3-Attachment 2 GRIC Preliminary 2022 GHG EI.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

GRIC Preliminary 2022 GHG EI

Gila River Indian Community Preliminary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

2022 Baseline Year

PREPARED BY:

Gila River Indian Community

Department of Environmental Quality

168 Skill Center Rd, Sacaton, AZ 85147

Tel: (520) 526‐2234

March 2024 (Revised)

GRIC 2022 GHG EI

ii

Contents

1 Executive Summary

2 Introduction

2.1 Scope of the Emission Inventory

2.2 Background

2.3 Study Area

3 Emission Inventory Methodology

3.1 General

3.2 Mobile Combustion (Scope 1)

3.3 Electric Power Consumption (Scope 2)

3.4 Stationary Fuel Combustion (Scope 1)

3.5 Solid Waste (Scope 1)

3.6 Agriculture and Land Management (Scope 3)

3.7 Wastewater (Scope 1)

3.8 Waste Generation (Scope 3)

3.9 Water Imports (Scope 3)

3.10 Urban Forestry (Scope 3)

4 Summary

5 Quality Assurance Review

5.1 Overview

5.2 Comparison to 2007 Baseline Year GHG EI

5.3 Mobile Combustion Review

5.4 Electric Power Consumption Review

5.5 Stationary Combustion Review

5.6 Solid Waste Review

5.7 Agriculture and Land Management Review

5.8 Imported Water Electricity Use Review

5.9 Wastewater Treatment Review

List of Figures Figure 2‐1. Map of Gila River Indian Community

List of Tables Table 1‐1. Total GHG Emissions by Source and Sector (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐1. Global Warming Potentials for GHG Emissions

Table 3‐2. Vehicle Miles Traveled in 2020 from MAG EI

Table 3‐3. GRIC Vehicle Miles Traveled and Gallons of Fuel Use for 2022

Table 3‐4. Mobile Source GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐5. Electric Power Consumption by Utility Provider and Sector for 2022 iii

Table 3‐6. Electric Power Consumption GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐7. Stationary Fuel Combustion GHG Emissions by Fuel Type for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐8. Stationary Fuel Combustion GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐9. Wastewater GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐10. Waste Generation GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 3‐11. Imported Water GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Table 4‐1. Total GHG Emissions by Source and Sector (MT CO2e)

Table 5‐1. Comparison of GRIC 2022 and 2007 GHG EIs (MT CO2e)

Table 5‐2. Difference in Electricity Consumed between GRICUA Sales Report and EIA Form 861

List of Appendices ATTACHMENT A. Example Quantified GHG Reduction Measures iv

ACRONYMS

APS Arizona Public Service

CAP Central Arizona Project

CCAP Comprehensive Climate Action Plan

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide equivalent

Community Gila River Indian Community

CPRG Climate Pollution Reduction Grant

DEQ GRIC Department of Environmental Quality

DPW GRIC Department of Public Works eGRID Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database

EF Emission Factor

EI Emission Inventory

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GRIC Gila River Indian Community

GRICUA GRIC Utility Authority

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants

IRA Inflation Reduction Act kWh Kilowatt Hour

MWh Megawatt Hour

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

PCAP Priority Climate Action Plan

PMA Phoenix Metropolitan Area

PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns

MT Metric Tons

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SRP Salt River Project

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

1 Executive Summary This report documents the preliminary 2022 baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory (EI) for the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC or Community) for inclusion into the Priority Climate Action Plan

(PCAP) for GRIC. A more comprehensive GHG EI for 2022 will be included in the Comprehensive Climate

Action Plan (CCAP) due at a future date (in 2026 at the time of this report). The boundaries for this EI are the GRIC reservation boundaries. The GRIC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) received funding for this project through the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA Tribal GHG Inventory Tool: Community Module version 2024.1 (GHG Tool) was used to evaluate and calculate GHG emissions within GRIC. The 2022 baseline GHG EI includes emissions from mobile sources, electricity usage, natural gas usage, propane usage, wastewater treatment, agricultural fertilizer usage, imported water usage, and other sources of GHG emissions as identified in the GHG

Tool.

When possible, data for calendar year 2022 was used. Emissions calculations using the GHG Tool are reported as gross emissions by sector for:

Residential

Commercial/Institutional

Industrial (includes Agriculture)

Energy Generation (not applicable for GRIC in 2022)

Based on the results of the GHG Tool, the total GHG emissions within GRIC were 736,749 metric tons

(MT) CO2e in 2022. Mobile sources represent the largest category of emissions sources for the

Community (76%) followed by electricity usage (14%). Table 1‐2 below provides a summary of the GHG emission for the source categories by sector.

