Thus it is very likely an emission estimate developed from these emission factors will be biased low. blowdowns. 2008 The vented emissions factor for these two venting activities is from the Canadian GHGCalcTM default factors.2. Consequently.2.

and Any control procedures such as venting to a combustion device or lower pressure pipeline. the default emission factors may not reflect the procedures that are used by a company to manage releases from operational events. methane content). The following example emissions calculation is for a pipeline blowdown. calculate emissions based on the evacuated pipeline length (to block valve) and inside diameter.2. the following data are required for each venting event: • The volume of gas vented. Therefore. it is uncertain whether the factors capture a realistic “average” of industry operations. There is also year-to-year variability in event-related emissions. This could be determined from the event duration and average flowrate if the vented equipment or pipeline volume is not known. Pre. • • • • Many companies record equipment and pipeline venting data as part of normal operations. Purging of newly installed lines. Abandonment of pipeline or facility equipment. event-based release include: • • • • • • • • Planned maintenance of a pipeline section or piece of equipment.. the data required for event based emissions estimates may be readily available.and post-venting gas pressures. or from the known volume of the pipeline or equipment evacuated. 43 . Release of a pressure relief valve (PRV). In the case of many distribution sector vented emission factors. Unplanned maintenance of pipeline or equipment to address a required repair. For equipment or pipeline venting. for example. Gas temperature.e. Emergency venting of a pipeline segment or piece of equipment.4 Event-Based and Equipment Specific Venting Emissions Estimates from Engineering Data (Tier 3+) The default emission factors applicability depends upon the practices of a particular company relative to the “average” represented by the companies that are included in the projects that provided the emission factor datasets.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Known and suspected deficiencies in some of the default factors have been previously noted and discussed. for a pipeline blowdown. an engineering calculation approach can be followed. which are based on very limited data. Examples of activities that can result in a discrete. Pipeline pigging. Gas composition (i. thus. and Dig-ins. To provide a better emissions estimate. The basis or record for these data should be documented. 2008 4.

However. and Gas composition (i. 2008 Example 1: Methane emissions from a pipeline blowdown Scenario: A pipeline segment is to be depressurized for maintenance. area = πD2/4. Converting to CO2eq (methane GWP of 21 and 1000 kg/tonne) = 1. the inner diameter of the 24” OD pipe section is 21. i. Companies may find that the engineering data approach is simpler to implement for venting events than for pneumatic devices.169.229g or 64.712 m3 (volume = area x length).042 g/mole. and the gas is 94% methane by volume. such as gas volume vented during each activation. Gas temperature. Example 2: Methane emissions from a pneumatic controller Scenario: A pneumatic controller is used to maintain a M&R station exit pipeline pressure. the device actuation frequency is likely application specific. Methane is 94% of the gas. the moles (n) of gas in the line are 4259. The line pressure equates to 2. may be irregular.042 = 64.3 gmoles. Example input data for this equipment specific analysis include: The controller uses line gas at a pressure of 100 psig and evacuates to atmosphere.e.2356m2 ). For intermittent pneumatic device venting. and the cross sectional area is 2.. or 314. The line gas temperature is 60 oF or 288. the gas temperature is 60 oF. The following example emissions calculation is for a pneumatic controller with intermittent actuation. − − Some pneumatic devices are designed to vent continuously. The pipeline segment volume is 4.536 ft2 (0.229 kg. and the gas temperature is 60 oF. where R is the universal gas constant). the following data are required to determine vented emissions: • • • • • Device actuation frequency.and post-venting gas pressures.349 tonnes CO2eq. The volume of gas vented to atmosphere during each actuation. The pressure in the line is 300 psig. may be available from the manufacturer or can be measured. and may require an extensive survey to characterize. The line pressure is 300 psig. The molecular weight of methane is 16.e.7psia. or 4003. Example input data for this event-specific analysis include: The pipeline to be evacuated is a 20 meter long section of 24” OD pipe. methane content). Using the ideal gas law (PV = nRT. The emissions calculation for this event includes the following assumptions and calculations: − − − Assuming schedule 80 pipe.562”. The gas is 94% methane by volume. Pre.8 gmoles.8 x 16.794 Pa. Some device-specific information. So the total methane vented (assuming all the gas is vented) is 4003. Manufacturer data indicate that a piston cylinder (10 cm length and 2 44 .AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.7 K.

So the total methane vented (assuming all the gas is vented) is 1708 x 16.400 miles of pipeline.02 m and the cross sectional area is 0. The emissions calculation for this equipment includes the following assumptions and calculations: − − − The ID of the piston cylinder is 0.0000314 m3.7psia. The company boundary is set to include the M&R stations and extend to the customer meters.7 K. Example Calculations for Vented Emissions − − − 4. The piston cylinder volume is 0. 4.5%. ADC has 1. and one odorizer and sampler vent system. The line pressure equates to 790. on average.000 residential customers. Each M&R station has two isolation valves. and does not operate any compression facilities. more conservative GHG estimate. regardless of pipe material.042 g/mole.3. with 1.1 mile. or 114. lower tier estimates result in a higher.575 tonnes CO2eq per year. The Tier 1 emission factor must be corrected to account for the difference between the actual 96.042 = 27. Using the ideal gas law. A factor of 1.834 Pa. The line gas temperature is 60 oF or 288.. 20 activations per hour and 8760 hours per year equates to 1708 gmoles per year. The gas pressure in the controller is 100 psig. 20 times per hour. Acme Distribution Company (ADC) seeks to estimate its vented greenhouse gas emissions for 2005.0104 gmoles. ADC has eight M&R stations. However.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. The molecular weight of methane is 16. one pneumatic control loop.00975 gmoles methane evacuated to atmosphere per piston cylinder activation.100 miles of protected steel mains and 300 miles of plastic service pipeline that have an average length of 0. The natural gas delivered has an annual average methane content of 96. 2008 cm ID) is evacuated during each activation and a field survey determined the controller activates. Converting to CO2eq (methane GWP of 21.398 kg per year.3 As discussed above. for most calculations for natural gas systems). ADC maintains 900 miles of mains pipeline. In the example. 45 .033 is used to correct the Tier 1 emission factor. Tier 1 or Tier 2 calculations for vented emissions are not recommended due to concerns with available emission factors.700 commercial customers and 29 industrial customers. 2. Typically (i. or 0. Methane is 94% of the gas.1 Tier 1: Vented Emissions Calculation The Tier 1 vented emissions (Table 4-5) are based solely on the mains pipeline miles. ADC serves 26.5% methane content and the 93.4% methane content that is the emission factor basis. That is not the case for the following example – due to the issues noted above and discussed further below following the example calculations. 1000 kg/tonne) = 0. the moles of gas in the piston cylinder are 0.000314 m2.e. an example is provided here to provide an illustration that compares results for the different tiers.398g or 27.

The vented emissions are separated into two classes.197 & Services Length Pipeline Dig-ins: Mains & 1.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.020 Services Length Table 4-8.780 To convert the methane emissions to a common carbon dioxide equivalent (Table 4-6).209.150 metric tons.037.3. A factor of 1. 4. maintenance/upsets and dig-ins.557 1. 46 . the methane emission is multiplied by the GWP for methane. GHG Emissions CO2eq CO2eq Source Emissions (lb/yr) Emissions (tonne/yr) Distribution Main Length 2. in 2005 ADC had estimated vented carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 1. The Tier 2 estimate activity data includes mains and service pipelines.855 lb/mile-yr 8. Table 4-7. Emission Total GHG GHG Emissions Activity Units Gas Emissions (lb/yr) Factor Source Data Distribution Main Length 1. Table 4-6. ADC Tier 2 Vented Activity Data and GHG Emissions Calculations. To convert the pounds to metric tonnes.536.6.400 CH4 5. which is 21.400 CH4 69.8 lb/mile-yr 120.420 924 Total 2. in 2005 ADC had estimated vented carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 1.033 is used to correct the Tier 2 emission factors for the natural gas methane content. CO2eq CO2eq GHG Emissions Source Emissions (lb/yr) Emissions (tonne/yr) Maintenance/Upsets: Mains & Services Length 172. the total is divided by 2204. ADC Tier 2 Vented CO2eq Emissions Estimate for 2005.150 Using a Tier 1 approach.100 CH4 109.1 Pipeline Dig-ins: Mains & Services Length 2. 2008 Table 4-5.3 lb/mile-yr 97.2 Tier 2 Vented Emissions Calculation The Tier 2 GHG emissions estimate (Table 4-7 and Table 4-8) is calculated in a similar manner to the Tier 1 estimate.380 1. so the mileage for each has been included in the estimate.002 Using a Tier 2 approach.002 metric tons. ADC Tier 1 Vented GHG Emissions Estimate for 2005.137 78. ADC Tier 1 Vented Activity Data and GHG Emissions Calculations. Activity Emission Total GHG GHG Emissions Source Gas Units Data Factor Emissions (lb/yr) Maintenance/Upsets: Mains 1.

the refined Tier 3 estimate.3 Tier 3 Vented Emissions Calculation The Tier 3 GHG emissions estimate (Table 4-9 and Table 4-10) is calculated in a similar manner to the Tier 2 estimate.832 419 Odorizer and Sampler Vents 7.192 125 Pipeline Blowdowns: Mains and Services Length 2. 2008 4. One would expect a lower CO2e emissions estimate with a higher emission tier calculation.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. the reasons for the higher Tier 3 estimate are as discussed above. CO2eq CO2eq GHG Emissions Source Emissions (lb/yr) Emissions (tonne/yr) M&R Station Pneumatic Control loops 1. The published 47 .192 3. 4. in 2005 ADC had estimated vented carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 3.400 CH4 73 lb/mile-yr 102.499 lb/station-yr 43.400 CH4 69 lb/mile-yr 96.600 920 Pressure Relief Valves: Main Length 50. However.181 lb/mile-yr 2. In addition to the large emission factors uncertainties. Table 4-9.448 597 M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves 276. is about three times greater than the Tier 1 and 2 estimates.061 Using a Tier 3 approach.3.3. the EFs are corrected to account for the actual methane content of 96.992 Odorizer and Sampler Vents 8 CH4 44.152 Pipeline Blowdowns: Mains & Services 1.146.100 CH4 2.381 23 M&R Station Blowdowns: Station Count 923.600 Length Pressure Relief Valves: Main Length 1.4 GHG Vented Emissions Estimate Example Conclusions This example illustrates the deficiencies and large uncertainties associated with applying these vented GHG emission factors.836 lb/device-yr 62.539 3 Total 6.061 metric tons. ADC Tier 3 Vented CO2eq Emissions Estimate for 2005. ADC Tier 3 Vented Activity Data and GHG Emissions Calculations. listed in Table 4-11. Total GHG Emission GHG Emissions Activity Units Emissions Gas Factor Source Data (lb/yr) M&R Station Pneumatic Control Loops 8 CH4 7.688 M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves 16 CH4 822 lb/device-yr 13.399 M&R Station Blowdowns: Station Count 8 CH4 5. As in the previous examples.200 Length Pipeline Dig-ins: Mains & Services 1.5%.316.200 974 Pipeline Dig-ins: Mains and Services Length 2.86 lb/station-yr 359 Table 4-10.028.749.

061 48 . a Tier 3+ engineering data approach is preferred to estimate emissions from discrete venting events whenever the requisite data can be defined or estimated. Table 4-11. an emission inventory developed using these factors would most likely preclude the ability to document future emissions reductions. and vented emission factors generally have large uncertainties.002 3.150 1. and are an order of magnitude lower for pipeline blowdowns than the Tier 3 factor. The results from this example reinforce the vented emissions estimation recommendations: • • A recommendation for a preferred Tier 1 and Tier 2 vented emission factors for inventory development is not appropriate at this time.780 105. distribution sector equipment and operations. 2008 Tier 1 and 2 emission factors do not include the contributions of M&R station pneumatic devices.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Vented Emissions Estimate Example Summary for ADC in 2005 Tier 1 2 3 lb CH4 120.390 Tonnes CO2eq 1. M&R station blowdowns. In addition. therefore. because the Tier 1 and 2 factors are likely biased very low. and odorizer and sampling vents.S.217 321. and Some of the Tier 3 factors may not represent current U.

It should be noted that fugitive emissions from the distribution sector are not currently regulated by state or federal environmental regulations and at present reductions in emissions result from actions to reduce lost and unaccounted for product through voluntary leak detection and repair programs. Fugitive emissions are a major component of GHG emissions from natural gas systems. Increased prevalence of plastic piping since mid 1990 survey. Fugitive emissions can aggregate into significant tonnage.. or other functionally equivalent opening. including: 49 . Representativeness (e. Inappropriate stratification by gas pressure ranges. Indirect measurement program contributions to large EF uncertainty.g. Fugitive EF’s for the distribution sector have high uncertainties and are in need of refinement based on both quantitative and subjective information. and other sealed surfaces in piping and associated equipment. chimney..AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. source included within aggregated activity data and counted again within a second EF category). connectors. Potential reasons for EF overestimate or inaccuracy are especially endemic to distribution sector fugitive emissions due to the paucity of data and include: • • • • • • • • • Double counting sources (i.g. flanges.2 defines fugitive emissions as emissions from a stationary source that could not reasonably pass through a stack. Vaulted M&R stations emissions captured and recovered (bleed to downstream).0 Fugitive Emissions Fugitive emission sources are unintended routine leakage from valves. Fugitive emissions estimates for the distribution sector are generally believed to be extremely conservative and overestimate lost and unaccounted for product. age-based differences). 2008 5.e. Average number of components per station) of mid 1990’s sources used to develop EF’s. In addition to identifying emission estimation methods. USEPA 40 CFR Part 63. The 1996 GRI/EPA Study found that fugitive emissions from the natural gas distribution sector were about 97% of the total distribution sector GHG emissions. Assumptions and aggregation of sources in developing published emission factors. and Leak detection and repair practice changes. vent. Increased use of low bleed or no bleed pneumatic devices or system design changes that change emission profiles (e. Selecting a “preferred” emission factors/estimate approaches for this sector acknowledges deficiencies and inadequacies in these previous studies. A literature review [INGAA/API/AGA 2005] has shown that the majority of emission factors currently in use date to the early 1990’s from either the 1996 GRI/EPA Study or Canadian studies. this section provides background on these emission sources and the unique issues associated with estimating and measuring fugitive emissions. pumps.

and Questions regarding the emission source “grouping” addressed by an emission factor or estimation method and the applicability of that grouping for current systems. or cast iron) and the pipe length. maintenance practices and frequency. plastic. The two variables most affecting pipeline leak rates are pipeline type (i. 2008 • • • • The relative contribution to the inventory and associated uncertainty for the methane emission factor (and/or activity data).e. Emissions measurement methods used in original study and source attribution. • • • Fugitive pipeline leaks typically consist of emissions from above ground or buried valves and other fittings/components attached to piping. fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas systems are difficult to accurately quantify. 50 . Background on Fugitive Emission Sources and GHG Emissions Estimation 5. Measurement programs are labor intensive. counter to the expectations for accuracy associated with direct measurement of emissions.e. the wide variations in emission-control levels associated with inspection and repair programs.. protected steel. Pipe wall losses are most commonly associated with structural failures such as cracks or corrosion normally caused by operational wear and pipe material degradation and permeation of gas through the pipe wall (associated with plastic pipe).1 presents a list of the common components associated with fugitive losses. non-welded) connectors between two pipeline segments or joints.. and the limited availability of facility-specific emission source data. which can include new work practices. Operational changes that have occurred since the advent of the emission factor or estimation approach. etc. throughput.g. cast iron pipelines tend to have a higher leak potential). and Attempts to estimate leakage for pipeline systems using available information such as lost and unaccounted for (LAUF) data are bounded by issues associated with meter accuracy and the large volumes of gas throughput at a facility relative to the fugitive releases. the historical methods for measuring/estimating fugitive emissions include a large inherent uncertainty. age. Fundamental emission estimation issues for fugitive emissions for the natural gas distribution sector include: • • The use of simple pipeline length-based emission factors introduces large error. the large number and variety of potential emission sources.1 In general. These components include threaded or screwed (i. Table 5. The application of rigorous bottom-up approaches requires expert knowledge and detailed data that may be difficult and costly to obtain and implement. time consuming. or equipment changes. and costly to perform – although payback periods may be reasonable. In addition. This is largely due to the industry diversity. The application of default system-wide emission factors and activity data consistent with current accepted practices introduces significant errors due to potential differences in equipment types (e.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.

gas “passing” relief valve seals. are vented emissions. 51 . and should be corrected to actual CO2 concentrations for an accurate emissions estimate. the natural gas methane content.. these CO2 emissions will be trivial relative to the methane emissions because methane has a GWP of 21 and is normally present in concentrations over 90%. Pipeline blowdown events. are considered fugitive emissions. and the natural gas that passes through distribution systems typically has small carbon dioxide levels. typically less than 2%) and therefore is typically an insignificant fugitive emission source for this sector. age. However.g. 2008 Table 5.2 Emissions Estimation Methods The fugitive GHG emissions from a pipeline consist of methane in the natural gas. as are losses associated with release of a safety pressure relief valve resulting from an overpressure event. The second category is carbon dioxide in the leaking natural gas. The 1996 GRI/EPA study combined emissions from a wide range of pipelines and developed the three Tier emission factors described in the tables below. The GHGCalcTM emission factors are based on natural gas containing 2% CO2. and the pipeline material. diameter.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. a portion of CH4 emitted from underground pipeline leaks is oxidized to form CO2 as it migrates through the soil to the surface and may be included in the inventory if adequate activity data exist. CO2 in the natural gas. and location. Methane that escapes directly into the atmosphere depends upon the type of leak. chattering or malfunctioning relief valve resulting from improperly mated sealing surfaces). However. it is important to differentiate between fugitive emissions and vented emissions. 5. while CO2 has a GWP of 1 and typical concentrations 2% or less. The majority of the carbon dioxide in natural gas from a well is usually removed at gas processing plants by amine units.Typical Fugitive Emissions Sources Associated with the Distribution Sector • Threaded connector • Open-ended line • Valve • Tubing connectors • Control valve • Pump seal. whether deliberate for operating purposes or unintentional resulting from an upset condition.1 . that occurs following an overpressure event due to improperly re-seated valve surfaces (e. maintenance practices.g. Generally. and CO2 that is formed from the soil oxidation of methane. pressure. • Pressure relief valve • Sampling connections • Pressure regulator • Sight glass • Orifice meter • Threaded union • Other flow meter • Threaded check valve • Compressor seals • Diaphragms • Drains • Flanges • Hatches • Meters • Instruments • Fin fan cooler tube ends As noted in Section 4. also referred to as “valve blow-by”. Pipeline quality natural gas does not contain a significant amount of CO2 (e.