Table 1‐1. Total GHG Emissions by Source and Sector (MT CO2e)

Source

Sector

TOTAL

Percent of

Total Residential Commercial/ Institutional Industrial

Stationary Combustion 508 4,484 16,856 21,848 3%

Electricity Consumption 16,817 87,887 1,213 105,917 14%

Mobile Combustion 353,009 205,108 0 558,116 76%

Solid Waste (Landfills) 0 0 0 0 0%

Waste Generation 1,300 2,395 0 3,694 1%

Wastewater Treatment 0 5,368 0 5,368 1%

Water 0 0 10,940 10,940 1%

Agriculture & Land Management 0 0 30,864 30,864 4%

Urban Forestry 0 0 0 0 0%

Other 0 0 0 0 0%

TOTAL 371,634 305,241 59,874 736,749

Percent of Total 50% 41% 8%

The results of this GHG EI will be used to evaluate the major sources of GHG emissions within the

Community, including indirect emissions based on usage, understand trends in emissions (e.g. electricity usage per household) over time, and identify opportunities for GHG emissions reductions and prevention. Since the Community experiences relatively slow growth when compared with the growth of areas like the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (PMA), some baseline emissions values are expected to remain relatively constant over time.

2 Introduction

2.1 Scope of the Emission Inventory

This report documents the preliminary 2022 baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory (EI) for the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC or Community) for inclusion into the Priority Climate Action Plan

(PCAP) for GRIC. A more comprehensive GHG EI for 2022 will be included in the Comprehensive Climate

Action Plan (CCAP) due at a future date (in 2026 at the time of this report). The boundaries for this EI are the GRIC reservation boundaries. The GRIC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) received funding for this project through the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

2.2 Background

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC or Community), a federally‐recognized tribe, is a rural community located on approximately 374,000 acres in south‐central Arizona, adjacent to the southern border of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (PMA) (Figure 1), with a 2022 on‐reservation population of approximately 13,267 people. The reservation was established in 1859. Members of the Community are

Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pii Paash (Maricopa) tribes and are the fourth most populous Indian

Reservation in the United States. A portion of the Community (92,000 acres) lies within Maricopa

County. This portion of GRIC is located within the Phoenix Non‐Attainment Area for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), which has been classified as “serious” by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) (Figure 2‐1).

The Community has one operating industrial park (Lone Butte Development) that contains approximately 40 commercial and industrial facilities and two sand and gravel plants that contain approximately 10 aggregate‐related facilities. There are also several commercial and industrial facilities throughout the Community outside of the industrial parks. Commercial and industrial facilities within the Community are minor (Non‐Title V) sources. These industrial facilities are not required to submit

GHG emissions reports to GRIC DEQ or to the EPA.

There are approximately 38,400 acres of agricultural land under production within the Community that includes cotton, alfalfa, wheat/barley, citrus and vegetables. Approximately 11,000 agricultural acres are located within Maricopa County. Of the 11,000 acres, most are planted in alfalfa, which is very rarely cultivated and considered a beneficial cover crop for dust mitigation.

There is one previous GHG EI report for the Community that was completed in 2011 for a 2007 baseline year.

2.3 Study Area

The Community extends from the PMA on the north, south to near Casa Grande, and from the Estrella

Mountains on the west to Coolidge on the east (Figure 2‐1). The Community lies in Sonoran Desert terrain that is primarily light scrub and cactus with an elevation of approximately 1,200 to 1,400 feet above sea level. The temperature varies from approximately 30F in the winter to >115F in the summer. Annual precipitation is light with approximately 36 days per year with >0.01 inches or about seven (7) inches of rainfall per year. Wind speed and direction can vary, but generally the wind blows from the east to west in the morning and reverses direction in the afternoon. Wind speed can vary from a slight breeze to 70 miles per hour winds during the summer monsoon season.

Figure 2‐1. Map of Gila River Indian Community

Gila River Indian Community Reservation Boundary Map copied from Arizona Department of Environmental Quality eMaps

3 Emission Inventory Methodology

3.1 General

The EPA Tribal GHG Inventory Tool: Community Module version 2024.1 (GHG Tool) was used to evaluate and calculate GHG emissions within GRIC. The 2022 baseline GHG EI includes emissions from mobile sources, electricity usage, natural gas usage, propane usage, wastewater treatment, agricultural fertilizer usage, imported water usage, and other sources of GHG emissions. The data collection for this

GHG EI was accomplished by requesting data from electricity, natural gas and propane providers; using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG); and using available data for agricultural fertilizer usage, water imports to GRIC wastewater treatment plants, waste disposal and recycling.

The term ‘Scope’ is used to categorize direct and indirect GHG emissions to facilitate identification of emissions reductions that can be accomplished on GRIC:

Scope 1 – all direct GHG emissions sources from activities taking place within the GRIC.

Scope 2 –indirect GHG emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity using only grid‐ average emission factors.

Scope 3 – all other indirect emissions that occur as a result of activities within the GRIC. For this

GHG Tool, this includes imported water consumption, waste generation, agricultural and land management, and urban forestry (not applicable for GRIC).

The emissions are reported as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, and the GHG Tool can calculate the following GHGs:

Carbon dioxide [CO2]

Methane [CH4]

Nitrous oxide [N2O]

Hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]

Perfluorochemicals [PFCs]

Sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]

Each GHG has a different global warming potential (GWP) effect on the atmosphere, with CO2 serving as the reference gas (see Table 1‐1). The GWP was developed to allow comparisons of the various GHGs, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO2.

Table 3‐1. Global Warming Potentials for GHG Emissions

Gas GWP*

CO2 1

CH4 27‐30

N2O 273

* EPA values based on the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

3.2 Mobile Combustion (Scope 1)

The calculation of GHG emissions from mobile sources was based on the GHG Tool and applied to 2020 or 2022 GRIC data. The 2022 total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the GRIC boundaries was provided by MAG as 1,142,399,613, with 389,726,998 miles in Maricopa County (34%) and 752,672,615 miles in

Pinal County (66%). It should be noted that a vast majority of the VMT is associated with commuter and interstate vehicles that travel on the Interstate and State highways that bisect the Community. The commuter and interstate vehicles travel between the PMA north of GRIC and cities and towns south of

GRIC (e.g., cities of Maricopa, Casa Grande, Tucson, etc) and not owned or controlled by GRIC and should be considered Scope 3 transport‐related emissions.

The GHG Tool inputs for distribution of VMT by vehicle types was based on the percentage of miles/year from the 2020 MAG GHG EI (Table 3‐1).

Table 3‐2. Vehicle Miles Traveled in 2020 from MAG EI

Vehicle Type

Maricopa County Pinal County

Local avg miles/yr % by miles/yr Local avg miles/yr % by miles/yr

Passenger car (gas) 27,125,246,190 70% 2,545,949,927 66%

Passenger truck (gas) 7,477,721,056 19% 674,361,718 17% heavy‐duty (gas) 532,680,054 1% 58,642,883 2% motorcycle (gas) 212,390,965 1% 20,965,610 1% passenger car (diesel) 199,446,192 1% 18,199,823 0% passenger truck (diesel) 303,950,170 1% 25,075,985 1% heavy‐duty (diesel) 2,768,132,695 7% 514,937,116 13%

TOTAL 38,619,567,322 100% 3,858,133,062 100%

The Pinal County vehicle type and mileage distribution (% by miles/yr) was determined to be more representative of GRIC than the Maricopa County distribution due to the Community’s more rural nature. The Pinal County 2022 VMT by vehicle type was calculated based on total VMT times the percent of miles per year by vehicle type, and local average miles per gallon (mile/gal) were used to calculate the 2022 gallons of fuel used by vehicle type for inputs into the GHG tool (Table 3‐2). Each vehicle type was assigned to either the residential or commercial/institutional sector and the vehicle model year was set to 2020 since no detailed fleet mix by year was available.

Table 3‐3. GRIC Vehicle Miles Traveled and Gallons of Fuel Use for 2022

Vehicle Type

Pinal County GRIC

Local avg miles/yr

% by miles/yr 2022 miles

Local Avg mile/gal* 2022 gallons

Passenger car (gas) 2,545,949,927 66% 753,860,005 25.9 29,106,564

Passenger truck (gas) 674,361,718 17% 199,679,626 19.9 10,034,152 heavy‐duty (gas) 58,642,883 2% 17,364,255 8.5 2,042,854 motorcycle (gas) 20,965,610 1% 6,207,952 25.2 246,347 passenger car (diesel) 18,199,823 0% 5,388,998 28.9 186,471 passenger truck (diesel) 25,075,985 1% 7,425,041 17.7 419,494 heavy‐duty (diesel) 514,937,116 13% 152,473,736 8.4 18,151,635

TOTAL 3,858,133,062 100% 1,142,399,613

60,187,516

* From 2020 MAG EI for Pinal County

The GHG Tool calculated the net GHG emissions from mobile sources based on the energy (fuel) use data. Table 3‐3 shows the calculated mobile source emissions by sector.

Table 3‐4. Mobile Source GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Sector CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Residential 352,005.32 222.73 780.89 353,009

Commercial/Institutional 203,264.45 56.51 1,786.57 205,108

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Energy Generation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TOTAL 555,269.77 279.23 2,567.47 558,116

3.3 Electric Power Consumption (Scope 2)

The GHG Tool calculated indirect GHG emissions based on electricity usage (not actual emissions at the source of generation) using the regional Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) default emissions factor for the Arizona – New Mexico (AZNM) eGRID subregion. Electricity usage in kilowatt hours (kWh) for individual accounts for 2022 was obtained from the Gila River Indian

Community Utility Authority (GRICUA) and Salt River Project (SRP) electrical providers. Arizona Public

Service (APS) provides electricity to approximately 10 customers in District 7, but was not able to provide 2022 data. Electricity usage was assigned to residential, commercial / institutional, and industrial sectors. There is no electricity generation with GRIC. Table 3‐4 provides the electricity consumption data by utility and sector and Table 3‐5 summarizes the GHG emissions by sector.