The emissions sources “accounting system” is based on the GRI GHGCalcTM GHG emissions estimation program. The oxidation CO2 emission factors presented in the tables below are an average of the methane oxidation from a range of leak sizes. Large natural gas leaks will only be minimally oxidized as the large flowrates reduce contact time with the soil bacteria before the gas rises above ground level. Fugitive emissions can be estimated using the standard three tier emission factor calculation methodology or more specific Tier 3+ emission factors can be developed from site-specific data or measurements. The grouping of sources and assignment of the activity data to this population of sources often results in inconsistencies and double counting. A GRI study found that small leaks can be oxidized by as much as 95% if the soil conditions are conducive to bacterial growth. 52 .AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. soil moisture. 2008 The third class of fugitive emissions is methane leaked from underground pipelines that is oxidized to CO2 by bacteria in the soil before it reaches the surface. It should be noted that the aggregation or disaggregating of fugitive sources within the distribution sector is not standardized and no consistent source grouping/categorization is available in the literature. Table 5-2 lists distribution sector fugitive emissions sources and corresponding activity data for Tiers 1 – 3 and Tier 3+ for select emission sources. and soil organic content. Overall oxidation rates were found to depend strongly on depth.

5.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.4 Count) and Section M&R Stations CH4 Categorized by Inlet 5. as noted in the venting discussion (Section 4. the basis for most of these emission factors is the 1996 GRI/EPA study and this 53 .2. In addition. 2008 Table 5-2. and M&R or Pressure Distribution (Station Count) Reg. Emission Source (Activity Data) Detailed descriptions of the emission sources and emission factors development are provided with the following emission factor tables.2). M&R Stations CH4 Pressure. Location. (Station Count) Sector CH4 Cast Iron Main Pipeline CH4 (Mains Length) (Main Main Pipeline Leak Pipeline Plastic Main Pipeline CH4 (Mains Length) CH4 (Mains Length) Protected Steel Main Pipeline CH4 (Mains Length) Length) Unprotected Steel Main Pipeline CH4 (Main Length) Copper Services Pipeline CH4 (Services Count) Services Pipeline Plastic Services Pipeline CH4 (Services Count) Leak CH4 Protected Steel Services Pipeline CH4 (Services Count) (Services Count) Unprotected Steel Services Pipeline CH4 (Services Count) Cast Iron Main Pipeline CO2 Leak (Mains Length) Main Pipeline Plastic Main Pipeline CO2 Leak (Mains Length) Leaks CO2 Leak (Mains Length) Protected Steel Main Pipeline CO2 Leak (Mains Length) Distribution Unprotected Steel Main Pipeline CO2 Leak (Mains Length) Sector Leak Copper Services Pipeline CO2 Leak (Services Count) CO2 (Main Plastic Services Pipeline CO2 Leak (Services Count) Pipeline Services Pipeline Protected Steel Services Pipeline CO2 Leak (Services Length) Leaks CO2 Leak Count) (Services Count) Unprotected Steel Services Pipeline CO2 Leak (Services Count) Cast Iron Main Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Main Length) Main Pipeline Plastic Main Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Main Length) Leaks Oxidation Protected Steel Main Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Main CO2 (Mains Length) Distribution Length) Unprotected Steel Main Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Main Sector Length) Oxidation Copper Services Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Services Count) CO2 (Main Pipeline Plastic Services Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Services Count) Services Pipeline Length) Leaks Oxidation Protected Steel Services Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Services CO2 (Services Count) Count) Unprotected Steel Services Pipeline Oxidation CO2 (Services Count) A.2. Distribution Sector Fugitive Emissions Sources and Activity Data Tier 1A Tier 2 A Tier 3 A Tier 3+ A Residential Customer Meters CH4 (Device Customer Meters Count) CH4 (Device Refer to Commercial/Industrial Meters CH4 (Device Count) Section 5.

4%.4% methane and 2. and residential customer meters . Fugitive CO2 emissions can also be estimated with these non-pipeline emission factors by multiplying the emission factor by the ratio of the actual CO2 concentration and 93.0% carbon dioxide. the methane pipeline emission factor should be multiplied by the ratio of the actual CO2 leak concentration and 2. And. as noted above. To estimate methane emissions from natural gas with a different methane concentration. = Oxidation CO2 EF (X% CH4) Oxidation CO2 EF (93.4 Eqn. For the non-pipeline emission factors – M&R stations. To estimate CO2 leak emissions from natural gas with a different CO2 concentration.4 percent. the oxidation CO2 pipeline emission factor should be multiplied by the ratio of the actual methane concentration (e. commercial/industrial meters. the methane emission factor should be multiplied by the ratio of the actual methane concentration and 93.4 per equation 5-2. 5. CO2 EF = CH4 EF * %CO2/93.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0%.4 * 44/16 Eqn. To estimate oxidation CO2 emissions from natural gas with a different methane concentration.4% and the CO2 to CH4 molecular weight ratio per equation 5-1. 2008 study measured M&R stations total “continuous” emissions – fugitives and pneumatic devices – because separately quantifying fugitive and pneumatic vented emissions for many M&R stations was not feasible due to station design and accessibility. 5-1 The pipeline emission factors are based on natural gas with 93.1 Tier 3 Emissions Estimates Table 5-3 lists the Tier 3 emission sources for fugitive emissions with their methane emission factors and corresponding activity data.4%. 5-2 54 . the methane pipeline emission factor should be multiplied by the ratio of the actual methane concentration and 93. The “CO2 leak” emission factors are based on the 2.g. the inclusion of the Tier 3 M&R station pneumatic control loops and pneumatic isolation valves vented emissions (Table 4-3) likely causes some duplicate emissions accounting (with the M&R station fugitive emissions factor) and a more conservative emissions estimate. X% CH4) and 93.the methane emission factors are based on a natural gas methane content of 93. The “oxidation CO2” emission factors depend on the natural gas methane concentration and the soil oxidation rate.2. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 M&R station emission factors in the tables below represent these emissions. To estimate methane emissions from natural gas with a different methane concentration.4% CH4) X% CH4 93.0% CO2.

6322 0.0 0.276 lb/meter-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr Refer to Tale 5-4 Unprotected Steel Pipeline Service Services Count Unprotected Steel Pipeline Service Services Count Unprotected Steel Pipeline Service Services Count Oxidation CO2 2.5 7.2 18.0 41.2905 7.81 4.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.64 38.652 278.847 10. From GHGCalc V1.01 4.862 11.74 0. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.022 lb/meter-yr Residential Customer Meters M&R Stations Cast Iron Pipeline Main Cast Iron Pipeline Main Cast Iron Pipeline Main Plastic Pipeline Main Plastic Pipeline Main Plastic Pipeline Main Protected Steel Pipeline Main Protected Steel Pipeline Main Protected Steel Pipeline Main Unprotected Steel Pipeline Main Unprotected Steel Pipeline Main Unprotected Steel Pipeline Main Copper Pipeline Service Copper Pipeline Service Copper Pipeline Service Plastic Pipeline Service Plastic Pipeline Service Plastic Pipeline Service Protected Steel Pipeline Service Protected Steel Pipeline Service Protected Steel Pipeline Service Meter Count Station Count Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Main Length Services Count Services Count Services Count Services Count Services Count Services Count Services Count Services Count Services Count CH4 CH4 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 5.4505 0.2.196 TM A.079 994. 55 .5470 71. 2008 Table 5-3.710 693.5 10.9 234.A Emission Emission Source Activity Data GHG EF Units Factor Commercial/ Industrial Meters Meter Count CH4 2.3926 0.451 0. Distribution Sector Tier 3 Emission Factors for Fugitive Emissions.0293 0.89 129.

Tier 3 Emission Factors for Distribution M&R and Pressure Regulating Stations Fugitive EmissionsA Emission Source Emission GHG EF Units Inlet Pressure Location: Vault or Factor Station Type (psig) Above-Ground (A-G) M&R > 300 A-G CH4 66.892 480 14.2.1 provides additional M&R stations detail. As noted previously. the regulator and the connectors on the inlet and outlet pipes. These Tier 3 emission factors are from the 1996 GRI/EPA Study and can be used for emissions estimates if the three station characteristics are known. and above ground stations have higher emissions than vaulted stations.600 59. Customer Meters Customer meter sets – residential and commercial/industrial – include the meter and associated piping and fittings.2. M&R stations have higher emissions than regulating stations of similar pressure. components. Table 5-4. metering and regulating or regulating only. and above ground or vaulted location.510 lb/station-yr M&R M&R Regulating Regulating Regulating Regulating Regulating Regulating Regulating 100-300 <100 >300 >300 100-300 100-300 40-100 40-100 <40 A-G A-G A-G Vault A-G Vault A-G Vault Combined B CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 35. Emission factors increase with station inlet pressure. 2008 Descriptions of the emission sources and the emission factors development follow. Thus. The greater emissions for higher pressure stations are a result of the higher operating pressures and are also impacted by larger numbers of valves. it is likely a methane emission estimate developed from these emission factors will be biased high. Fugitive losses from customer meters typically occur at the valve.400 1. From 1996 GRI/EPA Study. The above ground and vault categories were combined for the Regulator stations with inlet pressures below 40psi.1. M&R stations likely have higher emission factors than 56 . metering and pressure regulation stations measure natural gas flow and/or decrease the gas pressure.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. and regulators at high inlet pressure stations. B.900 74 370 37 37 lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr lb/station-yr A. the M&R station fugitive emission factors include the contribution of pneumatic devices. Table 54 presents M&R station Tier 3 fugitive emission factors characterized by inlet gas pressure. M&R Stations As noted in section 4. Section 4.

These emission factors. Protected steel pipelines are cathodically protected to minimize corrosion and may be coated or uncoated. There are two types of unprotected steel pipeline. As discussed previously. Pipelines Distribution main pipelines supply natural gas to more than one customer and operate at pressures ranging from City Gate M&R station outlet pressures – 300 psig and higher – to service pipeline pressures. Unprotected steel pipelines are not cathodically protected to minimize corrosion. joint and fittings failures. or plastic. mains pipelines. The weighting factors are based on data from the 1996 GRI/EPA Study and may not represent the current pipeline population. 57 . are from the GHGCalcTM program and are based on 1996 GRI/EPA Study data. connectors. and pipe wall fractures. protected steel. The U.g. or plastic. The distribution mains and services emission factors were developed from leak rate and frequency data collected for the 1996 GRI/EPA Study. the M&R station fugitive emission factors include the contribution of pneumatic devices. Services are low pressure pipelines that branch from the main to individual customer meters. unprotected steel. M&R stations. 5. PRVs) due to the additional metering. listed in Table 5-5. The Tier 2 M&R Station emission factor was developed from a weighted average of emissions from the M&R Station categories listed in Table 5-4. The pipeline mains and services emission factors are based on weighted averages of the Tier 3 material specific emission factors. unprotected steel. The majority of distribution mains in the United States are constructed of cast iron. Gas will also permeate plastic pipe walls. protected steel. and service pipelines. Because they are enclosed.2 Tier 2 Emissions Estimates The Tier 2 fugitive emission factors are for total customer meters. 2008 regulating stations in the same inlet pressure range because they typically have a higher number of components (e. The majority of distribution services in the United States are constructed of copper.S. Department of Transportation indicates that polyethylene is the most prevalent plastic pipeline material and a smaller fraction of plastic pipelines are PVC construction. valves. Cast iron pipeline is being phased out of the gas distribution system.2. The emission factors below do not distinguish between the two types of unprotected steel and are used for all non-cathodically protected steel pipeline. The coating is usually a paint layer or plastic coating that allows for greater resistance to corrosion when the pipeline is placed in the ground. coated and uncoated. This issue is discussed below.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. vault stations use no-bleed regulators to avoid dangerous gas accumulation and thus have lower emissions than similar above ground meter stations. Because the M&R station fugitive emission factors include the contribution of pneumatic devices. it is likely a methane emission estimate developed from the Tier 2 emission factor will be biased high. These pipelines leak through corrosion pits.

The service pipelines installed in the US at the end of 1996 and 2005 are compared in Table 5-7. The main pipelines installed in the US at the end of 1996 and 2005 are compared in Table 5-6. which are based on the 1996 pipeline population.8 Other (1) 785 1377 592 75.629 -27.9 Plastic Pipe 350.787 175.2.452 8.699 525.542 37. 2008 Table 5-5.4 Other (2) 24.491 -4.1 Steel/Unprotected/Coated 21.008 0.gov/library/libindex.7576 0.172 -27.923 17.6 Copper 57 36 -21 -36.076 -64. and cathodically protected bare steel mains.9 Steel/Cathodically Protected/ Coated 442.6439 EF Units lb/meter-yr lb/station-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr A. cathodically unprotected.096. The data also show the changes that have occurred in the US distribution system since the 1996 GRI/EPA study was conducted.2 Steel/Cathodically Protected/Bare 41.304 94.655 261 -24.htm The data show that currently the majority of natural gas distribution main pipeline in the United States is constructed from plastic and cathodically protected and coated steel.394 -98. http://ops.9 Total Mile of Main 1.dot.088 49.800 -14.740 1.63 0. Pipeline Type Miles of Main 1996-2005 Change 1996 2005 Miles % Steel/Unprotected/Bare 66. 58 .432 -20.689 -22. especially the large increase in plastic pipeline and the large decreases in cast iron.489 51. Comparison of 1996 and 2005 US Distribution System Main Pipelines.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.001.705 14.801 1. will not accurately represent 2005 emissions.357 105.821 446. Table 5-6. The Office of Pipeline Safety has collected data on the type and length of the main and services used in the US natural gas distribution system.205 12.4 Data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Distribution Sector Tier 2 Emission Factors for Fugitive EmissionsA Emission Source Customer Meters M&R Stations Main Pipeline Leaks Main Pipeline Leaks Main Pipeline Leaks Service Pipeline Leaks Service Pipeline Leaks Service Pipeline Leaks Activity Data Device Count Station Count Main Length Main Length Main Length Services Count Services Count Services Count GHG CH4 CH4 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 Emission Factor 5. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.5 Ductile Iron 1. These changes to the US main pipeline population suggest that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors.370 -14.829 4. Wrought Iron 51.535 9. From GHGCalc V1. Office of Pipeline Safety Website.7 1.9 Cast iron.125 724 -401 -35.

Similar to the mains pipelines.621. since they may have been included in the “Other” categories by some survey responders.0 Total Number of Services 54.212.238 1.132 955.964.045.751 15.1 Cast iron.319 -91.564 -1.846. Comparison of 1996 and 2005 US Distribution System Service Pipelines.519.204 9.523.dot.152.549 18. As noted above.109.2 Other (2) 1. with smaller numbers of copper and unprotected steel service pipes.gov/library/libindex. 59 .811 578. Thus.461.6 Steel/Cathodically Protected/ Bare 814. the M&R station fugitive emissions include the contribution of pneumatic devices.106 29. 5.573 45.019 611.613 -94.741 38. the net installation of new service pipelines have been predominantly plastic pipe.375 3. Office of Pipeline Safety Website.650. Pipeline Type No. This could explain the increase in the number of ductile iron lines.507.2 Data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.9 Steel/Cathodically Protected/ 17.187.779.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. with a 91% decrease in the number of cast iron service lines.446 -1. with some installations of coated unprotected steel.277 9.237 -202.186 -2.272.625 1.668. of Services 1996-2005 Change 1996 2005 Services (%) Steel/Unprotected/Bare 4.536 36.238 216. 2008 Table 5-7. The large changes in service pipe material types since the 1996 GRI/EPA study was concluded suggest that the weighted-average emission factors may not be representative of the distribution sector today. it is likely a methane emission estimate developed from this emission factor will be biased slightly high.782 -24.365 -20.4 Ductile Iron 939 41.299 40.360 4298 Copper 1. The data shows some anomalies with the number of service types reported as “Other” fluctuating greatly.230 -194.3 Tier 1 Emissions Estimates The distribution sector Tier 1 fugitive emission factors listed in Table 5-8 are based on pipeline main miles and are from the GHGCalcTM program and are based on 1996 GRI/EPA study data.565 -14.1 Coated Plastic Pipe 26.548 5.507.059 97. http://ops.htm The majority of the service pipelines are also constructed from plastic pipe and cathodically protected and coated steel. The number of cast iron service pipelines has been dramatically reduced in this period.2 Other (1) 739.223 59.260 -307.811 -23. Wrought Iron 212.2.268.2 Steel/Unprotected/Coated 1.

EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates [EPA 1995] provides a guideline document for acceptable approaches for generating process unit-specific emission estimates.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.g. Distribution Sector Tier 1 Emission Factors for Fugitive EmissionsA Emission Source Distribution Sector Activity Data Main Pipeline Length Distribution Main Length (Leak) Distribution Main Length (Oxidation) GHG CH4 Leak CO2 Oxidation CO2 Emission EF Units Factor 3. 60 .6 1. It is feasible to implement these programs because of recent advances in leak measurement technology and best practices that provide the opportunity to cost effectively recover product that is otherwise lost.S. Although methane losses are unregulated. alternative and improved fugitive emission estimation methods will continue to be explored.. While default emission factors are the accepted approach for fugitive GHG emissions estimates.2. 5.4 Tier 3+ Facility-Specific Estimates – Screening-based Methodologies It is commonly accepted that fugitive emission are difficult to accurately estimate. 2008 Table 5-8. many of these options may prove ineffective or be supplanted with other alternatives – such as improved emission factors based on a growing database of emissions information from measurement programs.2. The U. Ultimately. This document serves as the foundation for the screening-based methodologies. that is. VOC leaks in some processes at upstream facilities are regulated. This section discusses a number of these options. Screening based approaches are typically chosen where companies voluntarily opt into leak detection and repair (LDAR) or Directed Inspection and Maintenance (DI&M) programs.551 235. The leaks are then categorized based on the measured concentration. all equipment and components with the potential for fugitive leaks are screened. A screening-based approach to emission estimation requires that a full leak detection program be conducted at the subject facility. and associated leak detection requirements for regulated VOC streams form the basis for screening-based approaches to fugitive methane releases. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study. LDAR / DI&M programs are targeted toward improving a facilities loss control and profit margins while also having an added benefit of reducing GHGs. Direct measurement of “leaker” emissions allows prioritization of the repairs (largest most cost-effective sources addressed first) and potentially allows for more efficient and reliable emissions quantification. Even regulatory based requirements for control of fugitive releases (e. Over the next several years. a number of approaches to “Tier 3+” emission estimates for fugitive emissions are under consideration. facility measurements (and possibly development of company-specific emission factors based on a measurement program) may provide a solution.237 lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr A. VOC regulations) are based upon methods with large uncertainties. Meanwhile. All of the screening based methods require implementation of EPA Method 21 – which uses an instrument such as an Organic Vapor Analyzer to “sniff” components and measure the hydrocarbon concentration of a leak. From GHGCalc V1.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 2008 Despite the fact that leak rate correlations provide an improved estimate approach relative to other options discussed above. Additionally. by repairing all components that screen above 10.000 parts per million. Concentration values measured using Method 21 are plotted against the leak rate in Figure 5-1. The uncertainties in this method are typically ± two orders of magnitude. shown in Figure 5-1 plotted with the emission estimate determined from the correlation equation. the conventional approach does not provide an accurate measurement of either the baseline emissions from the facility or the amount of emissions reduced (error is ± 300%). This is demonstrated based on measured leak rate data from EPA.000 parts per million.S. concentration is a poor surrogate for the actual leak rate. Consequently. Many leaks screen above these concentration thresholds. leak “bagging” studies) limited the ability to conduct direct measurements and necessitated the development of the alternative approaches discussed in this section. difficulties in measuring leaks (i.0E-04 1. Recent studies that have investigated the effectiveness of leak detection and repair programs have shown that under U.0E-06 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 ppt96\Hummel\Jul\GRILOTT \1 Correlation Equation Bagging Data Several Orders of Magnitude For example: Is the Leak .000 or 100. Historically. Leak rate versus concentration and correlation equation estimate. but can be as high as three to four orders of magnitude. up to 10 times as many leaks are repaired than would be necessary to obtain a significant reduction in emissions.0E-05 1.e. Leak based correlation equations can also result in large emissions uncertainties and estimate errors. EPA Method 21 guidelines.0E-03 1. Any leak above these screening concentrations has the same estimated leak rate (known as a “pegged source” emission factor).0E-02 1.0E+00 1..001 lb/day? Screening Value (ppmv) ppt96\Hummel\Jul\GRILOTT\2 Figure 5-1. The data scatter is more than ± two orders of magnitude relative to the correlation equation estimate. the maximum concentration for the correlation equations is a screening concentration of 10.0E-01 1. but since the mass emission rate is 61 .1 lb/day or 0.0E+01 1.000 parts per million are not fixed even though they have a significant leak rate. resources are wasted on repairing components with extremely small leaks. while some components that screen less than 10. Mass Emission Rate (lb/ day THC) 1. Also.

additional approaches for fugitive emission estimation that go beyond the current Tier 3 approach are available. This requires developing adequate datasets for devising the emission factors.g.g. Combining the Tier 3 emission factors with measured data from a distribution activity should significantly improve the estimate quality. leak frequency and distribution) conforms to the basis of the emission factor.4. bubble test). utilization. and are in similar service. 5. These factors can be used system wide provided that they are representative of the target source. a basis exists for simplifying the approach and better allocating resources in the future to best reduce uncertainties in the results.e.. DI&M programs have proven that this is true in the natural gas industry. 90 to 95 percent) of the fugitive emissions from components in gas service. and are close in age. refer the EPA Leak Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates [EPA 1995].g. screening value > 10. typically. the leaks may not be cost effective to repair.. gas operated starters. Once a thorough assessment has been completed. screening value < 10. and ultrasonic techniques. Develop equipment specific leak rate data for all fugitive sources.) and integrated with the Tier 3 EF to refine estimates and reduce uncertainties. it can be quantified using high volume sampler methods. it is necessary to compile a sufficient number of data points to surround the desired screening range for each target component and service category.000 ppm) which occur at a facility (i.. soap solution (i.. The EPA Leak Detection Protocol identifies the procedures to develop a correlation equation specific to a particular facility process that can then be applied to this process-type.2. Key leakage sources can be targeted for measurement (e.000 ppm) are applied to the remaining components.. Once a component count has been established at the facility.g. 3 to 6 percent of the component population) contribute nearly all (i.e. After a leak is identified based on the screening value. For additional details on developing a unit-specific leak-rate correlations. and determining the frequency of follow-up inspection to ensure that the “current” equipment status (e.5 Other Tier 3+ Emission Estimation Approaches In addition to the screening-based approaches in Section 5. 2008 actually low in some cases. fuel gas systems and scrubbers. To develop unit-specific leak-rate correlations. a leak survey may be conducted using screening tools such as remote passive infrared camera technologies.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. and load. The emission factors for non-leakers (e. In recent years.e. compressor seals and vents. Unit-Specific Leak-Rate Correlations Mass emission rates determined by either bagging or High Volume Sampler (e.g.2. Measured leak rate data can be used to develop equipment-specific emission factors.. etc.. Experience has shown that the few leakers (e. This would be a • • 62 . operating range or envelope. including: • Selectively incorporate measured data with Tier 3 estimates. The actual measured values can be used to construct site-specific emissions data and can be appended as subsequent surveys are conducted improving the EF uncertainty. HiFlow Sampler™) measurements may be combined with the associated screening value to develop a process unit-specific relationship between concentration and mass emissions. Screening coupled with direct measurement of emissions from significant leakers.

Figure 5-2 presents several methods for determining component counts in order of accuracy and reliability. 2008 time intensive effort – but may be viable within the context of a DI&M program to reduce LAUF and GHGs – and may be requisite in a future-year GHG trading program. Methods for deriving component counts. This report and other experience indicate: 63 . drawings and bills of materials probably lack sufficient detail for larger facilities (e. initial estimates provided by the sites were on average.S. In addition to the facilities lacking an accurate component count. Preferably..) Estimate Component Counts Based on National or Industry Average Number of Components per Emission Source Default Equipment Schedules Extrapolated Facility Measurement Program Data Counts from P&ID drawings plus Audits for Selected Leak Prone Equipment Complete Facility Survey and Component Audit Associated Tier 1 1 2 2+ 2+ 3 3+ Accuracy & Reliability Least Most Figure 5-2. an inventory of equipment components must first be developed for each target facility or installation. border meter stations. actual field counts are preferable (especially on threaded piping and pre-packaged process units such as line heaters).AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. counts may be taken from process flow diagrams and bills of materials. Issues and Considerations for Developing Component Counts A GRI/U. etc. Throughput. Although adequate for small.g. relatively uncomplicated installations (e.. for larger installations. Method None – Rely upon lost and unaccounted for (LAUF) estimates based on facility throughput Estimate Component Counts Based On Facility Size (Total HP. receipt meter stations and farm taps). city gate stations). Alternatively. 40 percent lower than the physical counts developed during site visits. this should be accomplished through actual site surveys. Estimating Component Counts For improved Tier 3+ fugitive estimation methods.g. Again.EPA report from 2002 [GRI/EPA 2002] identified a significant underestimate of components at each of four facilities surveyed.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008

The use of experienced process engineers when conducting facility audits and component counting allows for increased efficiency and dramatically reduces errors resulting from improperly eliminating components or including components in non-GHG streams (e.g. compressed air, liquid service, cooling water, electrical conduit, etc.); Process and Instrument (P&ID) drawings may not be current and often do not reflect recent changes, additions, modifications and “as-built” conditions. The lack of accurate or detailed design drawings may significantly impact the inventory accuracy. “Field audits” of component estimates are recommended to improve accuracy; Audits should not only rely on estimates of component sizes but should frequently include measured data. A tape measure or similar, will greatly improve the count accuracy by size categories; Actual component counting activities may be simplified by counting components on a single source and multiplying by the number of similar sources; Limiting the size of components to ½” or greater may ignore potential sources of methane emissions at a facility. Tubing connections are frequently thought to be unimportant contributors to the inventory due to the components size and nature. However, these connections, when aggregated, may leak an appreciable amount of methane and where appropriate should be included in the component counts.

• •

In general, the cost for developing and documenting average facility level component counts is offset by reduced product losses within the initial year of implementing a directed inspection and maintenance (DI&M) program. However, a decision is required on whether the gains in accuracy justify the cost of additional data gathering. 5.3 Example Calculations for Fugitive Emissions

Acme Distribution Company (ADC) is an investor owned local distribution company that desires to calculate the fugitive emissions from the entire company for 2005. The company boundary is set so that it includes the M&R stations and extends to the customer meters. ADC has 605 miles of pipeline, with 363 miles of protected steel mains and 242 miles of plastic service pipeline. ADC serves 26,255 residential customers, 2,578 commercial customers and 29 industrial customers. ADC has twelve M&R stations, and does not operate any compression facilities. The natural gas delivered has an annual average methane content of 96.5%. 5.3.1 Tier 1 Fugitive Emissions Calculation

The Tier 1 emissions (Table 5-9) are based solely on the miles of mains pipeline, regardless of pipe material. ADC maintains 242 miles of mains pipeline. The Tier 1 EFs need to be corrected to account for the difference between the actual 96.5% methane content and the 93.4% methane content assumed in the EF development. A factor of 1.033 is used to multiply the Tier 1 emission factors in Table 5.7 above.

64

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 Table 5-9. ADC Tier 1 Activity Data and GHG Calculations. Emission Total GHG Activity Units Gas GHG Emissions Source Emissions (lb/yr) Factor Data Distribution Main Length 242 CH4 3,669 lb/mile-yr 887,898 Distribution Main Length (Leak) 242 CO2 243.4 lb/mile-yr 58,903 Distribution Main Length 242 CO2 1,278 lb/mile-yr 309,276 (Oxidation) To convert the methane emissions to a common carbon dioxide equivalent (Table 5-10), the methane emission is multiplied by the GWP for methane, which is 21. To convert the pounds to metric tonnes, the total is divided by 2204.6. Table 5-10. ADC Tier 1 GHG Emissions Estimate for 2005. GHG Emissions Source Distribution Main Length Distribution Main Length (Leak) Distribution Main Length (Oxidation) Total CO2eq Emissions (lb/yr) 18,645,858 58,903 309,276 19,014,039 CO2eq Emissions (tonne/yr) 8,458 27 140 8,625

Using a Tier 1 approach ADC estimates that in 2005 ADC had carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 8,625 metric tons. 5.3.2 Tier 2 Fugitive Emissions Calculation

The Tier 2 GHG emissions estimate (Table 5-11 and Table 5-12) is calculated in a similar manner to the Tier 1 estimate above. The number of customer meters is obtained by adding the number of residential, commercial and industrial customers. The Tier 2 estimate includes EFs that differentiate between mains and service pipelines, so the mileage for each has been included in the estimate. Table 5-11. ADC Tier 2 Activity Data and GHG Calculations. GHG Emissions Activity GHG Emission Units Source Data Factor Customer Meters 28,862 CH4 5.633 lb/meter-yr Pipeline Leaks: Main Length 242 CH4 1402 lb/mile-yr Pipeline Leaks: Main Length (Leaks) 242 CO2 109.2 lb/mile-yr Pipeline Leaks: Main Length 1245 lb/mile-yr 242 CO2 (Oxidation) Pipeline Leaks: Services 28,862 CH4 13.05 lb/service-yr Pipeline Leaks: Services (Leaks) 28,862 CO2 0.783 lb/service-yr Pipeline Leaks: Services Oxidation) 28,862 CO2 0.665 lb/service-yr M&R Stations 12 CH4 9030 lb/station-yr

Emissions (lb/yr) 162,578 339,294 26,428 301,289 376,649 22,599 19,193 108,360

65

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008

Table 5-12. ADC Tier 2 Fugitive CO2eq Emissions Estimate for 2005. CO2eq CO2eq GHG Emissions Source Emissions (lb/yr) Emissions (tonne/yr) Customer Meters 3,414,144 1,549 Pipeline Leaks: Main Length 7,125,166 3,232 Pipeline Leaks: Main Length (Leaks) 26,428 12 Pipeline Leaks: Main Length (Oxidation) 301,289 137 Pipeline Leaks: Services 7,909,631 3,588 Pipeline Leaks: Services (Leaks) 22,599 10 Pipeline Leaks: Services (Oxidation) 19,193 9 M&R Stations 2,275,560 1,032 Total 21,094,010 9,568 Using a Tier 2 approach, in 2005 ADC had estimated carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 9,568 metric tons.

5.3.3

Tier 3 Fugitive Emissions Calculation

The Tier 3 GHG emissions estimate (Table 5-13 and Table 5-14) is calculated in a similar manner to the Tier 2 estimate above. Customer meters are characterized as either residential or commercial/industrial customers. The Tier 3 estimate includes EFs that differentiate between the type of material of mains and service pipelines. For the ADC example, all Mains pipelines are constructed of protected steel and all Service pipelines are constructed from plastic. As in the previous examples, the Tier 3 EFs in Table 5.3 are corrected to account for the actual methane content of 96.5%, which is different from the 93.4% methane content assumed in the development of the EFs. Table 5-13. ADC Tier 3 Activity Data and GHG Calculations GHG Emissions Activity Emission Emissions GHG Units Source Data Factor (lb/yr) Commercial/Industrial Meters 26,255 CH4 2.09 lb/meter-yr 54,850 Residential Customer Meters 2,607 CH4 6.04 lb/meter-yr 15,749 Protected Steel Pipeline: Main 242 CH4 133.80 lb/mile-yr 32,379 Length Protected Steel Pipeline: Main 242 CO2 8.12 lb/mile-yr 1,966 Length (Leak) Protected Steel Pipeline: Main 242 CO2 11.38 lb/mile-yr 2,753 Length (Oxidation) Plastic Pipeline: Services 28,862 CH4 0.41 lb/service-yr 11,833 Plastic Pipeline: Services (Leak) 28,862 CO2 0.03 lb/service-yr 866 Plastic Pipeline: Services (Oxidation) 28,862 CO2 0.30 lb/service-yr 8659 M&R Stations 12 CH4 9,030 lb/station-yr 108,360

66

so the mileage for each has been included in the estimate. In this example. The Tier 1 example is conservative and non-specific since it assumes that ADC operates equipment that is representative of the industry as a whole. Emission factors provided in Tiers 1 through 3 are general/average factors. This reflects a Tier 2 activity data distribution that differs from the “industry-average” that is the basis for the Tier 1 emission factor.659 4 M&R Stations 2.032 4. with higher accuracy achieved as the input data become more detailed.701. 2008 Table 5-14.152.133 Total Using a Tier 3 approach.275.560 1. in 2005 ADC had estimated carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 2133 metric tons. Migration beyond Tier 3 estimates will occur over time as improvements in measurements and estimate accuracy progresses. The Tier 3 example required knowledge of the type of fugitive emission source. GHG Emissions CO2eq CO2eq Emissions Emissions (lb/yr) (tonne/yr) Source Commercial/Industrial Meters 1.754 1 Plastic Pipeline: Services 248.332 523 Residential Customer Meters 330. The Tier 2 estimate included additional detailed information but still did not require specific information related to the pipeline composition. 5. The Tier rating scheme is not an absolute indicator of an estimate fidelity.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.502 113 Plastic Pipeline: Services (Leak) 866 0 Plastic Pipeline: Services (Oxidation) 8. the Tier 2 total resulted in a slightly larger estimate than the corresponding Tier 1 estimate.3. for instance plastic service pipeline and protected steel main pipelines. This allowed emission factors to be used that are more representative of the actual equipment and meters that ADC operates. ADC Tier 3 Estimate CO2eq Emissions for 2005. The example activity data used better approximates the actual component and equipment counts with the progression from a Tier 1 to a Tier 3 estimate.965 1 Protected Steel Pipeline: Main Length (Oxidation) 2. These estimates will require detailed process and equipment input data in conjunction with site-specific emission factor data.4 GHG Fugitives Emissions Estimate Example Conclusions The examples above illustrate the primary differences between each emission estimation Tier. but rather an indicator of an improved (and less conservative) estimate within an individual source category for a specific GHG.281 2. These two pipeline types have smaller fugitive emissions 67 .972 308 Protected Steel Pipeline: Main Length (Leak) 1. The Tier 2 estimate includes EFs that differentiate between mains and service pipelines.672 150 Protected Steel Pipeline: Main Length 679.