Table 3‐5. Electric Power Consumption by Utility Provider and Sector for 2022

Utility Sector Electricity Consumed (kWh)

GRICUA Residential 44,797,459

GRICUA Commercial/Institutional 212,129,667

GRICUA Industrial 1,476,809

SRP Residential 253,342

SRP Commercial/Institutional 23,307,431

SRP Industrial 1,773,391

TOTAL 283,738,099

Table 3‐6. Electric Power Consumption GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Sector CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Residential 16,749.42 29.75 37.91 16,817.08

Commercial/Institutional 87,533.09 155.49 198.10 87,886.68

Industrial 1,208.39 2.15 2.73 1,213.27

TOTAL 105,490.90 187.39 238.74 105,917.04

3.4 Stationary Fuel Combustion (Scope 1)

Stationary fuel combustion data entered into the GHG Tool include Southwest (SW) Gas natural gas use by sector, hot mix asphalt burner fuel (diesel and on‐spec used oil) used in the industrial sector, and Gila

River Farms propane used in the commercial / institutional sector. Table 3‐6 shows the calculated emissions by fuel type and Table 3‐7 shows the calculated emission by sector.

Table 3‐7. Stationary Fuel Combustion GHG Emissions by Fuel Type for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Fuel Type CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Natural Gas 15,749 39 8 15,796

Diesel 626 1 1 628

Propane 1,102 1 3 1,106

On‐Spec Used Oil (Residual Fuel Oil No. 5) 4,304 5 9 4,318

TOTAL 21,781 46 21 21,848

Table 3‐8. Stationary Fuel Combustion GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Sector CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Residential 506 1 0 508

Commercial/Institutional 4,470 10 4 4,484

Industrial 16,804 35 17 16,856

TOTAL 21,781 46 21 21,848

3.5 Solid Waste (Scope 1)

There are no landfill facilities on GRIC, so there are no direct emissions from solid waste generation. All of the waste generated within the Community is transported off‐site for disposal. The GHG emissions for the off‐site disposal of waste is covered in Section 3.7 (Waste Generation).

3.6 Agriculture and Land Management (Scope 3)

Using aerial images, MAG GIS data, and DEQ pesticide application registrations, it is estimated that there are approximately 38,400 acres of agricultural fields in production. The 2022 fertilizer use data was not available for GRIC at the time this EI was prepared. Therefore, the GRIC fertilizer use data was estimated from the calculated application rate in the 2020 Maricopa County GHG EI. According to the 2020

Maricopa County GHG EI Public Data file, there were 16,365,824 kilograms (kg) of farm fertilizer used and 143,066 acres of crop land, which equates to annual fertilizer application rate of approximately 250 pounds per acre (lb/ac). According to the Gila River Indian Irrigation and Drainage Department (GRIIDD), some of the smaller operations do not use fertilizer due to cost and it is estimated that those smaller operations are responsible for approximately 4,000 acres (this value is also supported by the DEQ pesticide application registrations). Based on an annual fertilizer application rate of 250 lb/ac and the remaining approximately 34,400 acres of fields that are assumed to use fertilizer, the estimated synthetic fertilizer used in 2022 was 4,300 tons. The GHG Tool calculated 30,864 MT CO2e resulting from agricultural fertilizer use, which was allocated to the industrial sector.

3.7 Wastewater (Scope 1)

All of the wastewater generated on GRIC is sent to septic tanks or wastewater lagoon systems.

According to DEQ records, there are 200 septic systems (households) on GRIC. It was assumed that there are 2.5 people per household or 500 people served by septic systems. Therefore, the wastewater from the remaining 13,268 people is treated in the wastewater lagoon systems. There are 5 partially aerated lagoon systems and one non‐aerated lagoon system on GRIC. Each lagoon system contains multiple cells, and for the aerated systems only the first one or two cells are aerated. It was assumed that wastewater from 5/6 of the 13,268 people (11,057) was treated in the aerated lagoon systems and the wastewater from the remaining 1/6 of the 13,268 people (2,211) was treated in the non‐aerated lagoon system.

Based on information received from EPA’s contractor, since the aerated lagoon systems have aerated and non‐aerated cells, those systems will have both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The non‐aerated lagoons will only have anaerobic conditions. Additionally, nitrification/denitrification will only occur as a result of aeration, so that process is only associated with aerated lagoon systems.

The following inputs for non‐septic wastewater treatment facilities were used in the GHG Tool:

Population served by facilities with nitrification/denitrification (aerated systems) = 11,057

Population served by facilities without nitrification/denitrification (non‐aerated systems) = 2,211

Population served by anaerobic treatment facilities (all systems) = 13,268

Population served by aerobic treatment facilities (aerated systems) = 11,057

Table 3‐8 shows the calculated emissions for wastewater treatment by sector for 2022.

Table 3‐9. Wastewater GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Sector CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial/Institutional 0 5,092.75 275.24 5367.99

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TOTAL 0 5,092.75 275.24 5367.99

3.8 Waste Generation (Scope 3)

The EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) model was used to estimate solid waste GHG emissions generated from GRIC solid waste, as well as GHG emissions avoided through recycling. According to the

GRIC Department of Public Works (DPW), the mixed municipal solid waste from GRIC landfilled in 2022 was estimated to be 13,788 tons (approximately 35% residential and 65% commercial) and the mixed recyclables from GRIC was estimated to be 154.11 tons. In the WARM model, the landfilled waste resulted in 4,125.57 MT CO2e of GHG emissions and the recycled material resulted in a reduction of

431.15 MT CO2e of GHG emissions. Therefore, solid waste emissions of 3,694.42 MT CO2e was entered into the GHG Tool. Table 3‐9 shows the calculated emissions for waste generation by sector for 2022.