568 2.881 223. This example illustrates that the Tier 3 estimate for ADC results in a much smaller GHG emissions estimate than the Tier 1 and Tier 2 estimates. Fugitive Emissions Estimate Example Summary for ADC in 2005 Tier 1 2 3 lb CH4 887.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. the Tier 3 estimate may have resulted in higher total GHG emissions than either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 estimates.243 Tonnes CO2eq 8.179 369. In addition.133 68 .192 lb CO2 368. 2008 factors than other pipeline types. but if ADC utilized larger lengths of cast iron main pipelines.625 9.898 986.509 14. This is usually the case. the Tier 3 estimate differentiates between commercial/industrial customer meters and residential customer meters.

6. 2008 6. the distribution sector utilizes a substantial vehicle fleet comprised of light and heavy-duty trucks for meter reading. the approaches identified for mobile sources/fleet vehicles in Section 6.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Equation 6-1 determines annual GHG emissions for each vehicle class. EFCO2.1 can be used. 6-1 The total annual vehicle fleet GHG emissions are the sum of emissions from the individual vehicle classes.VCi Where: GHG = CO2.VCi = Emission Factor for vehicle class i (tonne/mile) CO2 emission factors are based on the “default” vehicle class miles per gallon (mpg) listed in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 lists mileage based emission factors for different gasoline and diesel powered vehicle classes. and maintenance. equipment construction.i default * (default mpg/actual mpg) Eqn. tonnes GHG = ∑ tonnes VCi.0 Mobile Source Emissions This section addresses other mobile source / fleet emissions. or N2O VC = vehicle class tonnes GHGVCi = emissions of GHG from vehicle class i (tonne/yr) Activity DataVCi = total annual mileage for all vehicles in vehicle class i (miles/yr) EFGHG. 6. CH4. Distribution companies employ non-highway construction equipment for activities that include siting M&R stations and pipeline excavations. tonnes GHGVCi = Activity DataVCi * EFGHG. references such as the API Compendium and GHG Protocol have background on items such as air travel.1 Automobiles. 6-2 Eqn. These vehicles are typically fueled by gasoline or diesel oil. For vehicle related activities.i default) can be adjusted for “actual” mpg’s using the following equation. and Motorcycles Greenhouse gas emissions from highway vehicles are determined from miles driven and emission factors based on GHG emissions per mile. 6-3 69 . In addition. In addition to the highway fleet vehicles.1. The CO2 emission factors (EFCO2. Trucks. Automobiles are used for other staff functions. (summed over vehicle classes i) Eqn.1 Mobile Sources and Fleet Vehicles Unlike the other natural gas sectors.i actual = EFCO2.

0*10-8 8.2003.6*10 1. D.0*10-9 5*10-10 1.3*10-4 1 5*10-10 1. US Emissions Inventory 2005: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 . HDV – Heavy Duty Vehicle. UC – Uncontrolled.5*10 2 A 1.0*10-9 6*10-10 1.4*10-9 6*10-10 1.9*10-9 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 5 5 A A A A A A A A A a Appendix C-4 includes a discussion of vehicle emission controls. US Environmental Protection Agency. mpg – miles per gallon.S. Tonne/mile based on fuel properties listed in Table 6-7 and tabulated mpg 2. 65% of HDV miles in 2003 from vehicles equipped with EPA Tier 1 emissions control technology and 65% of HDV miles in 2003 from vehicles equipped with LEV. AC technology for Model Years 1996-2002. LDT – Light Duty Truck.9*10 -4 mpg 26 14 6 24 tonne / mile b Notes Ref CO2 CH4 N2O 3.7*10-9 5. 70 .3*10-8 2. LEV – Low Emission Vehicle.8*10-9 9.. NC – Non-catalyst Controls Notes and References for Table 6-5: A.1*10-9 4.5*10-3 1. These factors differ from those in other sources such as the IPCC Protocol and API Compendium. 2008 Table 6-1.8*10 3 A 4. b Table 6-1 Emission Factors presents current U. AC – Advanced Control. factors.7*10-8 2. 4. Washington. EPA 430-R-003. Mobile Source Highway Vehicles GHG Emission Factors Vehicle Class Gasoline Auto Gasoline Auto Gasoline LDT Gasoline LDT Gasoline HDV Gas HDV LEV Gas HDV T1 Diesel Auto Diesel Auto AC Diesel Auto MC Diesel Auto UC Diesel LDT Diesel LDT AC Diesel LDT MC Diesel LDT UC Diesel HDV Diesel HDV AC Motorcycles Motorcycles UC Motorcycles NC APC a LEV LEV LEV LEV All LEV EPA Tier 1 All Advanced Control Moderate Control Uncontrolled All Advanced Control Moderate Control Uncontrolled All All All Uncontrolled Non-catalyst Controls Fuel Gasolinec Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 7 60 1. MC technology for Model Years 1983-1995.7*10-8 6.5*10-4 15 6.4*10-4 1 1.2*10 1.7*10-9 6.2*10-8 2 A -4 6. UC technology for Model Years 1966-1982.5*10-3 1 4. 3.C.2*10-9 5*10-10 1. c Gasoline or Petrol APC – Air Pollution Controls.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.3*10 1 -8 -8 2.9*10-8 3 A -8 -7 6.5*10-9 5*10-10 1. (April 2005) 1. Greater than 99% of Vehicle Class miles in 2003 from vehicles equipped with LEV technology.

62*1010 5.020 Btu/ft3 Gas (CH4) lb/ft3 B. US Emissions Inventory 2005: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 .180 g CH4/kg/fuel for both gasoline and diesel. D. tonnes GHGCEj = Activity DataCEj * EFGHGCEj Where: GHG = CO2. EPA AP-42.42*107 76 0. Natural Gas Combustion.1 5. 1998 Ref.67*10 (A) 3.C.80*107 918 Btu/ft3 3. B A.Fluid Flow.06 846.46*106 3. 1986.0*10-7 5.82*1010 5.3 5.4. Volume I: Combustion Fuels. (summed over fuels j) Eqn. Stoichiometry.. Washington.5 (B) 6 10 Kerosene 6.44*1010 85.. 3rd Ed.8*10-7 N2O 2.39*106 3. CH4. 2008 6. B C 71 . C. Heat Transfer. or N2O CE = construction equipment tonnes GHGCEj = GHG emissions from CE. US Environmental Protection Agency.19*106 3.76*10 (A) 5. 6-4 Table 6-2. EPA AP-42. firing fuel j (tonne/yr) Activity DataCEj = total annual use of fuel j in CE (gal/yr) EFGHGCEj = GHG emission factor for CE firing fuel j (tonne/gal) The total construction equipment GHG emissions are the sum of emissions from combustion of the different fuels.6*10-7 Notes 1 1 Reference A A A.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.2*10-7 2.0*10-2 Tonne/gal CH4 5. Section 1.8*10-3 1. 1995. EPA 430-R-003.2003. Table 6-3. Table 6-2 lists fuel consumption based emission factors for gasoline and diesel powered construction equipment. (April 2005) 1. North American Combustion handbook. Miscellaneous Data Converstion Factors. 6-5 Eqn.57*1010 Natural 0. D.76 (B) 810 5.673 1. Mobile Source Construction Equipment GHG Emission Factors Fuel Gasoline/Petrol Diesel CO2 8. Appendix A. Fuel Properties Used for Vehicle Emission Factor Conversion to Tonnes Density Higher Heating Value Lower Heating Value Carbon Fuel 3 3 lb/gal kg/m Btu/bbl Joule / m Btu/bbl Joule/m3 wt.17 739.3 (B) 7. % Diesel 3.042 3.08 g N2O/kg fuel and 0.62*1010 87.1. Tonne/mile based on fuel properties listed in Table 6-3 and EFs of 0.83*106 Gasoline 6. tonnes GHGeCE = ∑ tonnesGHGeCEj.2 Construction Equipment Greenhouse gas emissions from non-highway construction equipment are determined from fuel consumption and fuel consumption-based emission factors per equation 6-4. A A.55*106 3.

coal) combustion.1 Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity The GHG emissions from the consumption of purchased energy produced by fossil fuel combustion is an indirect emission..e. In general. This large variation is largely due to difference in electrical generation types. such as lighting office buildings and stations and running computers.S.0 Indirect Emissions This section addresses indirect emissions. activity outsourcing. there is a large variation in emission factors. 7. while others include a mix of hydro. 7. Electricity that is purchased from electric utilities will typically have GHG emissions associated with its production.g. employee business travel. i. other emissions outside the typical scope of the common categories that are associated with natural gas systems – stationary source combustion. pounds per megawatt-hour). coal-fired and natural-gas fired power and perhaps even some renewable energy sources. GHG emissions are calculated based on: GHG Emissions = Power Consumption x Emission Factor Thus. but increasingly electric utility companies are offering consumers the ability to purchase electricity produced from renewable sources. If a company GHG inventory will be used to report into a regional registry. some utilities rely on coal-fired power stations. and fugitive. and waste transportation and disposal. Other states such as Illinois rely heavily on nuclear power that also accounts for differences. As regional accounting/reporting protocols are developed. In the U. 2008 7. activity data are available based on power consumption records such as utility billings. Further definition of methodologies for “other indirect” or “optional” emissions is likely to expand in the future and reporting/accounting protocols will likely define the methodologies and reporting criteria since the emissions are broadly applicable to many industries. Other types of indirect emissions include employee commuting.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. The indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity are discussed below. Electricity is used by distribution companies for a multitude of uses. nuclear.. Reporting of these emission types has been limited to date. 72 . the Ohio emission factor for purchased electric is 1. Oregon relies primarily on hydroelectric production. such as the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol. region-specific approaches may be proposed for addressing indirect emissions from purchased power.807 lbs of CO2 per MW-hour whereas Oregon is only 235 lbs of CO2 per MW-hour. This can result in broadly disparate emission factors for electricity consumption. For example.. the operator should ensure the indirect emissions are addressed consistent with any defined requirements for that region. the methods provided below are consistent with current standards and should integrate into regional initiatives.2 Methods for Calculating Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity The emission factors for electricity production are presented in units of mass per power (e. The GHG emissions per megawatt will depend on the mix of electrical generation equipment that the utility operates. For instance. while the Ohio uses mainly fossil fuel (i. vented.e.

the Tier 1 emission factors are best used for nationallevel calculations and not for specific plant or pipeline calculations. “Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory. States and provinces that rely more heavily on hydro-electric and nuclear power have lower greenhouse gas emissions. 73 .S. based on State-level averages. Tier 2 Emissions Estimate These same U. is probably the most commonly applied approach.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.S. These factors represent an average of utilities in that region and provide a more accurate emission factor than a single countrywide emission factor. These tables are based on the same references as Table 7-1. For the U.S. Country Canada (CO2eq) U.. In addition to implementing efficiency measures. the Tier 2 estimate. and Canadian reports present emission factors that are specific to each U. and indicate that there is a wide variation of emission factors. The more current emission factors are listed in Table 7-1. As noted above. either a 3-year (1998-2000) or 5-year (1998-2002) average. If a company elects to develop refined emission factors based on known attributes of power providers. companies can reduce their indirect emissions if they opt into such programs. as well as equipment-specific factors based on generator type. therefore. Department of Energy forms in 10CFR part 300 and the 1605b program. including SF6 fugitive losses. (April 2002).S. there can be large differences in the emission factor depending on location. In California. “U.e. State level emissions factors are shown in Table 7-2 and Canadian Provincial factors in CO2eq emissions are presented in Table 7-3. The following sections identify emission estimation tiers based on emission factors that consider geographical averaging. these reports are in the public domain and can be used to determine indirect emissions from electricity production. 2008 usually at a premium to power from traditional generators. 2 U. Other utility companies may follow the U.0192 491 1. Table 7-1: Tier 1 National-Level Emission Factors for Purchased Electricity. The EFs presented in Table 7-3 are based on the average EF for reporting years since 1998 – i.0111 N2O (lb/MWhr) not applicable 0. the emission factors are based on DOE EFs. 1998-2000”. most recently published in 2002 [DOE-EIA 2002]. state or Canadian province.336 2 Canadian emission factor is 1998 – 2002 average CO2eq emissions from Environment Canada Report. Currently. The Environment Canada report presents values since 1990. national average emission factors for the United States and Canada are available. with some provinces reporting through 2002 and others 2000. For Canadian factors. an Environment Canada report published province-specific electricity intensity values as CO2 equivalent emissions [Environment Canada 2004]. State Level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation.S.S.. 1990 – 2002” (August 2004). 1 CO2 (lb/MWhr) 1 CH4 (lb/MWhr) not applicable 0. the Climate Action Registry has forms that allow electric utility companies to estimate GHG emissions. Tier 1 Emissions Estimate To provide an estimate of indirect emissions from electricity purchases. emission factors from DOE Energy Information Administration report.S.

0165 0. 2008 Table 7-2.076 1.0047 0.0090 0.0123 0.0288 0.0089 0.524 1.0037 0.0174 0. State-Level Emission Factors for Purchased ElectricityA. State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee CO2 (lb/MWhr) 1.0289 0.0227 0.0223 0.0254 0.052 798 1.0270 0.394 1.0127 0. U.0108 0.0082 0.0183 0.0206 0.0105 N2O (lb/MWhr) 0.008 1.0068 0.0223 0.0226 0.264 1.0203 0.0565 0.0033 0.0112 0.0154 0.0172 0.0150 0.0146 0.296 CH4 (lb/MWhr) 0.0112 0.0138 0.0321 0.S.0067 0.0203 0.0298 0.294 1.0120 0.0107 0.926 942 1.662 28 1.366 1.0131 0.722 282 1.242 1.0288 0.0053 0.0130 0.0118 0.0125 0.164 2.0214 0.0203 0.518 682 706 2.0129 0.0068 0.242 2.178 852 1.0094 0.0137 0.0323 0.0206 0.0250 0.0121 0.0126 0.0247 0.0081 0.0140 0.0157 0.0339 0.312 1.0118 0.0095 0.0180 0.0159 0.0296 0.0143 0.0132 0.434 1.0089 0.580 1.0105 0.0174 0.0180 0.800 1.0077 0.366 1.0080 0.0068 0.050 1.0219 0.400 1.0147 0.0079 0.0033 0.278 1.286 606 1.366 1.018 858 1.684 2.830 1.0212 74 .AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0141 0.380 1.0195 0.0034 0.0110 0.882 1.840 1.0227 0.

0137 0.S. Canadian Province-Level Emission Factors for Purchased Electricity.eia. State-Level Emission Factors for Purchased ElectricityA Texas 1.146 0. Table 7-3.642 0. Updated State.0138 0. 75 .doe. If this estimation approach is feasible.0077 0.0316 Wisconsin 1. information was not available for 2001 and 2002 emissions.and Regional-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Electricity.0096 0.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.976 0.0192 Washington 246 0.0146 Utah 1.164 0.464 0.html.0147 0.0134 0. U.0040 West Virginia 1.0039 Virginia 1.0260 Wyoming 2.0137 0. and can be accessed at: http:/www.0308 Vermont 28 0.0037 0.gov/oiaf/1605/e-factor. Years in Average CO2eq Province (lb/MWhr) Emission Factor1 Alberta 1952 1998 – 2002 British Columbia 66 1998 – 2002 Manitoba 59 1998 – 2000 New Brunswick 987 1998 – 2000 Newfoundland / Labrador 48 1998 – 2000 Northwest Territories/ Yukon 660 1998 – 2002 Nova Scotia 1624 1998 – 2000 Ontario 559 1998 – 2002 Prince Edward Island 4350 1998 – 2000 Quebec 9 1998 – 2002 Saskatchewan 1914 1998 – 2000 1 For provinces with emission factor based on 1998 – 2000. 2008 Table 7-2 (continued).934 0. The most common regional factors references are provided by the Energy Information Administration. the appropriate pro-rated share of generation would be used in conjunction with the emission factors in Table 7-4 to estimate the indirect emissions from purchased electricity.0338 A Note that reporting protocols for some reporting entities / registries use regional emission factors to estimate indirect emissions from electricity rather than the state-specific emissions factors in this table. Tier 3 Emissions Estimate GHGCalcTM contains emission factors that can be used to estimate emissions from purchased electricity based on a known type or mix of electrical generator.