Table 3‐10. Waste Generation GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Sector TOTAL

Residential 1,299.92

Commercial/Institutional 2,394.50

Industrial ‐

Energy Generation ‐

TOTAL 3,694.42

3.9 Water Imports (Scope 3)

Water imported into GRIC was assigned to the industrial sector for agricultural use. According to the

2022 Year to Date Deliveries by Contract Type report from the Central Arizona Project (CAP), GRIC imported 16,048 AF (5,229,256,848 gallons) of water in 2022, which includes both on‐ and off‐ reservation contracts. The GHG Tool also has an entry for percent of total water used that comes from imported sources. For the GHG Tool, 100% was entered for the imported water so that GHG emissions would be calculated using the total amount of imported water. It is assumed that GHG emissions due to locally‐sourced water are covered under the electric consumption section of the Tool. Table 3‐10 shows the calculated emissions for imported water by sector for 2022.

Table 3‐11. Imported Water GHG Emissions by Sector for 2022 (MT CO2e)

Sector CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial/Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial 10,895.98 19.36 24.66 10,939.99

TOTAL 10,895.98 19.36 24.66 10,939.99

3.10 Urban Forestry (Scope 3)

There are no urban forests on GRIC, so this value was entered into the GHG Tool as 0 percent urban area with tree cover.

4 Summary Based on the results of the GHG Tool, the total GHG emissions within GRIC were 736,749 MT CO2e in

2022. Mobile sources represented the largest category of emissions sources for the Community (76%) followed by electricity usage (14%), agriculture management (4%), and stationary combustion (3%).

Recycling on GRIC in 2022 resulted in approximately 432 MT CO2e emissions avoided. Table 4‐1 below provides a summary of the GHG emission for the GHG emission source categories by sector.

Table 4‐1. Total GHG Emissions by Source and Sector (MT CO2e)

Source

Sector

TOTAL

Percent of

Total Residential Commercial/ Institutional Industrial

Stationary Combustion 508 4,484 16,856 21,848 3%

Electricity Consumption 16,817 87,887 1,213 105,917 14%

Mobile Combustion 353,009 205,108 0 558,116 76%

Solid Waste (Landfills) 0 0 0 0 0%

Waste Generation 1,300 2,395 0 3,694 1%

Wastewater Treatment 0 5,368 0 5,368 1%

Water 0 0 10,940 10,940 1%

Agriculture & Land Management 0 0 30,864 30,864 4%

Urban Forestry 0 0 0 0 0%

Other 0 0 0 0 0%

TOTAL 371,634 305,241 59,874 736,749

Percent of Total 50% 41% 8%

5 Quality Assurance Review

5.1 Overview

In order to conform to the GRIC CPRG QAPP, GRIC has conducted a quality assurance (QA) review of the data sources and estimation techniques used in the development of this emissions inventory. More information on the procedures and required quality control (QC) checks can be found in the GRIC CPRG

QAPP. The following sections detail the approved QC procedures, and any necessary explanations of why local factors may differ from state or national averages.

In addition to the QC procedures, The GRIC CPRG QAPP requires a listing of quantified emissions reductions options for each sector, which is included in Attachment A. The example quantified GHG reduction measures in Attachment A were copied from the Maricopa‐Pinal County Region Priority

Climate Action Plan; Appendix A: Maricopa‐Pinal County Region 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Inventory; Attachment B, Table 37: GHG Emission Reduction Measure Quantification for the Maricopa‐

Pinal County Region; prepared by the Maricopa Association of Governments, dated February 2024.

5.2 Comparison to 2007 Baseline Year GHG EI

DEQ compared the GRIC 2022 GHG EI to the 2007 GHG EI to assess whether the results were similar and to look for any outlying values that required further attention. The comparison of the 2022 and 2007

GHG EI results are included in Table 5‐1 below.

Table 5‐1. Comparison of GRIC 2022 and 2007 GHG EIs (MT CO2e)

Source

2022 2007

Total Percent of

Total Total Percent of

Total

Stationary Combustion 21,848 3% 10,304 1%

Electricity Consumption 105,917 14% 151,032 21%

Mobile Combustion 558,116 76% 526,573 74%

Solid Waste (Landfills) 0 0% ‐ ‐ ‐* ‐ ‐ ‐*

Waste Generation 3,694 1% ‐ ‐ ‐* ‐ ‐ ‐*

Wastewater Treatment 5,368 1% 8,991 1%

Water 10,940 1% ‐ ‐ ‐* ‐ ‐ ‐*

Agriculture & Land Management 30,864 4% 14,634 2%

Urban Forestry 0 0% ‐ ‐ ‐* ‐ ‐ ‐*

Other 0 0% 2,556** 0%

TOTAL 736,749 714,089

* Items were not addressed/calculated in the 2007 GHG EI

** GHG emissions from overhead electrical transmission within GRIC

5.3 Mobile Combustion Review

For mobile combustion GHG emission estimates, DEQ relied on relied upon data provided by MAG and data contained in MAG’s PCAP, including the 2020 Maricopa and Pinal County GHG EI. DEQ did not review the data source for the VMT provided by MAG, but did compare the 2022 VMT against the VMT in the 2007 GHG EI. MAG performed a review of the mobile source data contained in the 2020

Maricopa and Pinal County GHG EI, which is included within the 2020 GHG EI.

For the review of the mobile combustion source, the following items were noted:

These emissions are categorized as Scope 1; however, most of the VMT is from commuter and interstate vehicles that travel on the Interstate and State highways that bisect the Community that are not owned or controlled by GRIC and should be considered Scope 3 transport‐related emissions.

GHG emissions from nonroad sources (emergency generators and construction equipment) were not included in this preliminary EI, but will analyzed for the comprehensive EI. The

Community does not have active airports or main railway lines.

The 2020 fleet mix and fuel economy averages was applied to the 2022 VMT due to lack of readily available fleet mix information for 2022 for this preliminary EI. Since average fuel economies generally improve year‐over‐year, this is expected to result in an over‐estimation of

GHG emissions. The 2022 fleet mix will be re‐assessed for the comprehensive EI.

5.4 Electric Power Consumption Review

For electric power GHG emission estimates, GRIC relied on data supplied by local electric utility companies GRICUA and SRP. GRICUA’s jurisdiction is within the GRIC reservation boundaries. DEQ compared the total sales report from GRICUA provided to DEQ with the 2022 disposition/sales data for

GRICUA on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form EIA‐861 to assess the consistency of the different data streams. It is unknown if the GRICUA sale report data includes the losses; however, the total values reported appear to be within 0.1% of each other (see Table 5‐2).

Table 5‐2. Difference in Electricity Consumed between GRICUA Sales Report and EIA Form 861

Sector Electricity Sold (kWh) Percent Difference GRICUA Report Form 861

Residential 44,797,459 39,422,000 ‐12%

Commercial 212,129,667 183,540,000 ‐13%

Industrial (Pumping) 1,476,809 0 ‐100%

Energy Losses

35,206,000

Total 258,403,935 258,168,000 ‐0.1%

Form 861 only provides electric data at the utility level and not for portions of the SRP service area within the GRIC boundaries, so a comparison with the SRP meter reports could not be performed. The

SRP meter reports did not detail whether the account was residential, commercial, or industrial. Based on a review of the addresses and usage data contained in the SRP report, approximately 92% of the power consumption was estimated to be commercial and 7% was estimated to be water pumping

(agricultural/industrial). The remaining 1% was assigned to be residential.

Additionally, DEQ confirmed that Arizona Public Service (APS) serves about 10 customers in District 7 of

GRIC, but GRIC was not able to obtain the usage data from APS for this EI and the Form 861 data could not be used for reasons mentioned above.

For the electricity use quality check, DEQ attempted to compare the local energy consumption data to

Tribal‐level projections using the Department of Energy (DOE) State and Local Planning for Energy

(SLOPE) tool; however, the SLOPE tool does not provide data at the Tribal reservation level. Therefore, a deviation check could not be performed. As federal datasets, tools, and emission factors were used for electrical consumption GHG emissions estimates, no further QC procedures are required for this category.

5.5 Stationary Combustion Review

For stationary GHG emission estimates, DEQ relied upon a natural gas therm report from Southwest Gas

(SWG) for 2022. Originally, SWG provided a 2022 usage of 1,927,074 therms. Due to nature of the SWG report categories, DEQ was concerned some usage customers were not included in the 2022 usage report. DEQ provided SWG with a list of known gas usage customers, and at the request of DEQ, Southwest Gas completed a verification of the data to see if any accounts were missed or erroneously included. The results of the Southwest Gas review concluded there were some facilities not included in the original report, and the revised 2022 usage was 2,952,423 therms. Comparing the 2022 therms usage with the supporting documentation from 2007 GHG EI (2009 therm usage), it appears that there were approximately double the therms used in 2022 (2,952,423) than in 2009 (1,493,739).

The SWG usage categories did not line up directly with the GHG Tool sectors. Initially, it was assumed that “transportation” usage was pipeline gas that passed through the Community. However, in a subsequent discussion with SWG personnel, it was determined the “transportation” usage was for two industrial facilities on GRIC that purchase natural gas on the open market and transport it through the

SWG infrastructure. “Irrigation” and “transportation” usage were included in the industrial sector.

“Small Commercial” and “Large Commercial” usage were included in the Commercial sector; however, some of the commercial usage may be attributed to industrial operations. As federal datasets, tools, and emission factors were used for stationary combustion GHG emissions estimates, no further QC procedures are required for this category.

5.6 Solid Waste Review

For solid waste GHG emission estimates, DEQ relied upon waste stream weights from GRIC DPW. Waste generated within GRIC is transported to the City of Phoenix Transfer Station. The EPA WARMS calculator was used to generate GHG emission estimates. The specific landfill where the waste is ultimately disposed was not available for this preliminary EI. “National average” options were selected, except for the following assumptions:

Methane flare

Dry moisture conditions

Dry digestions

Not cured digestate

40 mile distance to the landfill

40 mile distance to the material recovery facility (MRF)

As federal datasets, tools, and emission factors were used for GHG emissions estimates, no further QC procedures are required for this category.