268 0.16 0. however. since the carbon is not from fossil fuels. 2008 Table 7-4.150 1. both from the construction vehicles used and also in the production of the cement used. Generator Type Gas: Combined Cycle Gas: Combustion Turbine Gas: Steam Turbine Hydroelectric Municipal Solid Waste Nuclear Oil: Combined Cycle Oil: Combustion Turbine Oil: Steam Turbine Other Renewables Pulverized Coal Wood Waste Biomass Burning CO2 (lb/MWhr) CH4 (lb/MWhr) N2O (lb/MWhr) 952 1. GHG Emission Factors Based on Generation Source.002 0 0. Likewise. open-burning of trees and brush cleared for construction would be a GHG emissions source. there are GHGs emitted in the mining of the uranium itself. and also in the construction of the power stations.34 0.970 3.55 0 0.276 0 0 0. Therefore the numbers given above are to be considered production factors and not life cycle factors.015 0. the construction of the dam can produce a very large emission of GHGs.330 2.14 0.013 0.24 0 0 0.452 0 1. Also.400 0.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.04 0.55 It should also be noted that while the day to day production of electricity from hydroelectric dams produces very little GHGs. 76 .021 0. the CO2 emitted from biomass burning for power generation does not count towards an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.05 0 0.560 968 0 3.063 0.747 0 1.02 0 0. while nuclear power produces almost no GHGs on a daily basis.

Global Warming – Publications. Information on Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks http://www. Pipelines and Hazardous Material.climateregistry.ipcc.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissions.doe.greenhouse.aga.gov/ US DOT. http://www.phmsa.org/ United States Department of Energy.gov. http://www.eia.cfm International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association http://www.dot.org Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers http://www.org/ Australian Department of Environment and Heritage.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/ United States EPA. Energy Information Administration.epa.api.org/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.capp.ec.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.ingaa. Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.ca/ Environment Canada.gc.gov/ US Department of Transportation (DOT). Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 2008 Appendix A1: Reference Websites American Gas Association http://www.html United States National Transportation Safety Board.epa.org/ American Petroleum Institute http://www. Office of Pipeline Safety http://ops.dot.au/ California Climate Action Registry http://www.htm 77 .ipieca.gov/ United States Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions http://yosemite.ca/pdb/ghg/ghg_home_e.gov/oar/globalwarming. Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) http://www.ntsb. Australian Greenhouse Office http://www. http://www.ch/ Interstate Natural Gas Association of America http://www.gov/Surface/pipeline/pipeline.

April 2002. Department of Energy. Environment Canada 2003 . 12/31/2005 update.” Final Report. U. October 1999. and Radian International for Gas Technology Canada.S. “Handbook for Estimating Methane Emissions From Canadian Natural Gas Systems”. 2004.Environment Canada. Gas Research Institute Canada (GRI Canada). Workbook for Fuel Combustion Activities (Stationary Sources)”. Guidance for Emissions Inventory Development. September 1997. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2002. August 2003.Canadian Gas Association. CORINAIR90.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.CORINAIR 2005: Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long Range transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe/The Core Inventory of Air Emissions in Europe (EMEP/CORINAIR) “Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook”. Energy Information Administration. CGA 1997 . EIIP Greenhouse Gas Committee.Environment Canada. 1998-2000.1 with Supplements.U. State Level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry. “Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Prepared by Clearstone Engineering Ltd.EIIP.. Guelph."Australian Methodology for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2002). August 2004. 1998 78 . 1994 Plastic Pipe Permeability API 2004 . Washington. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee. American Petroleum Institute 1999 Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) . EEA/CITEPA (CORINAIR94) .. ON. Enerco Engineering Ltd. Australian Greenhouse Office (May 2004). 2008 Appendix A2: References American Gas Association (AGA). 1999. Workbook 1.S. Radian International. Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO). April 2003. Greenhouse Gas Division. Environment Canada. Environment Canada 2004 . Canadian Gas Association Standing Committee on Environment. API. Volume II: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. “1995 Air Emissions Inventory of the Canadian Natural Gas Industry. 3rd Edition. DC. California Climate Action Registry “General Reporting Protocol”. CAPP Publication No. “ENERGY. Energy (Stationary Sources)" National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee. EPA EIIP 1999 . Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2001. Greenhouse Gas Division. Environment Canada. DOE-EIA 2002 . Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2003-03.American Petroleum Institute (API).

GRI/EPA Reports.21 Greenhouse Emissions Calculation Software.1. “Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry”. EPA -600/R-96-080f Volume 7: Blow and Purge Activities GRI 94/00257. Draft Memorandum.Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)/ American Petroleum Institute (API)/ American Gas Association (AGA) “Natural Gas Systems GHG Emission Factor Comparison & Improvement Collaborative Project”. INGAA/API/AGA 2005 . GRI.21.GRI/U. EPA -600/R-96-080m Volume 14: Glycol Dehydrators GRI 94/00257.31. Volume 1: Executive Summary GRI 94/00257. June 1996.E.27. McCarthy J. EPA -600/R-96-080n Volume 15: Gas Assisted Glycol Pumps GRI 94/00257.25.Gas Research Institute (GRI) “GRI GHGCalc Version 1.International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) “Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (December 2003) IPCC 1995 ... EPA -600/R-96-080g Volume 8: Equipment Leaks GRI 94/00257.26.29. . January 2002. EPA -600/R-96-080d Volume 5: Activity Factors GRI 94/00257. .AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. EPA -600/R-96-080i Volume 10: Metering and Pressure Regulating Stations in Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution GRI 94/00257. Panek J. Westberg H. EPA -600/R-96-080c Volume 4: Statisical Methodology GRI 94/00257. EPA -600/R-96-080a Volume 2: Technical Reports GRI 94/00257. EPA -600/R-96-080l Volume 13: Chemical Injection Pumps GRI 94/00257.. November 2005. Climate Change 1995” IPCC 2001 .0 Emission Factor Documentation”. Czepiel P.K.B. Kolb C.24. Hariss R. . EPA -600/R-96-080h Volume 9: Underground Pipelines GRI 94/00257. . Crill P..35 July 1996 Gas Research institute (GRI) – “Nitrous Oxide Emissions form Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines”. IPIECA 2003 . GRI-94/0257. Gas Research Institute software version 1. GRI-99/0086 December 1999 GRI/EPA 1996 .EPA “Identification and Evaluation of Opportunities to Reduce Methane Losses at Four Gas Processing Plants” 2002. EPA -600/R-96-080o GRI/EPA 2002 .30. EPA -600/R-96-080e Volume 6: Vented and Combustion Source Summary GRI 94/00257. Gas Research Institute (GRI) GHGCalcTM.. EPA -600/R-96-080b Volume 3: General Methodology GRI 94/00257. 2008 GRI 2001 . McManus J.23.20.33. Kashinkunti R.S. July 2001 and GRI-GHGCalc 1.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001” 79 .M.22. EPA -600/R-96-080j Volume 11: Compressor Driver Exhaust GRI 94/00257.. Gas Research Institute (GRI) “Oxidation of Methane in Soils from Underground Natural Gas Pipeline Leaks” Lamb B.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Second Assessment Report.28. EPA -600/R-96-080k Volume 12: Pneumatic Devices GRI 94/00257.0. McGrath T.M.

“Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002”. 80 . January 2004). EPA 430-R003. March.C. Fifth Edition. U. (Class 11. North American Combustion handbook.”US Environmental Protection Agency. DC. U.World Resources Institute/World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD). United States Department of Energy (US DOE) “Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting” 10 CFR part 300. 1999. 2008 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) “Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”. 2004. (Washington.S. 35 FR part 13257.2003.S. (April 2005) EPA 1995 . Energy Information Administration (US EIA). United Nations Environment Programme. Priority Action) (P-91-12). U. the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Fluid Flow”. page 2. Reference Manual (Volume 3)”.87. and Supplement F. EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017).S. 1996.16. US EPA OAQPS. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol . and C. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001”. 2000 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) “US Emissions Inventory 2005: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 . Table 2. AP-42 (GPO 055-000-005-001). “Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources”. Department of Energy. Department of Energy. Heat Transfer. January 1995 with Supplements A. 3rd Ed. DOE/EIA-0573(2001). B. 1995. Priority Action)(P-91-17) WRI/WBCSD 2004 . “Volume I: Combustion Fuels. 1970. the International Energy Agency. Stoichiometry.S.S. RIN 1901-AB11 (March 2005) United States Department of Energy (US DOE) Office of Policy and International Affairs “Draft Technical Guidelines Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1065b) Program. amended by 49 CFR part 192. 1998 errata updated 4/28/00. National Transportation Safety Board (US NTSB) Safety Recommendations (Class 11. 1996. Department of Transportation (US DOT).. Nov. Supplement E.A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Washington. D.U. 1986. Energy Information Administration (US EIA). May 2000 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Research and Special Programs Administration. Chapter 2 (Energy). subpart H US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Supplement D. December 2002.” Office of Policy and Internal Affairs United States Department of Energy” (March 2005) U.. and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

g.0353 Mscf mbar = 0.623 lb/station tonnes/station-yr = 2204.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.4 lb/mile-yr tonnes/MMm3 = 62. 2008 Appendix B: Unit Conversion Table for GHG Calculations Metric to English Conversion Table for Common Units g methane = 0.3279 lb CO2eq/MMBTU kg CO2eq/kwh = 1.6439 lb CO2eq/hp-hr m3/component-yr = 0. tonnes CO2eq = Tonnes (i.0263 ft3/hp/yr 3 m /plant-yr = 0. metric tons = 1000 kg) carbon equivalent = Tonnes of emissions of the GHG gas tonnesgas GWPgas = Global Warming Potential of the gas (e.e.622 lb/compressor-yr tonnes/km-yr = 3548.057 Mscf/mile-yr 3 m /MW/yr = 0.62 lb/well-hr tonnes/compressor-yr = 2204.6226 lb/well-yr Conversion for Global Warming Potential tonnes CO2eq = tonnesgas * GWPgas where.6226 lb/station-yr tonnes/well-yr = 2204.62 lb/station-hr tonne/well-hr = 2204.002328 lb/MMBTU tonne/station-hr = 2204..43 lb/MMft3 tonnes/Station = 2204..0624 lb/yr/ft3 gas withdrawn Gg/yr/km = 3548366 lb/yr/mile kg CO2eq/GJ = 2.035 Mscf/plant-yr tonne/compressor-hr = 2204.92 ft3/mile/psi/yr m3/km-yr = 0.053 scf Methane tonne = 2204.62 lb/compressor-hr tonne/km-hr = 3548.02 hp (international) J = 0. 21 for methane) 81 .000947 BTU Gg/PJ = 2.4 lb/mile-hr tonne/PJ = 0.2046 lb km = 0.3147 ft3 m3 = 0.62 lb kg = 2.035 Mscf/Component-yr m3/km/mbar/y = 3918.3279 lb/MMBTU 6 3 Gg/yr/10 m gas withdrawn = 0.6213 mile 3 m = 35.014504 psi MW = 1341.

543 Industrial ICE Gasoline 9. Guidance for Emissions Inventory Development. October 1999. B.952 2.918 4.262 Gas Turbine Diesel 14.000 – 6.4 (Btu/hp-hr) * MMBtu/10 Btu (MMBtu/hp-hr) P = horsepower rating at 100% load (hp) L = average annual fractional operating load = average operating hp/P H = annual operating hours (hr/yr) η = thermal efficiency at average operating load (0 < η < 1.55 E-3 = 2.503 ICE Diesel 10.75 7.47 – 1.13 10. Power Output to Energy Input Conversions for Prime Movers (API 2004) Conversion Factor (HHV Basis) Service Fuel Btu/kw-hr Btu/hp-hr J (in)/J (out) Combined Cycle Turbine Diesel 12. EPA.676 Gas Turbine NG 13.55 10-3 * P * L * H * 1/η Where: 6 Eqn.41 8. AP-42. 2008 Appendix C: Support Information for Combustion Emissions Appendix C-1: Energy Output to Input Conversions for Prime Movers Annual heat input to an ICE or turbine employed as a prime mover can be estimated from the combustion equipment output power using a thermal efficiency factor.00 7. Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) = P * L * H * CF * 10-6 MMBtu/Btu Where: Eqn.000 Combined Heat & Power NG 5. 82 .0) If the thermal efficiency is not known. has been measured or provided by the manufacturer).648 3.64 9. Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) = 2. Supplements A.538 3.381 Sources: American Petroleum Institute (API) “Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies For the Oil and Gas Industry” (February 2004).3-1.76 Combined Cycle Steam Turbine NG 10.379 ICE NG 10.653 2. Table 3.729 – 4. equation C1-2 can estimate the annual heat input for an ICE or turbine based on the output power and a default output/input conversion factor. Volume II: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions.847 3. and C.628 w/Supplemental Firing Combined Cycle Single Shaft NG 8.18 8. C1-1 2. October 1996.000 3.387 2. equation C1-1 can be used to estimate the annual heat input for an ICE or turbine based on the output power. EIIP.54 6.858 Combined Cycle Combustion NG 11.502 3.08 10.09 7.089 Steam Turbine (Boiler) Diesel 8.08 7.554.085 4.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.229 3.474 1.686 Turbine Steam Turbine (Boiler) NG 10.62 6.420 3. C1-2 CF = power output to energy input conversion factor – refer to Table C1-1 (Btu/hp-hr) Table C1-1. EIIP Greenhouse Gas Committee. If the thermal efficiency of a device is known (e.g.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 Appendix C-2: Fuel Composition Conversions: Mole Percentage, Weight Percentage, Carbon Mole Percentage, and Carbon Weight Percentage Convert between weight % per compound in a mixture and mole % per compound mole%i = wt%i * MWmixture/MWi Where: mole%i = molar percentage of compound i in a mixture wt%i = weight percentage of compound i in a mixture MWmixture = molecular weight of a mixture (lb/lbmole) MWi = molecular weight of compound i (lb/lbmole) wt%i = mole%i * MWi/MWmixture Eqn. C2-2 Eqn. C2-1

Conversely,

If the fuel is in the gas phase, then, according to the ideal gas law, the volume percentage of compound i in a mixture (vol%i ) equals the mole%i. A mixture of compounds molecular weight can be calculated using equation C2-3 and equation C2-4. MWmixture = 1/100 * ∑(mole%i * MWi), i = 1, # compounds in mixture MWmixture = 100 / ∑(Wt%i/MWi), i = 1, # compounds in mixture Eqn. C2-3 Eqn. C2-4

Table C2-1 lists molecular weights of hydrocarbons and other compounds typically found in fuels and waste gases. Table C2-1. Molecular Weights of Hydrocarbons and Other Fuel Constituents. Compound Molecular Weight wt% C Nitrogen N2 28.02 0.0 Oxygen O2 32.00 0.0 Water H2O 18.02 0.0 Sulfur Dioxide SO2 64.06 0.0 Hydrogen Sulfide H2 S 34.08 0.0 Carbon Monoxide CO 28.01 42.88 Carbon Dioxide CO2 44.01 27.29 Methane CH4 16.04 74.88 Ethane C2H6 30.07 79.88 Propane C3H8 44.10 81.70 Butanes C4H10 58.12 82.66 Pentanes C5H12 72.15 83.23 Hexanes C6H12 86.18 83.62 Heptanes C7H16 100.21 83.89 Octanes C8H18 114.23 84.09 Nonanes C9H20 128.25 84.28 Decanes C10H22 142.28 84.41 C11+ * C11H24 156.31 84.52 * Assume MW C11+ = MW C11H24; wt%C = weight percentage of Carbon in compound 83

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 Convert from compound weight % in a mixture to Carbon weight % in a mixture Cmix wt% = ∑ [(wt%i/100) * (wt%Ci/100)] * 100; (i = 1, # compounds in mixture) Eqn. C2-5 Where: wt%i = weight percentage of compound i in a mixture wt%Ci = weight percentage of C in compound i (Table C2-1) Cmix wt% = weight percentage of C in mixture

Convert from compound mole % in a mixture to Carbon weight % in a mixture Cmix wt% = ∑ [(mole%i/100) * MWi/MWmixture * (wt%Ci/100)] * 100; (i = 1, # compounds in mixture) Eqn. C2- 6 Convert from Carbon weight % in a mixture to Carbon mole % in a mixture Cmix mole% = C wt% * MWmixture/MWC Where: C mole% = molar percentage of Carbon in a mixture MWC = molecular weight of Carbon (12.01 lb/lbmole) Eqn. C2- 7

84

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18, 2008 Appendix C-3: AP-42 Emission Factor Quality Ratings A – Excellent. Emission factor is developed from primarily A- and B-rated source test data taken from many randomly chosen facilities in the industry population. The source category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability. B – Above Average. Emission factor is developed from primarily A- and B-rated source test data taken from a moderate number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample of the industry. As with the A-rating, the source category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability. C – Average. Emission factor is developed from primarily A- , B-, and C-rated source test data taken from a reasonable number of facilities, and there may be reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent a random sample of the industry. As with the A-rating, the source category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability. D – Below Average. Emission factor is developed from primarily A- , B-, and C-rated source test data taken from a small number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample of the industry. There may also be evidence of variability within the source category population. E – Poor. Emission factor is developed from primarily C-, and D-rated source test data taken from a very few number of facilities, and there may be reason to suspect the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There may also be evidence of variability within the source category population. U – Unrated. Emission factor is developed from source tests which have not been thoroughly evaluated. Research papers, modeling data, or other sources that may lack supporting documentation. The data are not necessarily “poor’, but there is not enough data to rate the factors according to the rating protocol. “U” ratings are commonly found in L&E documents and FIRE rather than AP-42.