5.7 Agriculture and Land Management Review

For agriculture and land management GHG emission estimates, DEQ relied on data contained in the

2020 Maricopa and Pinal County GHG EI because fertilizer application rates for fields on the Community were not readily available for this preliminary EI. GRIC crop types were assumed to be similar to those planted in Maricopa County and require similar fertilizer application rates. DEQ will attempt to obtain fertilizer application rates for representative fields within the Community for the future comprehensive

GHG EI. Since local estimates rely upon a federal data source and emission factors, no further QC procedures were undertaken for this source category.

5.8 Imported Water Electricity Use Review

For imported water GHG emission estimates, DEQ relied upon water quantities provided CAP. According to a letter from Don Crandall, CAP Water Control Manager, to Elias Toon, MAG Air Quality Program

Manager, dated 2/27/14, GRIC received 115,001 acre‐feet (AF) of imported water and the cumulative energy used to pump that water was 178,075 megawatt‐hours (MWh). Therefore, the calculated energy intensity of the water was 4,752 kilowatt‐hours per mega‐gallon (kWh/Mgal). The default energy intensity of the water in the GHG Tool is 5,604 kWh/Mgal (based on Southern California data), which is approximately 18% higher than the calculated number based on the CAP data. Additionally, in the CAP letter, CAP provided an emission factor (EF) of 766.1 pounds (lbs) CO2e/MWh. The default EF in the

GHG Tool is 820 kWh/Mgal (based on AZNM eGRID), which is approximately 7% higher than the EF provided by CAP. Therefore, the GHG Tool is expected to result in GHG emissions that are approximately 27% higher than if the GHG emissions were calculated using the CAP data.

GRIC also receives reclaimed water from municipalities in the PMA. It is assumed that the reclaimed water is gravity fed from the wastewater treatment plant to the Community. Any pumping of the reclaimed water on the Community would be captured in the electricity usage for one or more of the accounts on the Community.

As federal datasets, tools, and emission factors were used for GHG emissions estimates, no further QC procedures are required for this category.

5.9 Wastewater Treatment Review

For wastewater treatment GHG emission estimates, DEQ relied on internal data for the number of septic systems and 2022 population data provided by the GRIC Census Department. As noted during the QC review, GHG emissions from wastewater treatment are based on population served. There is a significant transient population on the Community associated with hotel and casino visitors and employees from off‐community. The transient population was not estimated or used in the wastewater emission calculations for this preliminary EI, but could be as high as 10 ‐15% of the population. The wastewater generated from the transient population will be addressed in the future comprehensive

GHG EI. As federal datasets, tools, and emission factors were used for GHG emissions estimates, no further QC procedures are required for this category.

ATTACHMENT A. Example Quantified GHG Reduction Measures

The example quantified GHG reduction measures in this attachment were copied from the Maricopa‐

Pinal County Region Priority Climate Action Plan; Appendix A: Maricopa‐Pinal County Region 2020

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory; Attachment B, Table 37: GHG Emission Reduction Measure

Quantification for the Maricopa‐Pinal County Region; prepared by the Maricopa Association of

Governments, dated February 2024.

Emission Reduction Option1 Source Sector Description

GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

Weatherization Assistance Program

Buildings Annual CO2 emission reduction per weatherized home.

1.0 N/A U.S. DOE, Weatherization Assistance Program factsheet.

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/wap_factsheet.pdf

Switching incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs

Buildings Energy reductions in MTCO2e/bulb replaced.

Assume 43 watt incandescent to 9w LED, 3 hours per day use, 365 days per year. 47.1 kWh per year per incandescent, 9,9 kWh per LED per year.

2.64E‐02 N/A U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator ‐ Calculations and References. Number of incandescent bulbs switched to light‐emitting diode bulbs.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse‐gases‐ equivalencies‐ calculator‐calculations‐and‐references.

Distributed Rooftop Solar (PV) Deployment

Buildings;

Electric Power

Annual emissions change from 1 MW of distributed rooftop solar (Photovoltaic).

Arizona.

1062.5 0.72 U.S. EPA, Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) Web Edition, Accessed January 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/avert/avert‐web‐edition

Onshore Wind Deployment

Buildings;

Electric Power

Annual emissions change from 1 MW of onshore wind deployment. Arizona.

1296.4 0.81 U.S. EPA, Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) Web Edition, Accessed January 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/avert/avert‐web‐edition

Energy efficiency upgrade

Buildings;

Electric Power

Emission reduction from electricity reduction per MWh. Assumption is U.S.

National weighted CO2 marginal emission rate, 2019 data.

0.7 N/A U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator ‐ Calculations and References. Electricity reductions (kilowatt‐ hours) https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse‐gases‐ equivalencies‐ calculator‐calculations‐and‐references

Utility Solar (PV) Deployment

Electric Power Annual emissions change from 1 MW of utility solar (Photovoltaic). Arizona.

1257.4 0.85 U.S. EPA, Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) Web Edition, Accessed January 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/avert/avert‐ web‐edition

GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

Wind Turbine Electric Power Per wind turbine installed.

National averages.

MTCO2/year/wind turbine installed. 1.82 MW wind turbine size.

3596.0 N/A U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator ‐ Calculations and References. Number of wind turbines running for a year.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse‐gases‐ equivalencies‐ calculator‐calculations‐and‐references.

Industrial Energy Efficiency

Industrial;

Electric Power

Annual emissions change from 1 GWh of industrial energy efficiency (evenly spread throughout year).

Arizona.

5.2 0.00 U.S. EPA, Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) Web Edition, Accessed January 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/avert/avert‐web‐edition

Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) (Gasoline) to LDV Electric Vehicle (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

58.7 0.65 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐ Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

Light Duty Truck (LDT) (Gasoline) to

LDT (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

74.6 0.63 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐ Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

Buses (Gasoline) to Buses (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

281.1 5.06 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐ Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) (Gasoline) to HDV

(EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

179.4 1.22 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

LDV (Diesel) to

LDV (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

65.9 0.87 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐ Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

LDT (Diesel) to

LDT (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

102.0 0.57 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

Buses (Diesel) to Buses (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

260.1 1.10 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐ Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

HDV (Diesel) to

HDV (EV)

Transportation Benefits of purchasing EV versus gasoline vehicle.

Assume 2024 fuel economy, 11,500 MPY, and 15‐year usage.

243.4 0.76 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle‐ by‐Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel, Table 4‐43.

Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) (Low Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

2.5 0.01 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

DC Fast Charge (DCFC) EVSE (Low Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

10.8 0.06 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure (Low Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

118.4 1.18 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Propane Fueling Infrastructure (Low Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

‐1.3 ‐0.23 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fueling Infrastructure (Low Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

91.9 ‐10.74 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

LNG Fueling Infrastructure (Low Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

25.7 ‐4.76 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Level 2 EVSE (Moderate Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

5.0 0.03 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

DCFC EVSE

(Moderate Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

23.2 0.13 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure (Moderate Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

236.9 2.35 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

Propane Fueling Infrastructure (Moderate Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

‐2.6 ‐0.46 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

CNG Fueling Infrastructure (Moderate Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

183.8 ‐21.48 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

LNG Fueling Infrastructure (Moderate Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

51.4 ‐9.51 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Level 2 EVSE (High Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

8.3 0.05 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

DCFC EVSE (High Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

43.1 0.24 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure (High Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

473.7 4.71 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Propane Fueling Infrastructure (High Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

‐5.1 ‐0.93 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

CNG Fueling Infrastructure (High Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

367.6 ‐42.95 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

LNG Fueling Infrastructure (High Utilization)

Transportation Annual emission reductions from installation of charging and fueling infrastructure (1 unit). Arizona parameters.

102.9 ‐19.03 U.S Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, AFLEET Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Emissions Tool.

Version 1.1 released 4/3/2023.

Electric School Bus Deployment

Transportation Annual emission reductions from deployment of one EV school bus. EV year is "2023", ICE replace is "New".

Location of EV Deployment is "Arizona".

30.7 0.03 U.S. EPA, Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) Web Edition, Accessed January 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/avert/avert‐ web‐edition

Electric Transit Bus Deployment

Transportation Annual emission reductions from deployment of one EV transit bus. EV year is "2023", ICE replace is "New".

Location of EV Deployment is "Arizona".

163.7 0.20 U.S. EPA, Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) Web Edition, Accessed January 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/avert/avert‐ web‐edition

Replace Gasoline Vehicle with EV Vehicle

Transportation Annual CO2e emission difference between vehicle type. Assumptions are Arizona, 11,579 VMT, 2022 electricity fuel mix.

10445.0 N/A U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Electricity Sources and Fuel‐Cycle Emissions Tool, 2024.

Replace Gasoline Vehicle with Plug‐ in‐Hybrid Vehicle

Transportation Annual CO2e emission difference between vehicle type. Assumptions are Arizona, 11,579 VMT, 2022 electricity fuel mix.

8217.0 N/A U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Electricity Sources and Fuel‐Cycle Emissions Tool, 2024.

GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2)2

Criteria Emission Reduction

(Metric Tons) Source

Replace Gasoline Vehicle with Hybrid Vehicle

Transportation Annual CO2e emission difference between vehicle type. Assumptions are Arizona, 11,579 VMT, 2022 electricity fuel mix.

5696.0 N/A U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Electricity Sources and Fuel‐Cycle Emissions Tool, 2024.

Gasoline Use Reduction

Transportation Emission reduction from reductions in gasoline use.

Units in MTCO2/gallon.

8.89E‐03 N/A U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator ‐ Calculations and References. Gallons of gasoline consumed.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse‐gases‐ equivalencies‐ calculator‐calculations‐and‐references

Diesel Use Reduction

Transportation Emission reduction from reductions in diesel use.

Units in MTCO2/gallon.

1.02E‐02 N/A U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator ‐ Calculations and References. Gallons of diesel consumed.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse‐gase…