85

and motorcycles (pre-1996) are assumed to not have any significant control technologies in place. and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valves. EGR. and applied to light duty gasoline vehicles beginning in 1994. which also helps meet vehicle NOx standards. Non-catalyst: These emission controls were common in gasoline passenger cars and light duty gasoline trucks during model years (1973-1974) but passed out thereafter. Emissions reductions were met through the use of more advanced emission control systems. and in motorcycles beginning in 1996. These advanced emission control systems included advance 3-way catalysts.1 g/mile for NOx and 0. electronically controlled fuel injection and ignition timing. and advanced computer diagnostics systems and advanced and close coupled catalysts with secondary air injection. all categories of LEVs are treated the same due to the fact that there are very limited CH4 or N2O emission factor data for LEVs to distinguish among the different types of vehicles. Gasoline light-duty cars and trucks (pre-1973). This technology reduces hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions through adjustments to ignition timing and air-fuel ratio. in heavy-duty gasoline vehicles beginning in the 1980’s.25 g/mile. EPA Tier 1 – This emission standard created through the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act limited passenger car NOx emissions to 0. In this analysis. LEV includes multi-port fuel injection with adaptive learning . and super ultra-low EVs (SULEVs).AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 2008 Appendix C-4: Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Emissions Controls Gasoline Powered Vehicles Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) . gasoline heavy-duty vehicles (pre-1984). For light duty trucks. LEVs as defined here include transitional LEVs (TLEVs). Uncontrolled: Vehicles manufactured prior to the implementation of pollution control technologies are designated as uncontrolled. Applied to light duty gasoline passenger cars and trucks beginning in small numbers in the mid-1990s. 86 .This emission standard requires a much higher emission control level than the Tier 1 standard. air injection into the exhaust manifold.25 to 0. Depending on the weight of the truck. and HC emissions to 0. LEVs. and air injection.4 g/mile. ultra-low EVs (ULEVs).4 to 1. this standard set emissions at 0.39 g/mile for HCs. diesel vehicles (pre-1983).

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 2008 Appendix D: List of Acronyms 1605b AGA AGO API BMP CAPP CARROT CCAR CCME CDM CEPA CIEEDAC CFR CGA CH4 CI CMA CNG CO2 CO2eq COP CSA DI&M DOE DOT EC EIIP EPA GHG GRI GWP INGAA IAOGP IPCC IPIECA JI LAUF LDAR LDC LEL LNG LPG Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 American Gas Association Australian Greenhouse Gas Office American Petroleum Institute Best Management Practice Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool California Climate Action Registry Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Clean Development Mechanism Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre Code of Federal Regulations Canadian Gas Association Methane Continuous Improvement Chemical Manufacturers' Association Compressed Natural Gas Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Conference of Parties Canadian Standards Association Directed Inspection and Maintenance Department of Energy Department of Transportation Environment Canada Emissions Inventory Improvement Program Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gases Gas Research Institute Global Warming Potential Interstate Natural Gas Association of America International Association of Oil & Gas Producers Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association Joint Implementation Lost and Unaccounted For Leak Detection and Repair Local Distribution Company Lower Explosive Limit Liquefied Natural Gas Liquefied Petroleum Gas 87 .

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. 2008 MMscf Mt MW N2O NBS NMVOCs NPS NTSB OPS OVA PM ppm PRV PUP PUPC PVC QA QC SDR SF6 SOCMI THC TJ UNFCC U. Environmental Protection Agency Voluntary Challenge and Registry Volatile Organic Compound World Resources Institute / World Business Council for Sustainable Development 88 . EPA VCR VOC WRI/WBCSD Million Standard Cubic Feet of a gas Megatonne Megawatt Nitrous Oxide National Bureau of Standards Non-methane Volatile Organic Compounds Nominal Pipe Size National Transportation Safety Board Office of Pipeline Safety Organic Vapour Analyzer Planned Maintenance Parts Per Million Pressure Relief Valve Power/Utility Protocol Power/Utility Certification Protocol Polyvinyl chloride Quality Assurance Quality Control Standard Dimension Ratio Sulfur hexa-Fluoride Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Total Hydrocarbons Terajoules (1012 joules) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change U.S.S.

1990 and 1998.341 Gg. Variations in Yearly CH4 Emissions reported in US EPA Emission Inventories 1990 Emissions 1998 Emissions U.416 2006 1. particularly from 1996 to 2004.416 Table E-1. the data appear to show a trend of decreasing methane emissions.367 1. The decrease in emissions was attributed to an increased use of plastic piping. M&R stations. This level of uncertainty in the emissions estimate is larger than the decrease in emissions and limits the analysis that can be conducted. and the data can vary from one emissions inventory to the next as the emission factors and methodology used are improved. CH4 Emissions from Natural Gas Distribution System (Gg) (continued) Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Emissions (Gg CH4) 1. The reported Distribution sector’s methane emissions are 13 percent lower in 2004 than in 1990. Emission Inventory Report Year (Gg CH4) (Gg CH4) 2000 1.281 1.441 1. the 2000 emissions inventory listed the Distribution sectors methane emissions from 1998 as 1.470 1. 2008 Appendix E: Historical GHG Emissions Information for the Natural Gas Distribution Sector The emissions of greenhouse gases from the U. The total annual methane emissions from the distribution sector were estimated at 77.gov/oar/globalwarming. Figure E-1 shows the largest sources of methane emissions.553 1.369 1.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Table E-1 compares the methane emissions from 1990 to 2004 as calculated by EPA. natural gas industry Distribution sector has varied slightly over the past 15 years based on U. while the 2006 emissions inventory lists the 1998 emissions as 1.html The data in the table above are from two different emission inventories calculated by the U. The yearly emissions estimates calculated by the US EPA have uncertainties on the order of + 40 percent. EPA reports. The reason for this is that the EPA recalculates the previous emission inventories each year. http://yosemite. 1999 – 2004 Data from the “US Emissions Inventory 2006”. For instance.496 1. the miles of pipeline increased from slightly more than 944. 89 .135. During the period shown in the table.341 Despite the minor fluctuations in the yearly Distribution sector methane emissions. Both are available on the United States EPA Website. Table E-3.504 1.499 1.S. and found that the three largest GHG emissions contributors were fugitive emissions from underground pipeline leaks. and customer meters.477 1.000 miles in 2004.291 1990 – 1998 Data from the “US Emissions Inventory 2000”.441 1.S. The 1996 GRI/EPA study estimated the emissions from the Distribution sector in 1992.416 Gg.477 1. EPA.0 Bscf.S.535 1.407 1.S. CH4 Emissions from Natural Gas Distribution System (Gg) Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Emissions (Gg CH4) 1.epa.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissions.000 miles in 1990 to 1. Table E-1. which has lower fugitive losses than other piping types. Table E-3.239 1. compares the Distribution sector emissions for two years.

Distribution companies cost) and the estimated annual value of Distribution sector gas losses are shown in Table E-4. 2008 Estimated US Annual (1992) Methane Emissions (Bcf) from the Natural Gas Distribution Sector Other. then the natural gas loss is 72.eia. To determine the lost gas cost.9 Customer Meters. 90 . by dividing the methane gas volume lost by the average methane composition fraction to get the natural gas loss. the U. S. This is natural gas that was paid for by the LDCs but not delivered to a customer. 54. 35. DOE Energy Information Administration website. CH4 source apportionment for Distribution sector.291 Gg) represents current Distribution sector losses and an average methane content of 93. National City Gate natural gas price was obtained from the U. (http://www.5 Bscf (1.5 Underground Pipeline Leaks.4% is also assumed. 7. The 2006 City Gate gas price is based on the average price from January to May 2006.S. If it is assumed that the 2004 emissions estimate of 67.1 Underground Pipeline Leaks Meter and Pressure Regulating Stations Customer Meters Other Figure E-1.5 Meter and Pressure Regulating Stations. There are two methods to estimate the lost revenue to the Distribution sector from the methane emissions.doe. The first is to look at the cost to the Distribution companies of the gas lost. 2.2 Bscf per year.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.html ) The average annual City Gate gas price (i.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/pricesbystate.e.

2*10 584 2005 9. that is. The value of the lost gas (i. Similarly.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Table E-5 lists the estimated annual value of Distribution sector gas losses based on a average annual customer prices determined form DOE/EIA data.09 72. 2008 Table E-4. for 2005.2*10 524 6 2006 9. the value of the lost gas was about $660 million based on the customer price.15 72. estimate the lost gas value based on the selling price (lost revenue).e.2*106 459 6 2005 7. lost revenue) was about $580 million in 2004. Value of Distribution Sector Natural Gas Losses – Price Basis Natural Gas Price Gas Lost Cost of Lost Gas Year ($/Mscf) (Mscf) (MM$/year) 6 2004 8. Value of Distribution Sector Natural Gas Losses – Cost Basis Natural Gas Cost Gas Lost Cost of Lost Gas Year ($/Mscf) (Mscf) (MM$/year) 2004 6.2*106 664 91 .26 72. compared to about $520 million when the losses are based on the company gas cost. Table E-5.19 72.36 72. The second method to estimate the lost revenue for the distribution sector from natural gas emissions is to calculate the revenue that is not collected from selling the lost natural gas to customers.2*10 661 Table E-4 shows that the annual cost of the natural gas that is lost by the distribution sector has ranged from approximately 460 to 660 million dollars a year for the past three years. compared to about $460 million when the losses are based on the company gas cost.

The examples in this Appendix are intended to encompass a range of source types and provide insightful guidance to the end user attempting to apply this guideline document. The pipeline compositions and ratios are fabricated and may or may not be representative of individual company installations. Any similarity to any existing distribution company or subsidiaries is strictly coincidental.Appendix F Example GHG Calculations & Observations on Inventory Development and Emission Factor Improvement for Distribution Sources Disclaimer: The examples and sources presented below are for a fictitious distribution company. 92 .

The actual GHG emissions from any company may be less or more than the “industrial average” represented by the emission factor. Based on industry experience. and international operations. an estimate for participation in a voluntary reporting program. representativeness. or as directed by their corporate offices. distribution companies that are subsidiaries may be required to follow the guidelines and collect data in similar detail to that used by other subsidiary companies. vented. operations. In addition. In addition. These companies may determine that the inventory will be divided between U. customer service. It may be necessary to set up a multi-disciplinary team to ensure that the activity data is collected efficiently and that it reflects the most accurate and current data. etc. This should include a determination of how the inventory is to be internally and externally reviewed. emissions calculation and reporting based on operational control or equity share for co-owned facilities). emissions calculated using emission factors assume that the distribution company operates equipment in a similar manner to the dataset that served as the basis for the emission factor. defined by a Registry for voluntary reporting) may need to be considered (e. American Consolidated Distribution Company.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. In some cases there are multiple sources of similar information that must be reviewed. and indirect electricity use. Once the data has been collected and the inventory has been completed. an estimate to determine areas where GHG reductions may be available. and selected based on accuracy. there is usually an objective for this effort. accounting and legal departments may all need to provide and review data. In addition. For example.. which may be more than ten years old. For instance. prioritized. For example.S. fleet management. may need to determine how the effort relates to reporting requirements in other countries where operations occur and also to determine where and to whom the emissions should be reported.. so a company will need to determine the inventory purpose and level of effort necessary to calculate the emissions estimate. Records of activity data sources should be kept to facilitate future annual inventories and to expedite external or internal audits. each company will need to determine if and to whom the inventory will be reported. period of record. verified. it is apparent that the effort required to collect and analyze the necessary activity data far exceeds the time needed to perform the emission calculations. discussion is provided regarding user experiences for inventory calculations and initial indications from field measurements designed to improve emission factors from key distribution sources. mobile source.g. In addition to the GHG example calculations. or an estimate to compare emissions to industry peers. Companies with operations outside the U.S. 2008 Background on Getting Started and Assumptions for Example Calculations This Appendix provides example GHG inventory calculations to facilitate user implementation of the AGA GHG Emission Estimation Guidelines. or audited. maintenance. When embarking on estimation of annual greenhouse gas emissions or the “carbon footprint” from a distribution company. Activity data will be needed from many departments within the company. fugitive. The calculations are based on assumed activity date for a fictitious company.g. completeness. Uncertainty and accuracy will vary for different types of emission sources. the GHG inventory may be an initial estimate to acclimate the company with GHG issues. The calculations are provided for Tier 2 and Tier 3 estimates for emission sources including combustion. the result is an emissions estimate. and a more precise determination of emissions for some 93 . The data collection process for inventory development can be burdensome. The calculated emissions will have inherent uncertainties within the activity data and emission factors. reporting criteria (e. and are not intended to represent any actual company.

400 1.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Second Assessment Report. equivalent to the emission factor basis so that no further adjustment is required. To aid in the understanding of inventory development. In some cases. 2001) 1 23 296 550 3.900 22. for simplicity in this example it is assumed that line heaters run at 100% capacity from December through March. Key Assumptions / Activity Data Activity data and company characteristics are fictitious and assumed for this example. IPCC 2001 .4 percent – i. the IPCC.g. but these are not included in this example.500 9.200 GWP (FARC. a ratio of the actual methane content (i.300 5. It is assumed that the methane composition of all of the natural gas is 93.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Thus. owns and operates a distribution system in nine states and has a total of 27. although some emission factor-based estimates may include considerable uncertainty. IPCC 1996 .e. For an actual company. from mobile sources) are included in inventory calculations. Similarly.. American Consolidated Distribution Company (ACDC).200 23. and nitrous oxide (N2O).900 GWP (TARB. 1996) 1 21 310 650 2. x mole % / 93.. Should the user need to adjust the multipliers. IPCC 2007 .g. Table 1 presents a summary of these values from IPCC reports. For combustion calculations based on a fuel analysis. Unless otherwise noted. fuel usage) may be available. methane (CH4).Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007” 94 . it is assumed that units operate continuously at high load. Note that if the methane composition varies from the emission factor basis.800 1. it is assumed that the carbon weight percent is 75% and the molecular weight is 19.346 miles of service pipelines. 2007) 1 25 298 1. pertinent refrigerants (e. For example. Table 1. as follows.5 lb/lbmole. Climate Change 1996” B. this Appendix shows the calculation of an annual greenhouse gas inventory for a hypothetical natural gas distribution company with multiple subsidiaries.e. the examples below assume that the CO2 content of the natural gas is equivalent to the emission factor basis (i. When available. Greenhouse gases to be estimated include carbon dioxide (CO2)..700 11. maximum usage over extended periods is unlikely and actual operating data (e. alternative approaches may not be viable at this time. Climate Change 1996 global warming potential (GWP) values are used in this example.500 miles of mains and 17.430 22. Greenhouse Gas CO2 CH4 N2O HFC-32 HFC-125 HFC-134a Perfluoromethane (CF4) Perfluoroethane (C2F6) SF6 GWP (SARA.4 mole %) should be applied to the emission calculation. 100 Year Global Warming Potential Values for Primary Reported GHGs. To report emissions on a CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) basis.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001” C.800 A. Second Assessment Report. actual operating data can be used to reduce the uncertainty associated with estimated or assumed activity data. 2008 source types may be impossible or cost prohibitive. 2 mole percent).300 6.e.

but one recommendation is numeric round-off. and indirect emissions. This Appendix example is not intended to include every source type and tier.. The activity data and emission factors are consistent with the AGA Guidelines. Tier 1 represents the most simplistic emissions estimate. reflecting an appropriate number of reported significant digits. Information is presented in tables. To facilitate an understanding of the information in the tables below. mobile sources. as well as total CO2eq. and do not consider factors such as equipment age. type. Emission Factor tables will be sequentially numbered with an “EF” prefix (e.. 95 . Table GHG-1).g. 2008 The listed emission factors used for the calculations have the same values and significant figures as presented in the reference documents. This Appendix does not address Tier 1 emissions estimates. and Tables presenting calculated emissions will be sequentially numbered with a “GHG” prefix (e. Tier 1 estimates are typically associated with national inventories or initial company estimates where more detailed data are not readily available. and includes: • • • Activity data. Tier 1 default emissions factors are based on a high-level indicator of corporate activity (e.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. rather the calculations presented below are intended to illustrate many of the estimation methods and data gathering activities necessary to compile activity data and execute the calculations necessary to prepare the emissions inventory. Table EF-1). and Calculated emissions. Slight differences in reported values may exists due to rounding and the number of significant figures used.. Calculated emissions are typically reported by gas. Table AD-1). miles of pipe exclusive of any other consideration). the following Table numbering scheme will be used: • • • Activity Data tables will be sequentially numbered with an “AD” prefix (e..g. fugitive and vented.g. should be performed only at the final stage of creating an emissions inventory to prevent compounding inaccuracy through the various calculation steps. Reporting criteria may be defined by the “registry” or reporting regime. These insignificant differences may also result when comparing the emissions totals from different tables depending on the number of significant figures relied upon in the calculations. and requires the least detailed input information. Example Calculations Format In the sections that follow. or size. example calculations are presented for combustion.g. Emission factors.

5 2.0 316.5 lb/lbmole. fuel usage and fuel analysis would be used to directly calculate combustion CO2 emissions. I.3 May include percent load if data are available.476. Subsidiary Companies in the nine states provided information on the heat input rate for all the boilers and line heaters operated. WA 21. If available.680. The resulting fuel usage in MMBtu was converted to MMscf using annual average heat content (HHV basis) of natural gas of 1010 Btu per standard cubic foot.848. analogous calculations would be completed.8 90.0 129.904 2.1 Combustion Emissions Example Calculations Combustion Activity Data for American Consolidated Distribution Company American Consolidated Distribution Company (ACDC) operates external combustion sources such as line heaters and boilers.5 31.0 2. 2008 I. respectively.2 Combustion Emission Factors Tables EF-1 and EF-2 present the Tier 2 and 3 GHG emissions factors for external combustion sources.440. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 estimates are provided in Tables GHG-1 and GHG-2. the flowcharts in Section 3 of the GHG Guidelines 96 . it is assumed that the carbon weight percent is 75% in all cases and the molecular weight is 19. alternatively. B Calculated using annual average natural gas heat content of 1010 Btu per standard cubic foot. A AL.0 34.616 319. MA. Table AD-1: Natural Gas Usage by External Combustion Sources American Site Rated Consolidated Maximum Heat Distribution Hours Input Rates Gas Usage Gas Usage Company Operated A MMBtu/hour Subsidiary State(s) in 200X (MMBtu/year) (MMscf/year)B East Coast Gas Co.0 11. For this example.904 130.4 Midwest Gas Co.904 annual hours. To ensure a conservative estimate. For all combustion calculations. Note that for Tier 3 estimates. The fuel usage for each state can be found in Table AD-1 below. for internal combustion engines such as emergency generators. PA 45. MD.436. each was assumed to operate at 100 percent capacity during the winter months from December 1st to March 31st for a total of 2. I.. or. TX OR.904 34.0 91. West Coast Gas Co.904 62. While not presented here. WI 12.e.0 61. LA. an assumed average analysis).0 2. from a source specific analysis.6 TOTAL 110. and methane and N2O emission estimates would be based on emission factors.5 South Gas Co. CO2 emissions from combustion are based on carbon content of the natural gas (i.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. Line heaters are required to ensure that gas temperature is sufficient to avoid icing in pipelines and at meter and regulator stations.

Table GHG-1 is the initial table presenting calculated emissions. 3-10 (natural gas) Where: tonneCO2j = estimated annual CO2 emissions from combustion of fuel j (tonne/yr) QGFj = scf fuel j combusted/yr MWFj = fuel molecular weight = lb fuel j/lbmole fuel j Cj wt%/100 = carbon weight percent/100 = lb C/lb fuel j 4. Table EF-1: Tier 2 CO2 Emission Factors for Combustion.g. 2008 should be consulted to determine the optimum method for estimating combustion CO2 considering the activity data available for the facility and unit of interest. Fuel NG: HHV = 1000 – 1025 Btu/scf Natural Gas Natural Gas Activity Data MMBtu/ yr MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr GHG CO2 CH4 N2O EF 5. These footnotes are not repeated for subsequent tables..3 scf fuel) * 1/MWC (lbmole C/12 lb C) * lbmole CO2/lbmole C * MWCO2 (44 lb CO2/lbmole CO2) * tonne/2204. correction for GWP to determine CO2eq).0*10-6 9.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. but similar methodology is applied throughout the calculations that follow.8*10-7 tonne/ MMBtu* tonne/ MMBtu* tonneCO2j = 4. and this table includes footnotes that explain the calculation in more detail (e. Boiler/Heater External Combustion Boiler/Heater Activity Data GHG EF EF Units See equation below (Eqn 3-10 from Guidelines) MMBtu/yr MMBtu/yr CH4 N2O 1.38 * 10-6 * QGFj * MWFj * Cj wt%/100 * COX Eqn.7*10-6 9.995 for natural gas 97 .3*10-2 4.5*10-8 EF Units tonne/ MMBtu tonne/ MMBtu tonne/ MMBtu Table EF-2: Tier 3 Combustion Emission Factors Fuel NG NG NG Comb Technology Fuel mass balance approach External Combustion.38 * 10-6 = Mol Vol (lbmole fuel/379.6 lb COX = Fraction of Fuel C Oxidized = 0.

MA.03 16.61 0.50 0..e.0 16.846.0 1. 98 .4 3. TX 34. PA 130.0 Total 319.01 4.1 West Coast Gas OR. CO2 (tonnes) + CH4 (tonnes) x 21 + N2O (tonnes) x 310 = total CO2 eq (tonnes) For the purpose of comparing and contrasting the different emissions estimation Tiers. Gas Usage State(s) (MMBtu/year) MD.476.01 Total CO2eq (tonnes)D 6. emissions estimates may either increase or decrease.9 3.29 N2O (tonnes)C 0. C Calculated by multiplying annual gas usage MMBtu/year from Table AD-1 above by 0.926.3 A Calculated by multiplying annual gas usage MMBtu/year from Table AD-1 above by 0. B Calculated by multiplying annual gas usage MMBtu/year from Table AD-1 above by 0. Midwest Gas Co.317..2 0. It should be noted that as higher tiers are sought. South Gas Co.851.0 CO2 (tonnes)A 6.0000047 tonnes of CH4 per MMBtu.01 0. LA.436. care must be taken to avoid double counting or missing emissions or sources.000000095 tonnes of N2O per MMBtu.848. D CO2eq emissions are calculated based on applying the IPCC SAR GWP from Table 1 to the respective gas – i.309.860.0 4.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.971.3 1. 2008 Table GHG-1: American Consolidated Distribution Company GHG Tier 2 Combustion Emission Estimates Hypothetical Gas Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co.942.848.00 0.440. If different Tiers are used within a company or subsystem.680.930. WA 91. Co.0 62.16 0. Table GHG-2 presents the corresponding Tier 3 combustion GHG estimates using the activity data contained in Table AD-1.43 0.0 WI AL.8 1.053 tonnes of CO2 per MMBtu. The objective of implementing a higher Tier is to reduce the emissions estimate uncertainty.1 CH4 (tonnes)B 0.

PA WI AL. WA 90.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.198.03 0. TX Gas Usage (MMscf) 129.75 (i.0 34.3 319.38 * 10-6 = Mol Vol (lbmole fuel/379.5 E06 scf natural gas combusted per year MW = assumed 19.6 20.0 8.959.995 = 2. 2008 Table GHG-2: American Consolidated Distribution Company GHG Tier 3 Combustion Emission Estimates Hypothetical Gas Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co. South Gas Co.13 0.848.680.5 61.804.3 20.9 tonnes CO2 99 . MA.3 3.38 * 10-6 * 34.4 34.13 0.0 62.3 scf fuel) * 1/MWC (lbmole C/12 lb C) * lbmole CO2/lbmole C * MWCO2 (44 lb CO2/lbmole CO2) * tonne/2204.995 for natural gas Therefore: tonneCO2 = 4. LA.e.5 * 0.6 91.6 2.06 0. assumption that carbon content of gas is 75 wt%) 4. OR.198.03 0.8 West Coast Gas Co.75 * 0.0 Total 316.774..31 Total CO2eq (tonnes) 8. Midwest Gas Co.0 2.1 CH4 (tonnes) 0.06 0.247.9A 3.440.5E06 * 19.5 lb /lbmole Cj wt%/100 = 75/100 = 0.8 Gas Usage (MMBtu / CO2 (tonnes) year) 130.263.476.0 5.0 A Carbon dioxide calculation as follows: tonneCO2 = 4. State(s) MD.6 lb COX = Fraction of Fuel C Oxidized = 0.09 0.32 N2O (tonnes) 0.38 * 10-6 * QGFj * MWFj * Cj wt%/100 * COX Where: tonneCO2 = estimated annual CO2 emissions from combustion of natural gas (tonne/yr) QGFj = 34.290.210.09 0.939.436.160.2 5.

0. Cast Iron Main (miles) 275.200. WA Totals 100 .101.0 440. The main and service pipeline is all operated for the entire year and no new pipeline is installed within the year.0 114. TX Plastic Main (miles) 6.5 456.0 13.0 2. Table AD-2: American Consolidated Distribution Company Main Pipeline Miles & Composition American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co. 2008 II.887. and GHG estimates are presented in the tables that follow. OR.917. etc.5 2.200.5 1. Activity data.000.850.500 miles of mains and 17.750. which owns and operates 27.0 Protected Unprotected Steel Steel (miles) (miles) 5. MA. then the emission factor is multiplied by the fraction of year that it was in service.750.5 202.279.0 550. If equipment is added or taken out of service.010.1 Fugitive and Vented Emissions Example Calculations Fugitive and Vented Activity Data for American Consolidated Distribution Company Presented below are the required activity data for preparing the fugitive and vented GHG inventory for the ACDC.262.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0 1.0 1. LA.0 11. West Coast Gas Co. to obtain the annual fugitive emissions.5 2.346 miles of service pipeline.510. then the meters installed in January would be multiplied by 1. II.0 State(s) MD.0 2. and the meters installed in February would be multiplied by 11/12 = 0. For instance if there is a monthly total of customer meters installed.5 2. Midwest Gas Co. PA WI AL. emission factors.5 110.0 South Gas Co.5 50.

Midwest Gas Co.560 106. Many companies annually report average service length data to the Office of Pipeline Safety (U.846.872 61.898 1.280 = 6.150. West Coast Gas Co.156 346.348.280 feet in a mile to determine the total miles of service line (e. LA.780 53.650. Department of Transportation) 101 .578 173.847 miles).S.5 A Copper Services (count) 59 145 101 168 473 Plastic Services (count) 132. 2008 Table AD-3: American Consolidated Distribution Company Service Pipelines American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co.795 224. TX OR.000 feet/5.778 Protected Steel Service (count) 43. WA Average Service Length (feet) 40 75 100 25 Service Length (miles) 1. PA WI AL. The total is divided by 5.601 322.483 374.6 6.345. Midwest service length in miles equals 482. MA.g.500.250 2. South Gas Co.020 36.054. Totals A State(s) MD.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.040 73.000 services * 75 feet = 36.6 17.500 Unprotected Steel Service (count) 21.0 6.744 123.6 Service length is determined by summing the service counts for each subsidiary and multiplying by the average service length in feet.

000 Table AD-5: American Consolidated Distribution Company M&R Stations. and Isolation Valve Count M&R Stations (count) 81 100 24 120 325 M&R Control Loops (count) 12 14 8 11 45 M&R Station Isolation Valve Count (count) 22 13 26 39 100 American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary State(s) East Coast Gas Co. an alternative estimate approach may be possible based on event-specific data. LA. OR.000 Totals 1. OR. based on assumed “industry average” pipeline vented emission factors). The calculation approach based on vented emissions calculated from discrete events is presented here for discussion purposes. If ACDC decided to use the Tier 3+ calculation approach. However. MD.. 102 . AL.000 Midwest Gas Co.000 South Gas Co. or the exact volume of gas vented from each event is difficult to calculate accurately. TX 325. if feasible and consistent with inventory objectives. PA Midwest Gas Co.800 75.000 West Coast Gas Co. MA. the vented emissions calculated using emission factors would not be included in the inventory to ensure that there is no double counting of pipeline vented emissions. AL. In addition.e. it is generally assumed that the uncertainty for this approach is significantly lower than when vented emission factors are used. LA. TX West Coast Gas Co. These data could be used to calculate a company specific Tier 3+ vented emission factor for the mains and service pipeline to replace the emission factor-based estimate (i. Table AD-6 summarizes both the event count and also an engineering estimate from vent logs that are kept by the service technicians at ACDC. Table AD-6 presents the Tier 3+ estimated vented volumes based on a “vent log” record maintained by ACDC.500. Control Loops. WA Totals Estimates of vented emissions based on emission factors are one of the major contributors to inventory uncertainty. or from release of pressure relief devices. For the purpose of comparing and contrasting the different emissions estimation Tiers.000 10.000 Commercial Industrial Customers (count) 23. WI South Gas Co.000 32. ACDC may choose not to use this method if an incomplete record has been kept of vented events. PA 175. WA 550. WI 450. 2008 Table AD-4: American Consolidated Distribution Company Customer Meters Counts Residential American Consolidated Distribution Customers Company Subsidiary State(s) (count) East Coast Gas Co. MA. It should be noted that migrating to a Tier 3+ calculation method may yield a higher or lower estimate of emissions.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. MD. in association with an emergency shutdown event.200 9. Blowdown events or system venting can occur to prepare a pipeline or equipment for maintenance / inspection.

Using the ideal gas law (PV = nRT. This estimate is considered a Tier 3+ GHG emissions estimate. the moles (n) of gas in the line are 4259. 16 1.712 m3 (volume = area x length). The gas is 94% methane by volume.225. or 314.229 kg. MA.e. The line pressure equates to 2. where R is the universal gas constant).3 gmoles.525.562”.169. The pressure in the line is 300 psig.8 gmoles.794 Pa. WA Assuming schedule 80 pipe.. The pipeline segment volume is 4. Converting to CO2eq (methane GWP of 21 and 1000 kg/tonne) = 1.750.8 x 16. The emissions calculation for this event includes the following assumptions and calculations: • • • State(s) MD. 2008 Table AD-6: American Consolidated Distribution Company Blowdown Event Count and Engineering Vented Volume Estimate (Mains + Service) American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co. To further illustrate the engineering calculation used for a discrete venting event. the inner diameter of the 24” OD pipe section is 21. i. 21 2. • • 103 . The line pressure is 300 psig. So the total methane vented (assuming all the gas is vented) is 4003. Example input data for this event-specific analysis include: The pipeline to be evacuated is a 20 meter long section of 24” OD pipe. and the cross sectional area is 2. TX OR.100.2356m2 ). PA WI AL. and the gas temperature is 60 oF. area = πD2/4. The molecular weight of methane is 16. The line gas temperature is 60 oF or 288.042 g/mole. Methane is 94% of the gas. Midwest Gas Co.0 South Gas Co.536 ft2 (0.349 tonnes CO2eq.042 = 64.0 West Coast Gas Co. LA.5 Totals 78 8. or 4003. assume that a pipeline segment is depressurized for maintenance.5 2.849.7psia.0 A Distance between block valves and pipeline diameter determined from drawings and event logs used to track event duration and pipeline pressures.7 K.229g or 64. Blowdown Events per Year 23 18 Estimated Volume (MMSCF)A 1.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.

710 693 CH4 Plastic CO2 (leak) 41.079 CH4 Cast Iron CO2 (leak) 994.5470 CH4 71.5 Protected Steel CO2 (leak) 7. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.276 CO2 (oxidation) 2.0 CH4 0.2.2 CO2 (oxidation) 18.196 A Unit lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr lb/service-yr From GHGCalcTM V1.2.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0293 CO2 (oxidation) 0.74 Copper CO2 (leak) 0. Table EF-4: Tier 3 Service Pipeline Fugitive Emission Factors.5 A Unit lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr lb/mile-yr From GHGCalcTM V1. 2008 II.862 CO2 (oxidation) 11.3926 Plastic CO2 (leak) 0.81 Unprotected Steel CO2 (leak) 4.652 Unprotected Steel CO2 (leak) 278. 104 .2 Fugitive and Vented Emissions Factors for American Consolidated Distribution Company Table EF-3: Tier 3 Main Pipeline Fugitive Emission Factors.9 CO2 (oxidation) 234.64 CO2 (oxidation) 38. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.2905 7.4505 CO2 (oxidation) 0. Emission Pipeline Type Greenhouse Gas FactorA 10.6322 CO2 (oxidation) 0. Emission Pipeline Type Greenhouse Gas FactorA CH4 10.01 CH4 4.89 CH4 129.451 CH4 Protected Steel CO2 (leak) 0.

Table EF-7: Distribution Sector Tier 3 Fugitive Emission Factors for M&R StationsA Emission Source M&R Stations A Activity Data Station Count GHG CH4 Emission Factor 8.584 lb/device-yr M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves 795. Emission Unit Emission Source FactorA M&R Station Control Loops 7.A Emission Emission Source Activity Data GHG EF Units Factor Commercial/ Industrial Meters Meter Count CH4 2.2.92 lb/mile-yr Pipeline Dig-ins: Mains + Services Length 67.847 lb/meter-yr From GHGCalcTM V1.2.9 lb/device-yr Pipeline Blowdowns: Mains + Services Length 70. 2008 Table EF-5: Tier 3 Distribution Equipment Vented Methane Emission Factors. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.111 lb/mile-yr M&R Station Blowdowns: Station Count 5. Table EF-6: Distribution Sector Tier 3 Fugitive Emission Factors.022 lb/meter-yr Residential Customer Meters A Meter Count CH4 5. 105 .740 EF Units lb/station-yr From GHGCalcTM V1.322 lb/station-yr A From GHGCalcTM V1. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.12 lb/mile-yr Pressure Relief Valves: Main Length 2. derived from data from 1996 GRI/EPA Study.2.

2 397.133.5 29.0 7. Pipeline Mains Service Pipeline Residential Meters Commercial & Industrial Meters M&R Stations South Gas Co.3 189.762.0 45.649.596. PA WI OR.151.479.569.004.072.448.6 18.594. 106 .7 9.604.199.5 ---5.933.7 ---1.718.1 1.1 2.6 1.978.2 American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co.2 18.1 149.0 475.7 23.9 147.8 128.024.1 2.4 3.4 9.3 52.018.1 1.1 89.4 52.7 30.6 CO2 Emissions OxidationB (tonnes) 2.7 54.489.9 27.774.426.143.4 25.571.039.3 ---5.5 464.113. WA ALL Fugitive CO2 emissions from buried pipeline can result from (A) CO2 contained in the gas and (B) a portion of the leaking methane that oxidizes to CO2 as it migrates through soil to the surface.490.077.1 1.513.0 243.265.125.777.7 83. Pipeline Mains Service Pipeline Residential Meters Commercial & Industrial Meters M&R Stations Subtotals Pipeline Mains Service Pipeline Residential Meters Commercial & Industrial Meters M&R Stations TOTALS A.5 28.8 1.6 27.9 84.5 880.6 171. B State(s) MD.7 862.193.3 1.539.2 18.4 95.9 0.4 24.3 4.3 396.3 260.0 9.6 52.910.7 197.3 165.0 825.458.1 618.2 68.0 2.3 1.003.6 5.288.132.8 70.9 520.152.7 12. MA.1 321.2 6.1 21.3 421.6 ---1.464.7 CO2eq Emissions (tonnes) 130.4 121. 2008 Table GHG-3: American Consolidated Distribution Company GHG Fugitives Emission Estimates CO2 Emissions CH4 LeakA Emissions (tonnes) (tonnes) 6.9 1.1 8.0 444.3 50.9 31. Pipeline Mains Service Pipeline Residential Meters Commercial & Industrial Meters M&R Stations West Coast Gas Co.3 23.1 75.6 50.8 413.3 10.8 0.3 2.0 ---477.348.6 141.9 75. LA. Pipeline Mains Service Pipeline Residential Meters Commercial & Industrial Meters M&R Stations Midwest Gas Co.4 AL.6 1.6 85.919. TX 2.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.

219.1 26.3 48.083.7 1.9 27.4 869.2 22.2 1.8 27.5 289.259.027.4 381.7 3.5 9.2 0.8 84. 2008 Table GHG-4: American Consolidated Distribution Company GHG Vented Emission Estimates American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co.0 4.4 0.5 285.229.8 15.4 15.0 6.3 0.7 28.3 9.3 555.8 16.6 1.2 796.6 28.1 14.5 17.7 166. MA.8 14.4 465.1 198.353.751.0 99.4 2.1 CO2eq Emissions (tonnes) 10.792.0 111.3 7.4 9 2.4 784.7 2. Blowdowns – Main & Service Dig-Ins – Main & Service M&R Station Control Loops M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Main Pressure Relief Valves M&R Station Blowdowns West Coast Gas Co.2 195.2 4.9 13. WA 107 . Blowdowns – Main & Service Dig-Ins – Main & Service M&R Station Control Loops M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Main Pressure Relief Valves M&R Station Blowdowns Midwest Gas Co. LA.2 360.2 1.0 50.117.5 301.6 0.6 254.015.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.5 3.3 6.3 5.0 2.5 46.8 MD.9 16.8 36.8 6.7 80.1 State(s) CH4 CO2 Emissions Emissions (tonnes) (tonnes) 491.9 115.8 0.1 5.6 8.4 5. TX OR. Blowdowns – Main & Service Dig-Ins – Main & Service M&R Station Control Loops M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Main Pressure Relief Valves M&R Station Blowdowns Totals Blowdowns – Main & Service Dig-Ins – Main & Service M&R Station Control Loops M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Main Pressure Relief Valves M&R Station Blowdowns TOTAL All Subsidiaries 1.6 0.8 11.809.656.6 7.5 0.4 21. PA WI AL.4 241.5 5.3 57.9 80.2 37.9 268.365.100.3 3.0 296.442.8 0.381.0 41.348.520.349.008.4 5.3 17.2 224.4 278.8 760.8 2. Blowdowns – Main & Service Dig-Ins – Main & Service M&R Station Control Loops M&R Station Pneumatic Isolation Valves Main Pressure Relief Valves M&R Station Blowdowns South Gas Co.1 1.2 30.598 579.3 154.

AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.000 PA 550. WI AL LA TX OR WA 450.000.000.2*10-8 1.000 200.000 500.000 MA 500.000 400. Mobile Emissions Example Calculations Table AD-7 presents a summary of the vehicle miles traveled by the 500 fleet vehicles by type owned and operated by American Consolidated Distribution Company (ACDC) based on quarterly records maintained by the safety department.9*10 Diesel LDT AC Diesel 5*10-10 1. Table AD-7: American Consolidated Distribution Company Vehicle Miles Traveled Light Duty Light Duty Gasoline Diesel American Consolidated Distribution Trucks Trucks Company Subsidiary State(s) VMT VMT East Coast Gas Co.000 100. 2008 III.000 80.000 1.000 450.000 100.000.000 West Coast Gas Co.5*10-8 -4 Diesel LDT Diesel 6.000 Midwest Gas Co. South Gas Co.000 5.000 1.3*10-4 Gasoline LDT Gasoline 2.000 550. MD 600.000 90.000 120.000 110.5*10-9 Vehicle Class Fuel 108 .000 90.000 110. Totals Table EF-8: Tier 2 Mobile Source Highway Vehicles GHG Emission Factors tonne / mile CO2 CH4 N2O Gasoline LDT Gasoline 6.

01 0.000 500. West Coast Gas Co.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.000 450.01 0.5 TOTAL CO2eq (tonnes) 463.0001 0.1 285.3 285.000.0015 CO2eq (tonnes) 82.9 425.000 100.2 138.000 500.000 CO2 (tonnes) 378 315 347 284 315 252 630 284 347 3.2 347.01 0.0000 0.000 80.0003 0.0 690.6 309.1 76.9 69.000 200.1 317.0002 0.01 0.000 1.01 0.000 1.3 3.9 386.6 Light Duty Diesel Trucks (VMT) 120.0 76.000 550.0002 0.0000 0.000. Midwest Gas Co.08 CO2eq (tonnes) 381.0001 0. 2008 Table GHG-5: American Consolidated Distribution Company Fleet Vehicle GHG Emissions Estimates American Consolidated Gas Distribution Company Subsidiary State(s) MD Light Duty Gasoline Trucks (VMT) 600.02 0.6 254.1 62.000 100.01 0.6 349.01 0.000 550.9 386.0000 0.01 0.0 East Coast Gas Co.01 0.150 CH4 (tonnes) 0.01 0.0005 N2O (tonnes) 0.8 349.0001 0.000 400.01 0.000 90. Totals TX OR WA 109 .000 90.0001 0.01 0.0002 0.8 317.11 N2O (tonnes) 0.0001 0.0002 0.01 0.3 3.3 773.3 347.175.0001 0.000 110.6 425.000.000 110.000 CO2 (tonnes) 83 69 76 62 69 55 138 62 76 690 CH4 (tonnes) 0. MA PA WI AL LA South Gas Co.1 69.02 0.01 0.000 450.0 635.0002 0.01 0.0001 0.000 5.0 55.0 62.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.866.

0203 Midwest Gas Co. Totals Table EF-9: American Consolidated Distribution Company Purchased Electric Tier 2 EFs CO2 EF N2O EF American Consolidated Distribution CH4 EF Company Subsidiary State(s) (lb / MWhr) (lb / MWhr) (lb / MWhr) East Coast Gas Co.300 3.0159 PA 0.004 West Coast Gas Co.0034 0. MD 0.278 0.900 21.200 2. Indirect Electric Emissions Example Calculations Electric Utility invoices were surveyed and summarized for each state including the following operations and infrastructure: • • • • • • Warehouses Offices Operating Center Corporate Office City Gate Stations Other Table AD-8: American Consolidated Distribution Company Purchased Electric American Consolidated Distribution Annual Purchased Company Subsidiary State(s) Electric (MW-hours) East Coast Gas Co.0107 1. South Gas Co.312 1. 2008 IV.100 1.000 Midwest Gas Co.464 282 246 0.0138 0.0223 0.0112 0.0174 1.178 1.0206 MA 0.500 West Coast Gas Co. 110 .500 2.264 0.0094 0. WI AL LA TX OR WA 4.642 1.0037 1. WI AL LA TX OR WA 0. MD 1.0033 0.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.0077 0.0146 0.500 MA 1.366 0.500 PA 2. South Gas Co.026 0.0137 0.500 2.0118 1.

0032 2. 2008 Table GHG-6: American Consolidated Distribution Company Purchased Electric Tier 2 GHG Emissions Estimates American Consolidated Distribution Co.1 CO2eq (tonnes) 1.0118 0.0223 0.02 0.464 282 246 11.2 0.0159 0.0098 0.0031 0.278 1.500 1.00 50.312 1.05 0.3 0.02 0.1 CO2 (lb/MWhr) 0.300 3.0107 0.0203 0. South Gas Co.0033 0.000 4.0282 0.0097 0.229 2.3 0.0137 0. Midwest Gas Co.0 West Coast Gas Co. (ACDC) Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co.324 269 212 N2O (tonnes) 0.900 CH4 (tonnes) 0.640 N2O (lb/MWhr) 929 870 1.178 1.0077 0. Total 111 .147 3.0137 0.352 1.026 0.02 0.2 0.264 1.642 1.0138 0.004 CO2eq (tonnes) 0.2 0.500 2.0206 0.0174 0.100 1.01 0.0080 0.500 2.0094 0.00 0. State(s) MD MA PA WI AL LA TX OR WA CH4 MWhrs (lb/MWhr) MD MA PA WI AL LA TX OR WA 1.6 0.0118 0.0112 0.0146 0.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.2 0.200 2.1 0.0122 0.01 0.309 1.01 0.0037 CO2eq (tonnes) 0.500 2.0034 0.366 1.

and may be more appropriate for annual reports. for a particular source type. combustion CO2 emission estimates are more accurate than process emission estimates. 112 . Vented and fugitive emissions may vary significantly between companies or for different systems based on many factors. Table GHG-8 shows the total GHG emissions for each subsidiary. The user may choose different tiers for emission estimates depending upon inventory objectives. each individual inventory (e. CH4. and operation and maintenance practices. The summary is broken down by company subsidiary and corporate totals by GHG and source type. activity data availability. the user must be cautious to ensure that estimation tiers are applied consistently to avoid double-counting or missed emissions. and indirect CO2.g. Distribution companies may wish to present the data on a State basis.. and activity data quality. N2O.e. In Table GHG-7. and another combined inventory for Alabama and Louisiana. if South Gas Company was required to report GHG in Texas. vented. which will be required if a state requires annual submittal of GHG emission estimates. Summary of GHG Estimates for American Consolidated Distribution Company Table GHG-7 presents a summary of the combustion. such as equipment type. the annual GHG estimates are often presented as the sum of all the emission sources to present a subsidiary or segment subtotal and company total. company segment) should be consistent and not mix emission factors from different Tiers to avoid under-counting or double-counting of emissions. It also allows comparison between subsidiary companies. and others are Tier 3 estimates. In addition. The use of different tiers in this example is for illustrative purposes only. It is not uncommon for an inventory to include different estimation tiers for different sources. it could conduct a separate inventory for its Texas facilities. combustion. the example emissions summary includes calculations for some sources based on Tier 2 estimates. age of equipment. Generally. This type of data presentation does not provide as much detail as in Table GHG-7. and CO2eq emissions for the American Consolidated Distribution Company hypothetical example.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. mobile and indirect electric have less uncertainty than vented and fugitive emission estimates – i. For example. However. However caution needs to be used when making these comparisons. Table GHG-8 presents a less detailed summary of the total estimated CO2eq emissions for each subsidiary and the Corporation. For instance a company that serves a rural area will have fewer customers per mile and will likely have larger pipeline vented and fugitive emissions that a distribution company that serves the same number of customers in an urban area. Table GHG-7 details the emissions by emission source category. The separate inventories could be conducted using different Tiers. Showing data by source category allows a company to analyze the percentage contributions for each source and to determine where efforts might best be made to improve estimates or reduce or minimize GHG emissions. fugitive. the underlying uncertainty varies in each emission source category. Also.. 2008 V. as mandated by the individual states however. may be sufficient to address reporting requirements for some registries or voluntary reporting programs. mobile.

7 1.03 0.9 3.605.732.876.6 1.02 0.6 3.851.1 3.368.8 16.840.317. For combustion.1 103.959.880. OR.0 0.464.5 1. 2008 Table GHG-7: Summary of GHG Emissions for American Consolidated Distribution Company American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary State(s) East Coast Gas Co.0 0. MA.2 CO2eq (tonnes) 6.459.0 480.8 166.692.1 869.2 773. LA.2 482.214.1 51.0 3.7 25.0 71.7 1.926.03 0.2 224.919.0 11.05 0.436.946.9 899.0 0.572.2 4.6 3.9 18.08 0.862.1 4.984.6 1.01 --0.0 1.945.275.0 11.04 0.4 103.1 0. both Tier 2 and Tier 3 example calculations are presented above in the Appendix F combustion section. MD.469.2 80.1 1.5 347.6 16.309.521.9 0.848. this example summary table presents the Tier 2 value.9 4. B Tier 3 calculation 113 .A CO2 (tonnes) 6.0 52. TX West Coast Gas Co.654. PA Source Category CombustionA FugitiveB VentedB MobileA Indirect ElectricA CombustionA FugitiveB VentedB MobileA Indirect ElectricA CombustionA FugitiveB VentedB MobileA Indirect ElectricA CombustionA FugitiveB VentedB MobileA Indirect ElectricA CombustionA FugitiveB VentedB MobileA Indirect Elec.0 345.114.0 Midwest Gas Co.8 0.3 7.3 CH4 N2O (tonnes) (tonnes) 0.883.3 842.00 --0.930.157.5 24.1 49.3 520.0 0.866.2 1.0 0.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.168.2 883.267.2 768.2 4. AL.5 0.971.4 6.942. However.0 0.6 0.846.640.6 3.0 0.1 0.3 4.351.8 2.4 4.759. WA TOTAL A Tier 2 calculation.03 --0.3 -0.01 --0.2 2.3 3.860. WI South Gas Co.0 147.1 0.01 7.01 0.318.229.298.4 -1.2 18.809.4 17.01 0.06 0.7 1.9 3.

(DOE).384. LA. TX OR. MA. The reader should consult the program requirements and/or the relevant regulation to ensure that appropriate methodology is followed for GHG estimates and reporting procedures. PA WI AL.6 The example provided in this Appendix is intended to inform the reader and enhance understanding of the AGA GHG Emission Estimation Guidelines. West Coast Gas Co. Activity data reconciliation should be ensured.6 127.6 131. the Office of Pipeline Safety. (DOT) or to a state environmental department. such as the US Energy Information Administration. WA All US Operations CO2eq (tonnes) 202. GHG reporting requirements are evolving for voluntary programs and mandatory requirements are beginning to be adopted in some locations.677.2 171. Midwest Gas Co. South Gas Co. 2008 Table GHG-8: GHG Annual Emission Totals for ACDC Subsidiary Companies American Consolidated Distribution Company Subsidiary East Coast Gas Co. activity data required for a GHG inventory may already be submitted to other agencies. Also.865. ACDC Total State(s) MD. 114 .1 633.956.471.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18.

• Equipment categorization and nomenclature varies from company to company. These units range in size from 1. electrical generating units). EPA to improve priority emission factors by gathering additional data. freeze protection. and efforts are currently underway by AGA members and the U. district regulator (DR) stations that reduce pipeline main pressure to individual subdivisions or towns have lower fugitive emissions and should not be assigned the emission factor for an M&R station. Continuous vented pneumatic devices are likely the largest single source of vented emissions and are typically associated with city gate stations and large industrial M&R stations (e. where used. Initial measurements indicate that this source category may contribute approximately 600-650 pounds of methane per component per year.. Initial review of field data suggest that significant differences occur in fugitive and vented emissions between commercial and industrial meter sets. Industrial meter sets are usually rotary meters. and instrument heating. Residential and customer meter set fugitive losses appear to be minimal and actual emissions are likely significantly lower than previously estimated (i. Initial field sampling has identified variations in emissions from M&R stations. In addition. new emission factors may indicate considerably lower emissions). consist of multiple runs.000 Btu/hr and are utilized for enclosure heating. or pressure are used to define each of these categories. For example. within the same company and among operations staff. Updated emission factors that are more application specific may be feasible and may improve GHG estimates from customer meters. some heaters at test sites vented gas when the unit was not in use.e. Observations and Considerations on Emission Factor Improvement and Inventory Development for Distribution Sources It is understood that some emission estimates include considerable uncertainty. and industrial meter set categories vary based on individual opinions and no established standard for meter type. The methane emissions are independent of combustion CO2 emissions. throughput. For example. line size. Catalytic line heaters can be inefficient and.AGA GHG Guidelines April 18. but may not have any vented emissions from normal operation as their pilots can be connected to the lower pressure side of the regulator. may be a relatively significant source of methane and CO2 emissions that were not addressed in earlier studies for distribution systems. Maintenance blowdown vented events and loss may be a larger source than previously estimated for some companies or operations. 2008 VI. Commercial meters are typically comprised of a regulator and a rotary or diaphragm meter. The following initial observations are provided based on recent field tests by AGA members to gather data intended to improve emission factors for meter and regulator (M&R) stations and customer meters. residential.500 to 72. and often utilize pneumatic controllers and over-pressure protection. operation and size of M&R stations. but the ongoing program should culminate with revised emission factors for at least some source types. Quantitative results are not available at this time. Ongoing measurements may improve currently published emission factors.g. These DR stations do have vented emissions from maintenance and inspections. commercial.S. 115 • • • • • • . There is considerable variation in the equipment..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful